Too much one-on-one

[Shakes]

2ndcitydiehard wrote:

Never posted a 3pt% over 36% (mostly about 33%) and suddenly shoots 42%. Never posted a PER for a season over 13.9 (mostly 12 and below) and suddenly posts a 16. There is serious statisical evidence that guys who make serious leaps at Salmons age (29 this year, 30 next) regress. The guy just had a career year that he is unlikely to repeat.

Sure he got more shots than before but the true key to Salmons increase in efficency is shooting four 3's a game and hitting 42% of them where at every other time in his career he'd shot two 3's a game and hit 33%... I am just saying one of these things is not like the others. Teams are often burned by expecting guys to repeat career years, people who are expecting Salmons to be the same player next year are likely to be very disappointed.

I know not everyone is a fan of advanced statistics, but Salmons has an adjusted plus/minus of around the -7 mark both the past two years. Nearly everyone with figures this low is a crap NBA player. We're talking about even Larry freakin' Hughes posting better numbers.

For those inclined to poo-poo this, I'd just say that for example the guys paying attention to these sort of numbers were several years ahead of the curve in identifying Eddy Curry as the terrible basketball player he is, so I'm not inclined to just ignore them.

Everyone should be very, very worried about Salmons being a legit starter for this team.

 

[Ralphb07]

probably not the right topic to say it but here's my perfect offseason

My perfect off season is keep Gordon and Kirk draft Blair, Mullens or best available big at 16 and a Guard at 26th and go next season with Miller-Noah-Tyrus-Deng-Salmons-Gordon-Kirk and Rose and call it a day

Play Deng at some PF so we can get Salmons and Kirk 25 minutes and ride and die with Rose-Gordon-Deng

And take it from there.... If we keep everyone intact taking a chance on Mullens won't be a bad idea and could be a big reward

I don't think Bosh or Amare will be avail so this is if they aren't. I would only trade Kirk if it made us better.

It's clear as day that Gordon should be a Bull and gives us the best chance to win. We got out PG in Rose and our C in Noah and even our young SF in Deng so what's needed is SG and PF and we shouldn't need the SG because we have him in Gordon

Deng was hurt and Noah came on late we have no clue what a Rose-Gordon-Deng-Noah team can do

Put this team in a position that when you land the big it's the final piece

 

[Rerisen]

Shakes wrote:

Everyone should be very, very worried about Salmons being a legit starter for this team.

Ironically, the only way I'm not worried about Salmons role on the team is if we bring Gordon back. That would keep his responsibility at a level he should easily be able to handle and he would likely have another very good season.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Ralphb07 wrote:

probably not the right topic to say it but here's my perfect offseason

My perfect off season is keep Gordon and Kirk draft Blair, Mullens or best available big at 16 and a Guard at 26th and go next season with Miller-Noah-Tyrus-Deng-Salmons-Gordon-Kirk and Rose and call it a day

Play Deng at some PF so we can get Salmons and Kirk 25 minutes and ride and die with Rose-Gordon-Deng

And take it from there.... If we keep everyone intact taking a chance on Mullens won't be a bad idea and could be a big reward

I don't think Bosh or Amare will be avail so this is if they aren't. I would only trade Kirk if it made us better.

It's clear as day that Gordon should be a Bull and gives us the best chance to win. We got out PG in Rose and our C in Noah and even our young SF in Deng so what's needed is SG and PF and we shouldn't need the SG because we have him in Gordon

Deng was hurt and Noah came on late we have no clue what a Rose-Gordon-Deng-Noah team can do

Put this team in a position that when you land the big it's the final piece

I like that plan Unfortunately it's probably too good to be true.

 

[Ralphb07]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

Ralphb07 wrote:

probably not the right topic to say it but here's my perfect offseason

My perfect off season is keep Gordon and Kirk draft Blair, Mullens or best available big at 16 and a Guard at 26th and go next season with Miller-Noah-Tyrus-Deng-Salmons-Gordon-Kirk and Rose and call it a day

Play Deng at some PF so we can get Salmons and Kirk 25 minutes and ride and die with Rose-Gordon-Deng

And take it from there.... If we keep everyone intact taking a chance on Mullens won't be a bad idea and could be a big reward

I don't think Bosh or Amare will be avail so this is if they aren't. I would only trade Kirk if it made us better.

It's clear as day that Gordon should be a Bull and gives us the best chance to win. We got out PG in Rose and our C in Noah and even our young SF in Deng so what's needed is SG and PF and we shouldn't need the SG because we have him in Gordon

Deng was hurt and Noah came on late we have no clue what a Rose-Gordon-Deng-Noah team can do

Put this team in a position that when you land the big it's the final piece

I like that plan Unfortunately it's probably too good to be true.

It is and I should of put my DREAM offseason. With keeping Gordon IMO at 16 we could take a chance with that pick. If we knew Gordon was back I would take a chance on a high risk/high reward guy like Mullens. Of course if Blair is there you take him

If Gordon is staying Kirk will have to go and we should make sure we get 2 players to fit roles back for him. It's just going to be hard to find a right deal for Kirk

 

[2ndcitydiehard]

dougthonus wrote:

It's worth noting that Gordon still does use a lot of isolations. When I started this article I really didn't have any idea what I'd find, but the results were about what I expected.

Gordon uses a normal number of iso's for his scoring caliber, efficiency in that situation, and overall scoring rate.

I think one thing that's interesting is a lot of us view Gordon as having a Ray Allen role in a team, and Allen basically never uses isolation play. I think that's on VDN to create an offense that allows Gordon to get the ball off screens more though and use him as an off the ball player more.

An offense that would not only benefit BG (although does he really need it that much considering his iso efficiency?) but would REALLY help Deng. Luol was a rising star at one point because of the way he curled and cut and was hit for jumpers. We completely lost that in VDN's offense this year.

I know he was most concerned about finding away to make things easy on Rose, but if things don't change in year 2 he is going to seriously limit the offensive contributions of Deng, Tyrus, and Noah while maximizing the things that really annoy people about BG and Salmons.

 

[clonetrooper264]

2ndcitydiehard wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

It's worth noting that Gordon still does use a lot of isolations. When I started this article I really didn't have any idea what I'd find, but the results were about what I expected.

Gordon uses a normal number of iso's for his scoring caliber, efficiency in that situation, and overall scoring rate.

I think one thing that's interesting is a lot of us view Gordon as having a Ray Allen role in a team, and Allen basically never uses isolation play. I think that's on VDN to create an offense that allows Gordon to get the ball off screens more though and use him as an off the ball player more.

An offense that would not only benefit BG (although does he really need it that much considering his iso efficiency?) but would REALLY help Deng. Luol was a rising star at one point because of the way he curled and cut and was hit for jumpers. We completely lost that in VDN's offense this year.

I know he was most concerned about finding away to make things easy on Rose, but if things don't change in year 2 he is going to seriously limit the offensive contributions of Deng, Tyrus, and Noah while maximizing the things that really annoy people about BG and Salmons.

Ideally, one would be able to find an offense where everyone's strengths could be utilized. Unfortunately, Deng is left out in this offense. Thus I feel Deng should learn to shoot the 3.

 

[2ndcitydiehard]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

Ideally, one would be able to find an offense where everyone's strengths could be utilized. Unfortunately, Deng is left out in this offense. Thus I feel Deng should learn to shoot the 3.

Unfortunately Deng's shot really doesn't lend him to shooting 3's. It's hard to be accurate from that distance with as low and line drive of a shot as he has.

He took more this year and it was supposedly something that he worked on last off-season, but I don't think he's suddenly going to show up going bombs away at over 35%. Deng needs his 15-18 footers and passes as he's already moving towards the basket (because of his below average handling skills). He does those things well and at his age should still be getting better

 

[Rose1]

All I'm waiting for is what Jerry Reinsdorf do to screw our franchise up this time. I swear that Bulls could be much better than they're right now.

Noah = Hawes
Ty.Thomas = Aldridge
Deng = Iguodala
Gordon = Gordon
Rose = Rose

What could of been!

 

[2ndcitydiehard]

Rose1 wrote:

All I'm waiting for is what Jerry Reinsdorf do to screw our franchise up this time. I swear that Bulls could be much better than they're right now.

Noah = Hawes
Ty.Thomas = Aldridge
Deng = Iguodala
Gordon = Gordon
Rose = Rose

What could of been!

What the hell has Spence Hawes done to make you think he's better than Noah. I'll tell ya something... he's not!

People ripped Pax for being ultra-conservative in the draft and never taking the potential super-star. Well he did with Tyrus and you have to remember he's only 22 and has shown improvement in his game. Also, if Aldridge is here, Rose isn't.

And if you take out Deng's injury issues I think he's got a chance to be every bit as good as Iggy. Sure Iggy fits what more fans want because he's a 1-on-1 drive to the basket player, but Deng's got the size and the range to be effective on both ends of the floor.

 

[Medianotzu]

This is exactly the article we all needed so we could direct people to why we don't get better by letting Gordon walk. Not that the fact shouldn't be somewhat obvious, but you pretty much hit a grand slam with this Doug. Best BG article I've read all year.

 

[Hendu0520]

cool007 wrote:

LeBron James: 22.78% / 69%
Ben Gordon : 20.34% / 69%

Who would have thought LeBron James and Ben Gordon would have same type of effectiveness when going 1-on-1 with atleast 20% of usage.

WOW!!!

Although I agree with Doug I am skeptical about these stats? What are they counting as an isolation? Magette went on an iso a lot more than DWade, really that much? I still think I'd take LB over BG any day on an iso, does this take into account an assist as successful iso attempt? Or what about getting to the line, is that counted as successful?

 

[Hendu0520]

LOL although I do trust the extreme numbers, a 6 for Deng! Are you kidding me, can we please get rid of this guy, I really am beginning to give up on him, a 6!!!! That's a WOW!

 

[Rose1]

yeah now, but early in his career the guy had no jump-shot. I can safely say Bron is much more effective since his body has gotten stronger. He's able to finish and get by his man with ease. Gordon on the other hand should be kept by the Bulls. On the stats available he has proven that he's among one of the best 2 guards in this league.

 

[Hendu0520]

Oh definately I agree without him we take a step back. And like Doug has been saying he is the best for the money as well or should be anyway. It's not Ben's fault Deng got all that money and has decided to get injured ever since. Please JR bring him back, there were so many times, even with Rose that we just needed that guy who could get off a shot. That guy was Ben Gordon, the only guy on our team who can get a shot off any time, anywhere. There are teams that would kill for that guy we can't just let him walk, we have to try at least.

Also I think that more and more teams go with 2 short guards in their lineup so BG isn't as exploited like he might have been a few years back. It is a copycat league, so Nellie and D'Antoni run small guards and then you see a bunch of teams doing it.

 

[dougthonus]

Why would Lebrons or Oden's mother inject them with steroids as a baby? I mean what would be their initial reason back in 1985 or whatever? I would think they would be concerned about their sons' health more than them being great athletes.

It definitely takes into account fouls drawn. I'm not sure about assists, when I watch the videos of the plays there are some assist plays in there, but not as many as you'd think, so I think it's dicey whether it counts assists or not.

 

[miltpalacio]

Ben Gordon can score with the best of them. He has an uncanny shot that mimics Ray Allen's in terms of grace and beauty. Its precision redefines our notion of muscle memory. And when the gears are clicking, his bionicism mesmorizes.

As the statistics support, the flaws in his design aren't derived from spasm or impotence. Quite the contrary, Gordon's most difficult shots fall because he know's exactly where he is on the court. Sense and muscle memory prevail to sing the refrain of the age-old adage: "Great defense, better execution."

Still, great players know when they're trapped. Frustrations against Gordon lie not with his inability to create shots for himself, but his lack of recognition to when one simply doesn't exist. It's like watching a drunk young guy on a cruise trying to get laid telling everybody and their mother that he's a lawyer. He has no takers because mania pervades over sound judgment and everybody thinks he's an a-hole.

Furthermore when Gordon's double teamed by two guys taller than him, there isn't a shot to be created. He's left trying to feed his insatiable ego by attempting to create something that doesn't exist. At times he appears more comfortable with failure than success, so long as the former is entirely within his control.

 

[dougthonus]

Still, great players know when they're trapped. Frustrations against Gordon lie not with his inability to create shots for himself, but his lack of recognition to when one simply doesn't exist. It's like watching a drunk young guy on a cruise trying to get laid telling everybody and their mother that he's a lawyer. He has no takers because mania pervades over sound judgment and everybody thinks he's an a-hole.

Furthermore when Gordon's double teamed by two guys taller than him, there isn't a shot to be created. He's left trying to feed his insatiable ego by attempting to create something that doesn't exist. At times he appears more comfortable with failure than success, so long as the former is entirely within his control.

I'd say this was true of Gordon far more in his first three years in the league than his last two years. He's really cut his turnovers down. 2.4 TOs per 36 minutes is a better than average rate for someone with his usage, scoring, and isolation percentage.

I also don't think his failure rate is that high given his overall efficiency is very good.

Much of the complaints of Gordon are leftovers of an era that's passed IMO, things that show up occasionally, but only because they happen to all players, but the memory of when it happened to Gordon all the time is painful and ingrained, so when we get a reminder of those negative moments there is a "here we go again" mentality that immediately pops to mind.

 

[2ndcitydiehard]

Given how unlikely it is that Gordon see's more money than he turned down the last two off-seasons is everyone still going to blame Pax if he goes? Seems to me he was willing to put the best offer no the table and BG over-valued himself. Nothing wrong with that, players got the right to get paid. I just don't want to see Pax end up the villan in all of this.

 

[AirP]

dougthonus wrote:

I guess you're right... not too inconsistent to be a #1 scorer...
Playoffs...
Game 1 - 35% FG%
Game 2 - 58% FG%
Game 3 - 39% FG%
Game 4 - 46% FG% - Hurt hamstring during game
Game 5 - 29% FG%
Game 6 - 29% FG%
Game 7 - 30% FG%

FG% isn't a particularly accurate way to judge consistency. Lists points per possession used for all his games.

A possession is when you shoot, get to the line, or turn the ball over:

Game 1: 20 points, 21 possessions
Game 2: 42 points, 28 possessions
Game 3: 15 points, 17 possessions
Game 4: 22 points, 25 possessions
Game 5: 26 points, 28 possessions
Game 6: 12 points, 18 possessions
Game 7: 33 points, 32 possessions
Total: 170 points, 169 possessions

He had one game where he was ultra efficient, one game where he was terribly inefficient, and five games where he was close to 1:1. He played with an injury which notably hampered him for three of the seven games. His scoring consistency was pretty his low water marks were 12 points and 15 points.

Let's look at Paul Pierce:
Game 1: 24 points, 28 possessions
Game 2: 18 points, 24 possessions
Game 3: 24 points, 17 possessions
Game 4: 29 points, 34 possessions
Game 5: 26 points, 26 possessions
Game 6: 22 points, 22 possessions
Game 7: 20 points, 24 possessions
Total: 163 points, 175

He had 1 game where he was ultra efficient, 4 gamers where he was moderately inefficient, and two games where he was 1:1, His point production was very consistent even if his scoring efficiency wasn't.

Let's look at Ray Allen:
Game 1: 4 points, 14 possessions
Game 2: 30 points, 21 possessions
Game 3: 18 points, 15 possessions
Game 4: 28 points, 23 possessions
Game 5: 10 points, 11 possessions
Game 6: 51 points, 38 possessions
Game 7: 23 points, 18 possessions
Total: 165 points, 140 possessions
Allen was great, outside of his game 1, he was basically awesome. He was consistently efficient, having very good efficiency in 5 of 7 games, 1 super dud, and 1 game where he was average. Of course his points were all over the board, as he has 2 very low point games.

Let's look at Derrick Rose:
Game 1: 36 points, 30 possessions
Game 2: 10 points, 13 possessions
Game 3: 9 points, 22 possessions
Game 4: 23 points, 26 possessions
Game 5: 14 points, 26 possessions
Game 6: 28 points, 33 possessions
Game 7: 18 points, 21 possessions
Total: 138 points, 171 possessions
Basically, his efficiency was god awful for most of the series with only one game of good efficiency all series. His scoring consistency was also pretty bad with games of 9, 10, and 14 points while he scored 36 and 28 in other games.

Let's look at John Salmons
Game 1: 12 points, 17 possessions
Game 2: 17 points, 21 possessions
Game 3: 14 points, 17 possessions
Game 4: 20 points, 19 possessions
Game 5: 17 points, 19 possessions
Game 6: 35 points, 26 possessions
Game 7: 12 points, 17 possessions
Total: 127 points, 136 possessions
Salmons played through a sore groin which may have effected his play (though he did not look as visibly hobbled as Ben after the hamstring injury). His efficiency was basically poor for the whole series except for game 6, his total point consistency was basically poor too as he had duds in three games and lower games two more with only 17 points.

And... 169 points in 170 shots.... and that's with what you called an ultra efficient game. So you take that away and you get 127 in 142 shots? Even without counting the 3 hamstring games he had 2 bad shooting games of the first 4... and his ultra efficient game went for not since we lost it. So of the 3 games we won in the series.... Gordon shot bad in those games... So maybe the winning for this team isn't so contengent on him being a top scorer for this team?


Overall Gordon's stats usually average out well, it's those extream peaks and valleys that keep him from being a SOLID night in and night out top option for a very good team. This is why you can't build around Gordon and expect to be an elite team... and it's exactly the reason why him coming off the bench can be a very important piece for an elite team... you always have that chance he's going to go off if your team is struggling unless for some reason you think most good teams can have their top players play bad a third of the time and the team still be a good team.

I'm not argueing that statistically he doesn't come out good. What I'm argueing is a GAME BY GAME basis... his scoring/shooting is just too much of a variable to be a leader of a consistantly good team. You build a system offensivly but have one of the main guys consistantly(every third or fourth game) shoot horrible...