Kirk Hinrich or Ben Gordon

[Glide2keva]

I thought about that when making the comparison between the two players. I value Gordon more now than I ever have, though I still think his self value mixed in with the mandatory spare parts you would need for a complete back court...makes him undesirable.

I always wanted a Brandon Roy type shooting guard...but then, Roy WAS Hinrich and Gordon combined...but 3 inches taller than either of them.

My problem with Gordon fans was that when I would say Joe Johnson is a better player than Gordon...I caught flack for it. Joe on this team??? My goodness...you are talking dynasty...

:clap:

 

[Glide2keva]

The comparison of Amare to Odom is not relevant to that of Hinrich and Gordon. Stoudemire garners complaints because he is not a great rebounder and not a good defender when he has physical tools that give him the capability of being that. While it's true that Gordon's greatest strength (scoring) could indeed change a basketball game, it is also true that Gordon had liabilities (defense/ball-handling) that could also change a basketball game that took away from his overall game. Hinrich did not have great strengths but he did have some strengths and no real liability to speak of. And if Gordon is "cllutch" than Hinrich can't be far away from that label.

Spot on.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

What??? You said the analogy wasn't relevant, and just showed its relevancy...totally confusing...

And no, Hinrich was not clutch at all....especially when compared to Gordon.

Being more clutch than Hinrich is not an accomplishment. That's first of all.

Second of all, all 4 of those players are VERY different.

Odom: no liabilities but above average in basically every category.

Stoudemire: does nothing especially good besides scoring. Is a pretty bad defender at times but isn't a complete liability on that end.

Hinrich: no liabilities and did one thing exceptionally (defense) and had all of the tools you'd like out of an NBA point guard.

Gordon: one strength (shooting). He had a nice little floater too but, besides that, he was basically a pure shooter and a VERY streaky one at that. Most of the time, he was pretty cold. Some games he would go ape-shit and go 6-for-8 for three (mostly, it was more like 4-for-13).

And he had a terrible liability. If you think Amare was a bad defender, re-watch Ben Gordon. He was not only undersized but he wasn't a very good athlete. He was also SLOW. He had horrible ball-handling skills.

Odom vs. Stoudemire = two players with no true liabilities (things that can impact a game in an extremely negative way that takes away from their team possession-by-possession at times).

Hinrich vs. Gordon = one player with no liabilities and another player with one great one and arguably another.

 

[Crystallas]

The better comparison would be Odom and Humphries. They both nabbed a Kardashian. One has two rings, the other is Kris Humphries.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Being more clutch than Hinrich is not an accomplishment. That's first of all.

Second of all, all 4 of those players are VERY different.

Odom: no liabilities but above average in basically every category.

Stoudemire: does nothing especially good besides scoring. Is a pretty bad defender at times but isn't a complete liability on that end.

Hinrich: no liabilities and did one thing exceptionally (defense) and had all of the tools you'd like out of an NBA point guard.

Gordon: one strength (shooting). He had a nice little floater too but, besides that, he was basically a pure shooter and a VERY streaky one at that. Most of the time, he was pretty cold. Some games he would go ape-shit and go 6-for-8 for three (mostly, it was more like 4-for-13).

And he had a terrible liability. If you think Amare was a bad defender, re-watch Ben Gordon. He was not only undersized but he wasn't a very good athlete. He was also SLOW. He had horrible ball-handling skills.

Odom vs. Stoudemire = two players with no true liabilities (things that can impact a game in an extremely negative way that takes away from their team possession-by-possession at times).

Hinrich vs. Gordon = one player with no liabilities and another player with one great one and arguably another.

You have to be effing kidding me. Ben Gordon was cold most of the time? Then please explain how he had a better FG% than Hinrich? Please explain how he shot over 40% from 3 year after year after year. Never in his tenure in Chicago did he shoot under 40% from 3. Look it up. You don't do that shooting 4-13 every night. Get real.

Hinrich on the other hand was the one who would routinely shoot 3-11, 2-10, 4-14, whatever. His FG% in Chicago is probably around 41 or 42%. Ben Gordon's is like 44%. Hinrich had no liabilities? No, his liability was that he was NOT a consistent shooter. He's not terrible, but he's far from good. Was he a better defender than Gordon? Yes, by a mile and then some, but does that make him better than Gordon? No. That is like saying Andrei Kirilenko is better than Lebron because he plays better defense. It's absurd. Hinrich's a solid PG and a good player, but Gordon was flat out better.

Being more clutch than Hinrich is not an accomplishment...sure it isn't because Hinrich wasn't clutch at all. Let's flash back to the epic Boston series. Game 6...triple OT. The second to last Bulls possession...Hinrich gets a wide open layup...and misses. Now Rose saved his butt by blocking Rondo on the play after that, but seriously...a layup. How many games has Kirk Hinrich won for us? Maybe a handful. How many did Ben Gordon win for us?

And don't tell me Hinrich was the white Bruce Bowen or something like that, he was a good defender, but he got lit up more often than people want to admit, including myself. He could shut someone down every now and then, but he was far from someone who could force players even players like Joe Johnson into horrible shooting nights.

Ben Gordon not athletic?

 

[houheffna]

Being more clutch than Hinrich is not an accomplishment. That's first of all.

Second of all, all 4 of those players are VERY different.

Odom: no liabilities but above average in basically every category.

Stoudemire: does nothing especially good besides scoring. Is a pretty bad defender at times but isn't a complete liability on that end.

Hinrich: no liabilities and did one thing exceptionally (defense) and had all of the tools you'd like out of an NBA point guard.

Gordon: one strength (shooting). He had a nice little floater too but, besides that, he was basically a pure shooter and a VERY streaky one at that. Most of the time, he was pretty cold. Some games he would go ape-shit and go 6-for-8 for three (mostly, it was more like 4-for-13).

And he had a terrible liability. If you think Amare was a bad defender, re-watch Ben Gordon. He was not only undersized but he wasn't a very good athlete. He was also SLOW. He had horrible ball-handling skills.

Odom vs. Stoudemire = two players with no true liabilities (things that can impact a game in an extremely negative way that takes away from their team possession-by-possession at times).

Hinrich vs. Gordon = one player with no liabilities and another player with one great one and arguably another.

Hinrich is no more an athlete than Gordon...lets get that straight now.

Its kind of sad that you didn't get the analogy...when you already stated what the analogy was in your previous post...I refuse to run around in circles. I never said the 4 players were similar...the difference in talent and ability between Gordon/Hinrich is similar to Amare/Odom or I would even say Melo/Pippen. You make it more complicated than it is

Gordon wasn't just a good shooter...that's Paxson, Kerr, Korver...Gordon was a good scorer...the best on the team at scoring. Something you absolutely have to have on a functional team. As far as streakiness goes, check his efficiency rate compared to Hinrich. Gordon is on another level. And Gordon can create his own shot....something Hinrich wasn't very good at also.

And its hilarious how people knock Lucas' dribbling....Hinrich didn't? To say Hinrich had no weaknesses that could be considered a liability is false. John Stockton offered little in that area...I can't at all say that about Hinrich...that is a bit too much. Same with Odom.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Hou, what do you think good ol Fred Pfeiffer would have to say on this subject?

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

Hinrich is no more an athlete than Gordon...lets get that straight now.

I never said that. Gordon was somewhat more athletic than Hinrich- sure. But Hinrich was the point guard on offense and didn't need to be as athletic as a scoring guard like BG. And neither of them could finish very well near the basket. You didn't see many dunks out of the Bulls' backcourt between 2004-2007.

Its kind of sad that you didn't get the analogy...when you already stated what the analogy was in your previous post...I refuse to run around in circles. I never said the 4 players were similar...the difference in talent and ability between Gordon/Hinrich is similar to Amare/Odom or I would even say Melo/Pippen. You make it more complicated than it is

I got your analogy but I didn't think it was fair at all. Just because Amare (dominant scorer) > Odom (better in multiple areas) doesn't automatically mean BG (dominant [primary shooting] scorer) > Hinrich (better in multiple areas).

That was my point and you were the one who missed it.

Gordon wasn't just a good shooter...that's Paxson, Kerr, Korver...Gordon was a good scorer...

Ben Gordon is a good scorer. A better "scorer" than those guys (you forgot B.J. Armstrong and Craig Hodges) but he wasn't a great scorer. He was a streaky shooter with a nice little floater in the lane but that was pretty much as far as it went.

The best on the team at scoring.

Being a somewhat better scorer than Hinrich and (maybe) Deng is not an accomplishment at all.

Something you absolutely have to have on a functional team.

The Bulls honestly weren't a well-run team back then. Your point is moot.

As far as streakiness goes, check his efficiency rate compared to Hinrich. Gordon is on another level.

Gordon and Hinrich were both streaky shooters. The difference is that Hinrich had a larger role on the team than Gordon. Hinrich started more games. Hinrich played more minutes. Hinrich ran the offense. Gordon hijacked the offense. Both of these guys were the types of scorers to have a lot of cold nights followed by a good night. The main difference was that Gordon put up a lot more shots per-minute (because he played less due to being a blackhole with the basketball/rarely passing) and chucked it up a lot.

And Gordon can create his own shot....something Hinrich wasn't very good at also.

Oh, please. They both could barely do any of that. When it came to dribble penetration and finishing at the rim- they both sucked. BG was somewhat better but nothing to brag about.

And its hilarious how people knock Lucas' dribbling....Hinrich didn't? To say Hinrich had no weaknesses that could be considered a liability is false. John Stockton offered little in that area...I can't at all say that about Hinrich...that is a bit too much. Same with Odom.

Between those players, who has the most glaring liability of all of them- Ben Gordon's defense and by far. Gordon also had a lot of other things that can be considered greater liabilities than anything in any of those players' games: ball-handling and chucking for instance.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

You have to be effing kidding me. Ben Gordon was cold most of the time?

Yes.

Then please explain how he had a better FG% than Hinrich?

Because Hinrich was cold most of the time, too. The nights Gordon was hot- he was REALLY hot. The nights he was cold, he was very cold.

Please explain how he shot over 40% from 3 year after year after year.

By shooting well over 50% in a lot of those games despite shooting much less than sufficiently in many more of those games.

Never in his tenure in Chicago did he shoot under 40% from 3. Look it up. You don't do that shooting 4-13 every night. Get real.

Not every night. Just most nights.

[/QUOTE]Hinrich on the other hand was the one who would routinely shoot 3-11, 2-10, 4-14, whatever. [/QUOTE]

And so did Gordon. Neither one of them were consistent scorers.

His FG% in Chicago is probably around 41 or 42%. Ben Gordon's is like 44%. Hinrich had no liabilities? No, his liability was that he was NOT a consistent shooter. He's not terrible, but he's far from good.

That's laughable.

Hinrich shot between 35-42% from three-point range at all times with the Bulls. The league average is about 36%. And shooting 33% from three is the same as shooting 50% from two range.

Half-to-2/3rds of Hinrich's FG attempts were also two point attempts in which he averaged roughly 45% which is sufficient for an NBA point guard.

Was he a better defender than Gordon? Yes, by a mile and then some, but does that make him better than Gordon? No.

That, and the fact that he was a much better passer and play-maker does make him better. Hinrich wasn't a terrible scorer but Gordon was easily better. Gordon wins in the category that is most important but Hinrich wins by just as much of a margin and then some in all of the others.

That is like saying Andrei Kirilenko is better than Lebron because he plays better defense. It's absurd. Hinrich's a solid PG and a good player, but Gordon was flat out better.

LBJ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AK47 at scoring and passing. And LBJ >> AK47 on defense, too. Terrible analogy.

Hinrich > BG because (a) better passer and ball-handler, (b) much better defender, and (c) not as good of a scorer as BG but close/efficient enough that the other categories push him in front of BG.

Being more clutch than Hinrich is not an accomplishment...sure it isn't because Hinrich wasn't clutch at all.

See Game 3 of the 2010 First round series. Hinrich had a clutch game.

Let's flash back to the epic Boston series. Game 6...triple OT. The second to last Bulls possession...Hinrich gets a wide open layup...and misses. Now Rose saved his butt by blocking Rondo on the play after that, but seriously...a layup. How many games has Kirk Hinrich won for us? Maybe a handful. How many did Ben Gordon win for us?

How many did Gordon lose for the Bulls? Go back and look at Game 3 of that same series you just brought up. And especially Game 7. BG took some horrible shots. BG was clutch for sure but he took some HORRIBLE shots at times- especially when given a larger role (which is why he normally came off of the bench). BG was used more as a wild card to throw at defenses when all else failed and Deng disappeared after the 1st quarter. Hinrich had more PT in general and had a large role every single game.

And don't tell me Hinrich was the white Bruce Bowen or something like that, he was a good defender, but he got lit up more often than people want to admit, including myself. He could shut someone down every now and then, but he was far from someone who could force players even players like Joe Johnson into horrible shooting nights.

Hinrich was made to guard PG's and could guard most SG's well. He even guarded the opposing SF at rare times. BG was too slow to guard 1's and too small to guard 2's.

Ben Gordon not athletic?

Dunks by BG did not happen much at all.

 

[houheffna]

I never said that. Gordon was somewhat more athletic than Hinrich- sure. But Hinrich was the point guard on offense and didn't need to be as athletic as a scoring guard like BG. And neither of them could finish very well near the basket. You didn't see many dunks out of the Bulls' backcourt between 2004-2007.

Lol at dunking being the only way to finish...ever heard of Derrick Rose? There is no "somewhat" more athletic...Gordon is a more athletic player than Hinrich. I don't remember Gordon missing many layups so I don't quite understand where you are coming from with that.

I got your analogy but I didn't think it was fair at all. Just because Amare (dominant scorer) > Odom (better in multiple areas) doesn't automatically mean BG (dominant [primary shooting] scorer) > Hinrich (better in multiple areas).

That was my point and you were the one who missed it.




Ben Gordon is a good scorer. A better "scorer" than those guys (you forgot B.J. Armstrong and Craig Hodges) but he wasn't a great scorer. He was a streaky shooter with a nice little floater in the lane but that was pretty much as far as it went.

If you call Gordon "streaky"...what would you call Hinrich?



Being a somewhat better scorer than Hinrich and (maybe) Deng is not an accomplishment at all.

Again, you make no sense.we are talking about two players skilled relative to each other. If you think Gordon was a somewhat better scorer than Hinrich...you need to buy a new television


The Bulls honestly weren't a well-run team back then. Your point is moot.

Why were they not a well run team? What the hell does that mean? What does that have to do with the value of scoring to a basketball team? Try to make a point before rendering an opposing point moot.


Gordon and Hinrich were both streaky shooters. The difference is that Hinrich had a larger role on the team than Gordon. Hinrich started more games. Hinrich played more minutes. Hinrich ran the offense. Gordon hijacked the offense. Both of these guys were the types of scorers to have a lot of cold nights followed by a good night. The main difference was that Gordon put up a lot more shots per-minute (because he played less due to being a blackhole with the basketball/rarely passing) and chucked it up a lot.

Total basketball retardation...and totally irrelevant to the conversation...stick to the subject.

Oh, please. They both could barely do any of that. When it came to dribble penetration and finishing at the rim- they both sucked. BG was somewhat better but nothing to brag about.

Your "somewhat" comparisons are somewhat annoying.

Between those players, who has the most glaring liability of all of them- Ben Gordon's defense and by far. Gordon also had a lot of other things that can be considered greater liabilities than anything in any of those players' games: ball-handling and chucking for instance.

I think you should find out what Gordon's role was on the team. From what you are writing, I don't think you have a clue.

And its hypocritical for you to talk about Hinrich's clutch game....which didn't exist...but point to one game as evidence that he was clutch...but you denounce Lebron (and Rose I believe) as not being clutch when they have had better clutch performances than Hinrich ever had.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

I think you should find out what Gordon's role was on the team. From what you are writing, I don't think you have a clue.

And its hypocritical for you to talk about Hinrich's clutch game....which didn't exist...but point to one game as evidence that he was clutch...but you denounce Lebron (and Rose I believe) as not being clutch when they have had better clutch performances than Hinrich ever had.

Typical Houf with the black-and-white "you're wrong, I'm right" approach.

You are a stubborn fool and very wrong.

All I said was relevant to the argument and very true.

Gordon > Hinrich at any kind of scoring you can think of.

Both were terribly inconsistent scorers.

Hinrich > Gordon on defense.

Hinrich > Gordon at passing/ball-handling/play-making/not being a blackhole with the basketball.

Neither are great NBA players.

Both were fairly decent NBA players.

But Hinrich was better for all which I and Crys described.

 

[houheffna]

Typical Houf with the black-and-white "you're wrong, I'm right" approach.

You are a stubborn fool and very wrong.

All I said was relevant to the argument and very true.

Gordon > Hinrich at any kind of scoring you can think of.

Both were terribly inconsistent scorers.

Hinrich > Gordon on defense.

Hinrich > Gordon at passing/ball-handling/play-making/not being a blackhole with the basketball.

Neither are great NBA players.

Both were fairly decent NBA players.

But Hinrich was better for all which I and Crys described.

Hinrich was better at the skill of "not being a blackhole with the basketball"....yep...that is a fantastic skill, never heard of it before, but yeah. whatever...

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

Hinrich was better at the skill of "not being a blackhole with the basketball"....yep...that is a fantastic skill, never heard of it before, but yeah. whatever...

All matter that goes into a black hole never comes back out. Give Gordon a ball and you are probably not going to ever see it again. He will either make a low-percentage shot (the bulk of his shot-selection), dribble the ball off of his foot and turn it over, or miss. And most of his games there were a lot of those.

 

[Axl Rose]

this is ridiculous....like i said ppl love too suck off hinrich and throw dirt on ben

ppl are even puttin jalen rose over ben....that is sad

 

[clonetrooper264]

I don't understand the logic of how a 40% 3pt shooter and 20 ppg scorer could be considered inconsistent. You have to be consistent to score 20 ppg over the course of 82 games. You say both Hinrich and Gordon were cold most of the time. Funny how Hinrich's cold got him around 11-12 points a game whereas Gordon's cold got him 20 a game. That's pretty good cold if you ask me. He was a top 20 scorer in the league at one point while he was here. And that's coming off the bench half the time. The man scores points, that's what he does. Everyone knows that. He's not coming in the game to be a facilitator, he's in the game to score. Hinrich's role was to facilitate and defend. I think they both did their jobs well in that aspect, but when it comes down to it I think Gordon's scoring ability was better than Hinrich's passing and defense.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Funny stat I found, Hinrich actually has a higher turnover percentage than Gordon. Who would've thought?

 

[Axl Rose]

f hinrich

i wish rondo woulda knocked his ass into next week

 

[clonetrooper264]

f hinrich

i wish rondo woulda knocked his ass into next week

:gtfo:

 

[houheffna]

I personally like Hinrich more than Gordon...but again, in hindsight, Gordon was as good if not better because of how well he did his job.

I thought Hinrich's finest hour was in the playoffs in 2009. I thought he did an excellent job on both sides and really hurt the Celtics. The Bulls just didn't have enough to get over the hump though.

And I notice dude didn't respond to his clutch hypocrisy.

As far as Jalen Rose goes...I don't think anyone seriously puts him above Ben Gordon when it comes to a career in Chicago. At their best, Jalen was the better of the 3 though.

 

[Axl Rose]

but just keep hatin keep pickin him apart keep sayin he turned on us....i cant be mad at ben for wanting to get payed they basically told him **** you so he left and got the money he wanted

sucks hes rotting away in Detroit...hes lost all motivation

and lets be honest rose and ben would be shittin on the league right now

​

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyQyjgGPOfA[/ame]

(need to make a gif of this and add it to my sig)

imma leave this here also​

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXlWA3lPt5Y[/ame]