Steve T. Gorches, Gary Post Tribune, is a Drone

[dougthonus]

as journalists are supposed to shed as much light on who their sources are as possible when asked...well good ones anyways.

What? I think most journalists protect their sources and don't reveal them. That's why they always say " a source " etc..

 

[Fred]

Great Stuff Andrew.

Latisha Ballantine, a girl in my office, said "You're way better looking than that guy." She exists. Mark can confirm it.

Now this needs to stop before I get some sexual harrasment lawsuit thrown at me. All because of Thonus.

 

[??? ??????]

dougthonus wrote:

as journalists are supposed to shed as much light on who their sources are as possible when asked...well good ones anyways.

What? I think most journalists protect their sources and don't reveal them. That's why they always say " a source " etc..

They teach us to do differently at University of Missouri.

 

[Fred]

You go to Mizzou? I love it when we beat you in basketball every year.

Does anyone know Gordon's +_ in the 51 games Hinrich played? I'm going to assume that it was pretty good, since every one of those games was with the Salmons Miller combo. Ben had played a ton with that Luol Deng impersonator before the trade.

 

[dougthonus]

They teach us to do differently at University of Missouri.

If someone tells you something on the condition of anonymity and you reveal it you won't have sources very long.

 

[dougthonus]

Denise says you look like you could be a younger version of that guy, though she didn't know who the people were in the photo, so there was no personal connection there. Like he's in his 40s, and that's his college photo.

 

[??? ??????]

dougthonus wrote:

They teach us to do differently at University of Missouri.

If someone tells you something on the condition of anonymity and you reveal it you won't have sources very long.

Obviously, but you have to shed as much light as possible, which saying an "NBA source" isn't really shedding any light on.

And in this situation, I don't really see how you lose a source, even if you identify their name, or their job, as there is no inside information here. If there is inside information, you're supposed to shed as much light on the source as possible, without putting their job in jeopardy.

And before you even start asking questions, or gathering information, we're told to come to an agreement with the person on stuff like, "Can we record audio of this", "Can we use your name", etc. You're supposed to be very upfront about your intentions before interviewing the person.

And you're generally supposed to have multiple sources.

Right now, the Globe writer has given me no reason to believe that this actually occurred.

 

[Kush77]

HOLY GOOD LORD!!!!!!!

I thought what I read yesterday was stupid. This tops it. I don't know where to start.

Why is Michael Jordan mentioned so much in this article? Who exactly are these people that are comparing Gordon to MJ? He says that "most likely" people were saying that. So he bases his Gordon-bashing article on what some mystery fan was "most likely" saying.
No Bulls fan who "knows basketball" wouldn't ever seriously compare Gordon to Jordan. So he keeps mentioning MJ's name because maybe it makes it seems like he's some diehard Bulls fan who actually knows what he's talking about. When in fact he clearly doesn't know much, and just mentions his name because that's when he (and a lot of other bandwagoners) paid attention to the team. Now they have to act as if they know something about this current squad, when it's painfully obvious that they don't.

+/- in basketball is a joke, bottom line. So of course this guy uses it in his article, worthless. +/- is a way for people who don't watch basketball to act as if they know something. Too bad the stat is severly flawed and it makes people that cite it at face value look foolish. Some guys (2ndcity and DT) combine it with other factors. But the drones that just blurt out +/- from the yahoo boxscore sound like fools.

And we get to possible the real reason he doesn't like Ben Gordon. Oh, he grabbed his nuts. OMG it's the end of the world.

Did MJ ever do that, no. Did Kirk Hinrich, no. But someone should mention to Stevie T. Gorches that while Kirk never grabbed his balls, he did throw his mouthpiece into the stands, which resulted in a fine. So that would mean his precious Kirk Hinrich could of actually injured a fan, while all Ben did was offend an overly sensitive sports writer.

But Stevie Gorches probably doesn't remember Kirk doing that, because it would require him to pay close attention to the Chicago Bulls, which he clearly doesn't.

All the drones come out of the woodwork because the Bulls are in the national spotlight now. And unfortunately drones like this have a forum to express their highly uniformed opinions.

 

[dougthonus]

Obviously, but you have to shed as much light as possible, which saying an "NBA source" isn't really shedding any light on.

And in this situation, I don't really see how you lose a source, even if you identify their name, or their job, as there is no inside information here. If there is inside information, you're supposed to shed as much light on the source as possible, without putting their job in jeopardy.

And before you even start asking questions, or gathering information, we're told to come to an agreement with the person on stuff like, "Can we record audio of this", "Can we use your name", etc. You're supposed to be very upfront about your intentions before interviewing the person.

And you're generally supposed to have multiple sources.

Right now, the Globe writer has given me no reason to believe that this actually occurred.

While it's always idea to have multiple sources, I don't think it's out of line to post something with one source, nor do I see anything about the article that violates the rules you stated.

The person who told him could very clearly have said "do not reveal my job or identity in any way". Most guys who have sources talk to regular people, and they know better than to identify them anymore specifically than that.

 

[Fred]

Kush77 wrote:

HOLY GOOD LORD!!!!!!!

I thought what I read yesterday was stupid. This tops it. I don't know where to start.

Why is Michael Jordan mentioned so much in this article? Who exactly are these people that are comparing Gordon to MJ? He says that "most likely" people were saying that. So he bases his Gordon-bashing article on what some mystery fan was "most likely" saying.
No Bulls fan who "knows basketball" wouldn't ever seriously compare Gordon to Jordan. So he keeps mentioning MJ's name because maybe it makes it seems like he's some diehard Bulls fan who actually knows what he's talking about. When in fact he clearly doesn't know much, and just mentions his name because that's when he (and a lot of other bandwagoners) paid attention to the team. Now they have to act as if they know something about this current squad, when it's painfully obvious that they don't.

+/- in basketball is a joke, bottom line. So of course this guy uses it in his article, worthless. +/- is a way for people who don't watch basketball to act as if they know something. Too bad the stat is severly flawed and it makes people that cite it at face value look foolish. Some guys (2ndcity and DT) combine it with other factors. But the drones that just blurt out +/- from the yahoo boxscore sound like fools.

And we get to possible the real reason he doesn't like Ben Gordon. Oh, he grabbed his nuts. OMG it's the end of the world.

Did MJ ever do that, no. Did Kirk Hinrich, no. But someone should mention to Stevie T. Gorches that while Kirk never grabbed his balls, he did throw his mouthpiece into the stands, which resulted in a fine. So that would mean his precious Kirk Hinrich could of actually injured a fan, while all Ben did was offend an overly sensitive sports writer.

But Stevie Gorches probably doesn't remember Kirk doing that, because it would require him to pay close attention to the Chicago Bulls, which he clearly doesn't.

All the drones come out of the woodwork because the Bulls are in the national spotlight now. And unfortunately drones like this have a forum to express their highly uniformed opinions.

Absolutely magical.

I now have this vision of Stevie T Gorches, knocking over 2 teenage girls, in an effort to catch Hinrich's mouthpiece.

 

[mlewinth]

Odds of him responding are slim. I just e-mailed him the following:


Steve,

I apologize, but your article in the Tribune yesterday on Ben Gordon was one of the dumbest pieces of horse trash I have ever read. Have you ever watched a Bulls game in your life, or are you like most sports writers, the type who watch one game and write a whole column. Kirk Hinrichs CAREER FG% is like 41%. Now that’s not exact. The reason its not, is because I rattled that off the top of my head CAUSE I WATCH THE GAMES! Kirks FG% may have been better then Ben’s in Game 5, but lets look at Ben having seasons where he shot 45% and 43% from three. Kirk never has and never will come close to that! Bens career three point percentage is close to Hinrichs career FG%! That tells you all you need to know!

I am sick and tired of idiots like you trying to rip apart the Bulls best player and put one of its most overrated and worst on a pedestal because you don’t have a clue what your talking about. Enjoy next season when Gordon is gone and we win 35 games, again. You can then pick on someone else, as to the reason the Bulls aren’t doing well. It sickens me that people's opinions are influenced by ridiculous articles like that piece of garbage you wrote today.

I hope your pen gets stuck in your nose,

Mark A Lewinthal

 

[clonetrooper264]

mlewinth wrote:

Odds of him responding are slim. I just e-mailed him the following:


Steve,

I apologize, but your article in the Tribune yesterday on Ben Gordon was one of the dumbest pieces of horse trash I have ever read. Have you ever watched a Bulls game in your life, or are you like most sports writers, the type who watch one game and write a whole column. Kirk Hinrichs CAREER FG% is like 41%. Now that’s not exact. The reason its not, is because I rattled that off the top of my head CAUSE I WATCH THE GAMES! Kirks FG% may have been better then Ben’s in Game 5, but lets look at Ben having seasons where he shot 45% and 43% from three. Kirk never has and never will come close to that! Bens career three point percentage is close to Hinrichs career FG%! That tells you all you need to know!

I am sick and tired of idiots like you trying to rip apart the Bulls best player and put one of its most overrated and worst on a pedestal because you don’t have a clue what your talking about. Enjoy next season when Gordon is gone and we win 35 games, again. You can then pick on someone else, as to the reason the Bulls aren’t doing well. It sickens me that people's opinions are influenced by ridiculous articles like that piece of garbage you wrote today.

I hope your pen gets stuck in your nose,

Mark A Lewinthal

The only issue I have about this is that you called Kirk Hinrich one of the worst players on the Bulls. This quite simply is not true. I firmly believe that Kirk is about our 3rd-5th best player depending on how you rank Salmons and Miller. He is a starter in this league and it's a luxury that we can have that coming off the bench. Ben is our best player, I am not denying that (except to maybe Derrick Rose, but then that would be Derrick Rose of the future not right now). This whole Kirk-Ben who is better thing is stupid. Ben is better, but Kirk can do things he can't. They both have flaws. It is possible to defend Ben without calling Kirk one of the worst players on the team. HE IS NOT THAT BAD.

 

[dougthonus]

Kirk is definitely not one of the worst players on the team:

Ben Gordon
Derrick Rose
John Salmons
Kirk Hinrich
Joakim Noah
Brad Miller
Tyrus Thomas
Tim Thomas
(some huge gap to where these guys don't belong in the league)
Roberson, Johnson, James

I can understand if you were to make the case that he's the worst guard in the rotation, but he's still better than any of our big men if you compare Hinrich to other starting PGs and compare our big men to other starting big men. I wouldn't argue too much if you wanted to start talking Noah/Miller vs Hinrich relative to their peers I guess though.

 

[mlewinth]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

mlewinth wrote:

Odds of him responding are slim. I just e-mailed him the following:


Steve,

I apologize, but your article in the Tribune yesterday on Ben Gordon was one of the dumbest pieces of horse trash I have ever read. Have you ever watched a Bulls game in your life, or are you like most sports writers, the type who watch one game and write a whole column. Kirk Hinrichs CAREER FG% is like 41%. Now that’s not exact. The reason its not, is because I rattled that off the top of my head CAUSE I WATCH THE GAMES! Kirks FG% may have been better then Ben’s in Game 5, but lets look at Ben having seasons where he shot 45% and 43% from three. Kirk never has and never will come close to that! Bens career three point percentage is close to Hinrichs career FG%! That tells you all you need to know!

I am sick and tired of idiots like you trying to rip apart the Bulls best player and put one of its most overrated and worst on a pedestal because you don’t have a clue what your talking about. Enjoy next season when Gordon is gone and we win 35 games, again. You can then pick on someone else, as to the reason the Bulls aren’t doing well. It sickens me that people's opinions are influenced by ridiculous articles like that piece of garbage you wrote today.

I hope your pen gets stuck in your nose,

Mark A Lewinthal

The only issue I have about this is that you called Kirk Hinrich one of the worst players on the Bulls. This quite simply is not true. I firmly believe that Kirk is about our 3rd-5th best player depending on how you rank Salmons and Miller. He is a starter in this league and it's a luxury that we can have that coming off the bench. Ben is our best player, I am not denying that (except to maybe Derrick Rose, but then that would be Derrick Rose of the future not right now). This whole Kirk-Ben who is better thing is stupid. Ben is better, but Kirk can do things he can't. They both have flaws. It is possible to defend Ben without calling Kirk one of the worst players on the team. HE IS NOT THAT BAD.

You know what, your absolutly right. I am sorry though, the article just threw me off, I was angry. You are right though, Kirk is one of our better players, top 4.

 

[??? ??????]

Here's what I wrote to him.

I am appalled by your article on Ben Gordon. Opinion journalism is fine, but you have to back it up with legitimate facts.

You say, "In the NBA, great players hit big shots because they're great. Bad players aren't clutch because they're bad. Are Lebron James or Kobe Bryant clutch? Yes, but they hit so-called clutch shots because they're great players."

Using that logic, Ben Gordon would be a great player, as he is able to hit the clutch shots. As players who are bad don't hit them, and players who do hit them are good. So Gordon must be good if he hits them, right? But you seem to think that Gordon isn't a great player, which makes your logic faulty.

And you also fell for the +/- trap. Kirk Hinrich's +/- is so high, because 1. He came off the bench against the other team's bench players for large portions, and Bulls have one of the best benches in the league. and 2. He was out for a lot of the year with an injury. And shortly after coming back, the Bulls made the Salmons/Miller trade, and the Bulls started playing a lot better basketball after that, so he wasn't part of that tough November-December-January, where Derrick Rose and Ben Gordon were carrying the team by themselves, as the Bulls ranked last in the league in net production at both big positions.

"Not that I'm saying Hinrich is better than Gordon, but he is more efficient (Gordon scored 26 on Tuesday, but shot a paltry 6-for-21 from the field; Hinrich scored 19 on 6-of-12)"

Kirk Hinrich is not more efficient than Ben Gordon. He was on Tuesday night, but not overall. There is a basketball stat called TS%, which measures the player's efficiency scoring the ball. Ben Gordon for the season, 57.3 TS%. Compare that to Kirk Hinrich, who is 55.1 TS% (which is good in it's own right, but Gordon has quite a bit better efficiency, with over double the volume), or Derrick Rose at 51.6 TS%, which is quite bad.

 

[mlewinth]

??? ?????? wrote:

Here's what I wrote to him.

I am appalled by your article on Ben Gordon. Opinion journalism is fine, but you have to back it up with legitimate facts.

You say, "In the NBA, great players hit big shots because they're great. Bad players aren't clutch because they're bad. Are Lebron James or Kobe Bryant clutch? Yes, but they hit so-called clutch shots because they're great players."

Using that logic, Ben Gordon would be a great player, as he is able to hit the clutch shots. As players who are bad don't hit them, and players who do hit them are good. So Gordon must be good if he hits them, right? But you seem to think that Gordon isn't a great player, which makes your logic faulty.

And you also fell for the +/- trap. Kirk Hinrich's +/- is so high, because 1. He came off the bench against the other team's bench players for large portions, and Bulls have one of the best benches in the league. and 2. He was out for a lot of the year with an injury. And shortly after coming back, the Bulls made the Salmons/Miller trade, and the Bulls started playing a lot better basketball after that, so he wasn't part of that tough November-December-January, where Derrick Rose and Ben Gordon were carrying the team by themselves, as the Bulls ranked last in the league in net production at both big positions.

"Not that I'm saying Hinrich is better than Gordon, but he is more efficient (Gordon scored 26 on Tuesday, but shot a paltry 6-for-21 from the field; Hinrich scored 19 on 6-of-12)"

Kirk Hinrich is not more efficient than Ben Gordon. He was on Tuesday night, but not overall. There is a basketball stat called TS%, which measures the player's efficiency scoring the ball. Ben Gordon for the season, 57.3 TS%. Compare that to Kirk Hinrich, who is 55.1 TS% (which is good in it's own right, but Gordon has quite a bit better efficiency, with over double the volume), or Derrick Rose at 51.6 TS%, which is quite bad.

Much better e-mail then mine! :cheer:

 

[??? ??????]

Another problem I have is him calling people who actually want to be educated to analyze basketball in an intelligent fashion "geeks".

 

[clonetrooper264]

mlewinth wrote:

clonetrooper264 wrote:

mlewinth wrote:

Odds of him responding are slim. I just e-mailed him the following:


Steve,

I apologize, but your article in the Tribune yesterday on Ben Gordon was one of the dumbest pieces of horse trash I have ever read. Have you ever watched a Bulls game in your life, or are you like most sports writers, the type who watch one game and write a whole column. Kirk Hinrichs CAREER FG% is like 41%. Now that’s not exact. The reason its not, is because I rattled that off the top of my head CAUSE I WATCH THE GAMES! Kirks FG% may have been better then Ben’s in Game 5, but lets look at Ben having seasons where he shot 45% and 43% from three. Kirk never has and never will come close to that! Bens career three point percentage is close to Hinrichs career FG%! That tells you all you need to know!

I am sick and tired of idiots like you trying to rip apart the Bulls best player and put one of its most overrated and worst on a pedestal because you don’t have a clue what your talking about. Enjoy next season when Gordon is gone and we win 35 games, again. You can then pick on someone else, as to the reason the Bulls aren’t doing well. It sickens me that people's opinions are influenced by ridiculous articles like that piece of garbage you wrote today.

I hope your pen gets stuck in your nose,

Mark A Lewinthal

The only issue I have about this is that you called Kirk Hinrich one of the worst players on the Bulls. This quite simply is not true. I firmly believe that Kirk is about our 3rd-5th best player depending on how you rank Salmons and Miller. He is a starter in this league and it's a luxury that we can have that coming off the bench. Ben is our best player, I am not denying that (except to maybe Derrick Rose, but then that would be Derrick Rose of the future not right now). This whole Kirk-Ben who is better thing is stupid. Ben is better, but Kirk can do things he can't. They both have flaws. It is possible to defend Ben without calling Kirk one of the worst players on the team. HE IS NOT THAT BAD.

You know what, your absolutly right. I am sorry though, the article just threw me off, I was angry. You are right though, Kirk is one of our better players, top 4.

It's all good. You just went into a little Fred-like rage for a moment. (please don't kill me Fred ) This article is drone nonsense and I can totally see why you would say such a thing.

Also, just so people are clear of my opinions on both (I don't want to be misinterpreted) Ben is better than Kirk, but Kirk is still one of our top players. Similar to the way Fred can't stand the total nonsense about Ben, I can't stand total nonsense about Kirk. Give credit where credit is due, but neither of these guys is flawless.

 

[Fred]

mlewinth wrote:

Odds of him responding are slim. I just e-mailed him the following:


Steve,

I apologize, but your article in the Tribune yesterday on Ben Gordon was one of the dumbest pieces of horse trash I have ever read. Have you ever watched a Bulls game in your life, or are you like most sports writers, the type who watch one game and write a whole column. Kirk Hinrichs CAREER FG% is like 41%. Now that’s not exact. The reason its not, is because I rattled that off the top of my head CAUSE I WATCH THE GAMES! Kirks FG% may have been better then Ben’s in Game 5, but lets look at Ben having seasons where he shot 45% and 43% from three. Kirk never has and never will come close to that! Bens career three point percentage is close to Hinrichs career FG%! That tells you all you need to know!

I am sick and tired of idiots like you trying to rip apart the Bulls best player and put one of its most overrated and worst on a pedestal because you don’t have a clue what your talking about. Enjoy next season when Gordon is gone and we win 35 games, again. You can then pick on someone else, as to the reason the Bulls aren’t doing well. It sickens me that people's opinions are influenced by ridiculous articles like that piece of garbage you wrote today.

I hope your pen gets stuck in your nose,

Mark A Lewinthal

You see, this is what guys like Steve T. Gorches do. Mark has always defended Kirk. He's a Kirk fan. When we first worked together, Kirk was probably his favorite player. But Drone Gorches has actually led Mark to the Dark Side, with a mad diss on Kirk that even I don't agree with.

Now, I've had literally thousands of conversations like this over the last 5 years because I've been vociferous in my defense of Ben. And these arguments have made me what I am today. Angry. Vaderlike. "Good. Use your aggressive feelings. Let the hate flow through you." -

Hopefully, this movie will end better for me. Like with Gordon putting up 50 tonight and Drone Gorches falling down the Death Star's reactor.

 

[Kush77]

??? ?????? wrote:

Another problem I have is him calling people who actually want to be educated to analyze basketball in an intelligent fashion "geeks".

Don't be too offended by that Po3

I called guys stat geeks all the time. And I don't mean it in a negative way. To me, when I use it in that context, I equate geek to expert. Or someone who's passionate about something.

I call 2ndcitydiehard a stat geek all the time. But I don't mean it like he has no life. I mean it as - he's knows what he's talking about.

But that's me. I can't speak for little Stevie Wonder.