Mathletics: Letting Gordon Go One of Dumbest Moves

[??? ??????]

''In my mind, [letting go of Ben Gordon] is going to go down as one of the dumbest moves in sports,'' he said, ''especially to the team that's going to probably beat you out for the last playoff spot.''

Winston called the Bulls' first-round playoff series against the Celtics last season the greatest series of all time and had a theory about why the Bulls came up short.

After breaking down the minute-by-minute matchups in the series, he found the Bulls were at their worst when forwards Tyrus Thomas and Joakim Noah were on the court at the same time. In the 127 minutes the two played together, the Bulls were outscored by 71 points.

But Winston said the Bulls' lineup of Gordon, Kirk Hinrich, Derrick Rose, Brad Miller and either Thomas or Noah -- which they had on the court for 56 minutes in the series -- outscored the Celtics by 42 points.

''You can't play your best lineup all the time,'' he said. ''It just doesn't work that way. But Noah and Thomas on the court together never worked the entire season. It's just not a good lineup.''

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/1817717,CST-SPT-statman11.article

He is entirely correct, at least on the second part (and probably on the first part as well). Thomas/Noah is a disaster of a front court. Both are power forwards. Both are too weak to properly defend the center position, and Noah lacks the standing max vertical reach that is necessary to be a great defensive center.

 

[houheffna]

I am concerned about the frontcourt also. I think people still have to get over the hangover from the playoffs. Noah, held his own against Perkins but for the most part Perkins handled business. Tyrus earned benchtime because of his inconsistent play. I am anxious to see them to start the season, especially on the west coast trip.

One of the reasons I have a hard time giving the Bulls the title of "contender" if they get Bosh or even Amare was because no one has emerged as a good front court post defender. Usually, you need a good frontcourt defender/rebounder/tough guy along with your franchise post players. Maybe that thinking is outdated, but unless you got a Shaq who was all that in one, it makes it harder without that.

 

[JimmyBulls]

The Bulls would be fighting for the last one or two spots in the playoff picture with or without Gordon. So, that in itself proves the Bulls were right in letting BG7 walk. This Bulls team will not take that next step as a team unless they're able to aquire a big time frontcourt talent. If that happens, we'll see Derrick Rose's assists number take a bump, and the team will most likely be a lock for the fourth seed in the East.

Unfortunately, I don't think the Bulls will get that frontcourt star via trade, and I see them making a underwhelming signing like David Lee in the summer of 2010. Which is not nearly enough to give this team the bump from the power forward position, that will be needed to turn the Bulls into serious contenders.

 

[TheStig]

JimmyBulls wrote:

The Bulls would be fighting for the last one or two spots in the playoff picture with or without Gordon. So, that in itself proves the Bulls were right in letting BG7 walk. This Bulls team will not take that next step as a team unless they're able to aquire a big time frontcourt talent. If that happens, we'll see Derrick Rose's assists number take a bump, and the team will most likely be a lock for the fourth seed in the East.

Unfortunately, I don't think the Bulls will get that frontcourt star via trade, and I see them making a underwhelming signing like David Lee in the summer of 2010. Which is not nearly enough to give this team the bump from the power forward position, that will be needed to turn the Bulls into serious contenders.

You might think BG is overrated by some but he is a definite difference maker. To say we will have the same record with or without him is quite an understatement.

 

[JimmyBulls]

TheStig wrote:

JimmyBulls wrote:

The Bulls would be fighting for the last one or two spots in the playoff picture with or without Gordon. So, that in itself proves the Bulls were right in letting BG7 walk. This Bulls team will not take that next step as a team unless they're able to aquire a big time frontcourt talent. If that happens, we'll see Derrick Rose's assists number take a bump, and the team will most likely be a lock for the fourth seed in the East.

Unfortunately, I don't think the Bulls will get that frontcourt star via trade, and I see them making a underwhelming signing like David Lee in the summer of 2010. Which is not nearly enough to give this team the bump from the power forward position, that will be needed to turn the Bulls into serious contenders.

You might think BG is overrated by some but he is a definite difference maker. To say we will have the same record with or without him is quite an understatement.

I don't think the Bulls would have the same record, but I do believe the Bulls would be fighting for the same last few playoff slots. The Bulls might have been able to win a few games more with Ben, but it surely wouldn't have been enough to get the team to host a first round playoff series. That's not a understating BG's value, it's just the plain and simple truth.

Let's not lose the fact that with Gordon the Bulls lost to a Celtics team without KG. That's not a good sign if you're trying to sell this idea that the Bulls would've been close to the 50 win mark if Gordon was still here. I think this idea that we would've been is more of a overstatement.

 

[houheffna]

Actually there is a chance that if the stars are aligned, they could win the same amount of games this year as they did last year. I don't see why not, they didn't accomplish very much, they squeaked in the playoffs, mainly because of their acquisitions in February and the emergence of Noah among other reasons. There was no one guy that one 10 games for the Bulls last year.

 

[Rerisen]

JimmyBulls wrote:

That's not a good sign if you're trying to sell this idea that the Bulls would've been close to the 50 win mark if Gordon was still here. I think this idea that we would've been is more of a overstatement.

I don't see why we couldn't have. The Bulls were on a 50 win pace already last season after the Miller/Salmons trade was made, 18-11.

And that was without the positive factors of this season, such as improvement from Rose, a full year of healthy Deng (who didn't play at all in that stretch) and healthy Hinrich. Growth from Noah and/or Tyrus. Contributions from rookies Gibson/JJ as well as not having to play players like Hughes, Gooden, Hunter, Nocioni, all of which were mostly bad.

Now without Gordon expectations are lowered, the consensus seems to be there is to be little or no growth at all, and we have to think up several best case scenarios just to posit that the team will win around 41 like they did last year, or perhaps a couple more to end up fighting for a 7th or 8th seed.

 

[TheStig]

JimmyBulls wrote:

TheStig wrote:

JimmyBulls wrote:

The Bulls would be fighting for the last one or two spots in the playoff picture with or without Gordon. So, that in itself proves the Bulls were right in letting BG7 walk. This Bulls team will not take that next step as a team unless they're able to aquire a big time frontcourt talent. If that happens, we'll see Derrick Rose's assists number take a bump, and the team will most likely be a lock for the fourth seed in the East.

Unfortunately, I don't think the Bulls will get that frontcourt star via trade, and I see them making a underwhelming signing like David Lee in the summer of 2010. Which is not nearly enough to give this team the bump from the power forward position, that will be needed to turn the Bulls into serious contenders.

You might think BG is overrated by some but he is a definite difference maker. To say we will have the same record with or without him is quite an understatement.

I don't think the Bulls would have the same record, but I do believe the Bulls would be fighting for the same last few playoff slots. The Bulls might have been able to win a few games more with Ben, but it surely wouldn't have been enough to get the team to host a first round playoff series. That's not a understating BG's value, it's just the plain and simple truth.

Let's not lose the fact that with Gordon the Bulls lost to a Celtics team without KG. That's not a good sign if you're trying to sell this idea that the Bulls would've been close to the 50 win mark if Gordon was still here. I think this idea that we would've been is more of a overstatement.

They lost to a Celtics team without KG but we weren't exactly at full strength either. We were without Deng, had a hobbled Salmons and BG had a bad hamstring for the last three games. If one of those things changed, even just for game 5, we would have won the series.

 

[JimmyBulls]

I can't think of one 50 win team that would've lost to that KG-less Celtics team. The fact that we lost to them pretty much proves we wasn't that caliber of basketball team.

If Deng didn't get injured, I think the Bulls would've been worse from a team chemistry perspective. The guys on the perimeter would've been competing for offense like they did earlier in the season. It could be said that Deng's injury was great for team chemistry as for as last season was concerned. Having one less guy that needed to be pleased on offense turned out pretty good, but not 50 wins good of course.

 

[TheStig]

JimmyBulls wrote:

I can't think of one 50 win team that would've lost to that KG-less Celtics team. The fact that we lost to them pretty much proves we wasn't that caliber of basketball team.

If Deng didn't get injured, I think the Bulls would've been worse from a team chemistry perspective. The guys on the perimeter would've been competing for offense like they did earlier in the season. It could be said that Deng's injury was great for team chemistry as for as last season was concerned. Having one less guy that needed to be pleased on offense turn out pretty good, but not 50 win good of course.

You can have all the chemistry in the world but you still need defenders and guys who can put the ball in the hoop. Not to mention the fact that Deng has never taken away from team chemistry.

We played an 8 man rotation down the final stretch of the year. Deng would have easily taken all of Tim Thomas's 14 mpg, a few from TT at pf, a few from kirk's spot minutes at sf and a give a few minutes off to BG and Salmons. The reason both BG and Salmon's were injured at the end of the series was more likely than not having to play big minutes down the stretch of the season. Deng could have lessened that hit and made it easier.

But you are focusing on Deng alone. Had either BG or Salmons been healthy during game 5, we would have won the series.

And to your point that you don't know how a 50 win team could lose to the celtics, perhaps it would help to look at the next series they played. They took the ecf champions to 7 games and that team won 59 during the year and barely bet them. They also lasted more games against them then the cavs did against the same magic team.

 

[JimmyBulls]

Deng can't create his own offense, and that creates certain chemistry issues when he forces his offense. If you factor in Rose, Salmons, and Gordon being guys that can ALL get their own, I think it's likely Deng would've got lost in the offensive mix. Hell, there is a chance that could happen this season, but less likely because a productive Deng is needed for team success.

As far as injuries are concerned, both teams had to deal with nagging injuires. But it doesn't defeat the ultimate fact that we lost to a team without their best player.

No team that won 50 games would've lost to that Celtics team without KG. I doubt the Hawks would've lost to the Celtics without KG. The C's did take to Magic to seven, but that's about as meaningful as the Bulls taking a KG-less Celtics team to seven games.

 

[jsain360]

Lets put Ben Gordon to bed, he is gone, and the Bulls would be fighting for the 7th & 8th seed with or with out him.

 

[Rerisen]

jsain360 wrote:

Lets put Ben Gordon to bed, he is gone, and the Bulls would be fighting for the 7th & 8th seed with or with out him.

With = fighting for 4th to 6th
Without = fighting for 7th or 8th

If losing your best player doesn't subtract anything from your team, then the team must stink. Or even if one thinks Rose was tied with Gordon or even slightly better, then Rose must not be worth much either. Maybe 1 or 2 wins? Crazy talk.

 

[TheStig]

JimmyBulls wrote:

Deng can't create his own offense, and that creates certain chemistry issues when he forces his offense. If you factor in Rose, Salmons, and Gordon being guys that can ALL get their own, I think it's likely Deng would've got lost in the offensive mix. Hell, there is a chance that could happen this season, but less likely because a productive Deng is needed for team success.

As far as injuries are concerned, both teams had to deal with nagging injuires. But it doesn't defeat the ultimate fact that we lost to a team without their best player.

No team that won 50 games would've lost to that Celtics team without KG. I doubt the Hawks would've lost to the Celtics without KG. The C's did take to Magic to seven, but that's about as meaningful as the Bulls taking a KG-less Celtics team to seven games.

Deng getting lost in the mix didn't create chemistry issues before when it happened the last two season. Plus he would mainly be replacing Tim Thomas's output which he would provide a great improvement. Deng also always plays great d on paul pierce specifically.

Outside of KG, what injuries did boston have to deal with? the loss of Powe? Big deal, the bulls had injuries to three of their top 6 guys. Powe is what their 8-10 guy? They didn't even want to resign him for the lle.

That actually means a lot considering they were the 3 seed and beat the 1,2 and 6 seed. The team that gave them the most trobule was the beat up Celtics. More trouble than a full strength #1 seed 66 win team with the league mvp. The Hawks wouldn't have beat the Celtics, they barely beat a heavily flawed heat team.

 

[jsain360]

Rerisen wrote:

jsain360 wrote:

Lets put Ben Gordon to bed, he is gone, and the Bulls would be fighting for the 7th & 8th seed with or with out him.

With = fighting for 4th to 6th
Without = fighting for 7th or 8th

If losing your best player doesn't subtract anything from your team, then the team must stink. Or even if one thinks Rose was tied with Gordon or even slightly better, then Rose must not be worth much either. Maybe 1 or 2 wins? Crazy talk.

I'm also taking into account if the Wizards stay healthy they'll be a 4th or 5th seed, Toronto has added some pieces that could get them in the playoffs,

This is my Eastern Conference predictions
1.Cavs
2.Celtics
3.Magic
4.Wizards
5.Hawks
6.Heat
7.Bulls
8.Raptors
9.Pistons
10.Sixers
11.Pacers
12.Bobcats
13.Bucks
14.Knicks
15.Nets

 

[houheffna]

If the Celtics had Garnett, the Bulls would not have won 2 games...guaranteed.

Check the regular season results also. They might have squeaked one out at home. That was fool's gold for anyone who wants to believe.

So who believes that if the Bulls and Celtics are 100% that the Bulls could go 6 or 7 games?

If you believe that, you have been sucked in by the playoffs and have lost grips on basketball reality.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

If the Celtics had Garnett, the Bulls would not have won 2 games...guaranteed.

Check the regular season results also. They might have squeaked one out at home. That was fool's gold for anyone who wants to believe.

So who believes that if the Bulls and Celtics are 100% that the Bulls could go 6 or 7 games?

If you believe that, you have been sucked in by the playoffs and have lost grips on basketball reality.

I don't think anyone thought that, there is a reason they won 60+games.

 

[clonetrooper264]

houheffna wrote:

If the Celtics had Garnett, the Bulls would not have won 2 games...guaranteed.

Check the regular season results also. They might have squeaked one out at home. That was fool's gold for anyone who wants to believe.

So who believes that if the Bulls and Celtics are 100% that the Bulls could go 6 or 7 games?

If you believe that, you have been sucked in by the playoffs and have lost grips on basketball reality.

Well duh.

 

[??? ??????]

houheffna wrote:

If the Celtics had Garnett, the Bulls would not have won 2 games...guaranteed.

Check the regular season results also. They might have squeaked one out at home. That was fool's gold for anyone who wants to believe.

So who believes that if the Bulls and Celtics are 100% that the Bulls could go 6 or 7 games?

If you believe that, you have been sucked in by the playoffs and have lost grips on basketball reality.

It depends if Garnett was healthy. Healthy Garnett, and the Bulls get swept. They've gotten blown out by the Celtics everytime they've had Garnett.

 

[cool007]

houheffna wrote:

I am concerned about the frontcourt also. I think people still have to get over the hangover from the playoffs. Noah, held his own against Perkins but for the most part Perkins handled business. Tyrus earned benchtime because of his inconsistent play. I am anxious to see them to start the season, especially on the west coast trip.

One of the reasons I have a hard time giving the Bulls the title of "contender" if they get Bosh or even Amare was because no one has emerged as a good front court post defender. Usually, you need a good frontcourt defender/rebounder/tough guy along with your franchise post players. Maybe that thinking is outdated, but unless you got a Shaq who was all that in one, it makes it harder without that.

I am totally with you on that one.

How can we forget that ton of scrub frontcourt players (or okay frontcourt players) had career games against us. Although early on we had out of shape Noah and Gooden who doesn't know 1 letter of defense.

Later, after the all-star weekend, we got better but it was more because of our offense than anything else. Tyrus and Noah weren't terrible and weren't great either but atleast somewhat solid which kind of neutralized everything - mainly coz of our offense.

This year, I already see us as a better defensive team but still a lot of work to do. Noah was just man handled by Bogut the other day and probably still will happen with many good inside players but this time, our offense doesn't look as good as it was last year (2nd half). Hopefully Salmons and Deng pick it up or it won't be pretty.

For some reason, I really like Gibson and Noah combo better than Tyrus/Noah combo.

Gibson exactly knows his limitations and stays within the flow of the game, has good understanding of help defense and knows how to be in good place at the right time. He also seems to have a descent jumper and can finish inside as well as rebound and block shots.

Once Gibson learns to stay out of foul trouble by learning more NBA game, he will be a better starter than Tyrus (yeah I said it).