Too much one-on-one

[dougthonus]

I think saying Ben Gordon is maybe a third option is selling him short. He's easily a third option and put up better scoring numbers than nearly every playoff team's second option in terms of volume and efficiency. Of the teams left in the running, he put up better numbers than Gasol, Billups, Artest, Allen, Lewis or Williams. Obviously some of those guys are better at other aspects of the game than Gordon is, but as a second scoring option on a championship team, I think Gordon is certainly good enough.

Third option is a bad phrase, third best player would be better.

If you look at recent title teams the Spurs have 3 guys better than Gordon. You could argue the Pistons had 3 guys better than Gordon when they won. The Bulls may or may not have had 3 guys better than Gordon depending on what you feel about Rodman/Grant/Kukoc etc...

Of the teams that win titles, Gordon would be the 3rd best player on about half and the fourth best player on half I'd say.

 

[Hendu0520]

badnewsintennisshoes wrote:

I agree that Gordon's statistics would improve if he was not relied upon so much to create his own shot (i.e. if the Bulls had a better coach and more diverse offense). My main points are these:

Defining Gordon’s quality as a one-on-one player is not the right way to go about deciding whether or not he should be retained.

Using this set of statistics is clearly not a good way to define one-on-one quality in any case, which is why the premise is flawed. Presumably you have watched plenty of basketball, correct? Well, then can you please explain to me how this statistic could possibly be an accurate expression of how "effective" a one-on-one player is when, in that context, Salmons, Randy Foy and Nate Robinson are all more "effective" one-on-one players than Carmelo Anthony? I mean your whole argument about Gordon vs. Salmons is based on this set of statistics, so by the very same measure, Salmons is somehow more valuable than Carmelo. Do you actually believe that to be the case?

There's no doubt that Gordon goes one-on-one too much, but that is, as always, mainly a coaching problem. If the Bulls had a good coach, and Gordon was made to limit his one-on-one play, the team would benefit. But that, of course, is only one small part of the equation needed to assess whether he should be kept on the team, or what his overall value is to the team.

With regards to Salmons vs. Gordon, the former is a better rebounder, better defender, averages more steals and less turnovers, and there is “statistically” little between them offensively. How, exactly, do you arrive at the conclusion that Gordon is a better all-around player?

I agree with badnews on the stat thing being flawed only because we don't have definitions. I don't agree about Gordon being moved, he is great for Rose. Stats in Basketball are not as advanced as Baseball and we have to be careful so we can't base everything to be true based on the stats, we have to use them to back up our own observations. There is now way I'd rather have Nate Robinson taking the last shot over Carmelo and I already saw BG and Lebron are equal, no way. I already listed making it to the FT line also if they make 1 vs 2, plus what is one on one, does that count double teams?, what about triple teams which Gordon likes to do a lot. What if they are in a zone and he tries to shoot in between 2 guys running at him?

In this case however, I think that Doug is basing these statistics on his own observations and beliefs therefore they are one aspect to bolster his arguement. During the thread he has posted other stats to back up his point as well so I think the article was supposed to be about one set of stats so I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Hendu0520]

As far as Salmons vs Gordon going one on one I think I would rather have Gordon slightly but people are sleeping on JFish. I watched a lot of the Sacramento games because I am up late on the East Coast a lot and watch the West Coast games on League Pass. He was a consistant scorer on that team all year with a changing lineup and a terrible team, then got traded to a better team with more scoring and stepped right in. He also comformed right away to the crappy offense and learned how to score in a spot where Deng was complaining. Deng is obviously terrible going one on one. Therefore I think we have to give Salmons more credit, no I don't think he is more important than Gordon but he might be slightly better overall than Gordon. I know Ben has done it for more years so I will give him the benefit of the doubt but Salmons is not far off.

Also Salmons being a career -7 means very little, he came to the Bulls and was the biggest difference in the trade. Miller helped as well but Salmons was a 20 point scorer before the injury and the Bulls went on to have a great record after the trade so his +/- couldn't have been that bad right or was it? It is only good for the extremes, in this case who cares.