Kirk Hinrich- the Bulls ALL-TIME THREE POINT CHAP!

[postdiction]

Kush77 wrote:

postdiction wrote:

I don't get this injuries argument at all. The injury happened a long time ago.

Either BG is still hurt and should sit out or
BG is fine and his injury which happened months ago is fine.

Please stop with "he is still injured" that's BS, no team is going to let a player who has been truly injured(apparently for months at this point)still play. Detroit has nothing to play for anymore they aren't making a playoff push. If BG was still injured they would have shut him down for the season.

He's been injures most of the season. He got hurt in November, tried to comeback early (against the Bulls) played another game and got hurt. It's pretty clear he came back too soon there because he was then out until the end of December.

He played on Dec 27th and oddly enough got hurt against the Bulls on Jan 11th and was out until the end of January.

Since then he hasn't played well. and it's pretty clear, based on his carrer trends, that the injuries are effecting him and his shooting. Plus he's not getting the minutes or the shots. I would think the injuries have taken their toll on him this year.

If you look at his numbers from the first month of the season - before the injuries, they were on par with his career trends. So I won't stop with the "he's still injured." because it's clear to anyone that looks at the numbers that the injuries have effected him. and in his current position with Det, being a 6th man, it could take longer for him to get back into a rhythm. He's playing less minutes and talking less shots since his rookie year. Last night he played 19 minutes and was 0-4. We know Gordon is capable of more than that having watched him for 5 years here.

If he is truly injured why hasn't Detroit shut him down for the season?

He is a young player in the 1st year of a 5 year 58 million deal. Detroit has nothing to play for this year. He is not even the starter at this position at Detroit.

If there was a 1% chance that he might get re-injured or a 1% chance that he isn't fully healthy they would shut him down for the rest of the year. Or at best let him heal 100% before letting him play again?

Any reasonable person would agree that Detroit would not risk rushing BG back before he is 100% healthy just to play him during a lost season.

BG is having a bad season and it happens to players from time to time. However, Detroit is playing BG because he is healthy that is inarguable.

I await your rebuttal Kush.

[houheffna]

I act as if basketball is only about jumpshots??? Really? How did you come to that conclusion?

Ellis is a system guy. He plays in Golden State where they just run and gun and don't play defense. You watch them, are you gonna tell me otherwise? anyone who plays in G.S. system or the Knicks' system are gonna have better numbers.

If Gordon played in Golden State he wouldn't put up better numbers than he is in Detroit? Please.

You want to pretend that Gordon's 5 years of numbers in Chicago didn't happen, and that BG's career in Detroit is who Ben Gordon is. But the numbers prove you wrong. Sorry.

And I'm using basic black and white stats. Not goofy stuff like +/- or defensive win share. Basic stats. Gordon's career trends suggest that this year is an exception, not the rule.

If Gordon does this next year, then you can say that this is who he is. But that's not the case based on just 1 season.

So you are saying its Don Nelson's SYSTEM that makes it SEEM that Ellis is a better ballhandler or that he is better than Gordon in other ways...the system does that....OKAY!!!

So without Nelson's system Ellis would be on the bench getting no playing time? I beg to differ on that one. I never said ignore Gordon's 5 years of numbers, they are not hall of fame numbers like you might want to make them out to be. I don't think Gordon sucks as a player, I think he is bad in certain areas of the game and that a lot of the league are better than him in certain areas like ballhandling. Including some forwards in the league. Calling Ellis a system player is suggesting that they hide his inadequacies...so tell me what are his inadequacies...well, I will wait until next year, when you are again able to actually watch him play...

[Kush77]

postdiction wrote:

Kush77 wrote:

postdiction wrote:

I don't get this injuries argument at all. The injury happened a long time ago.

Either BG is still hurt and should sit out or
BG is fine and his injury which happened months ago is fine.

Please stop with "he is still injured" that's BS, no team is going to let a player who has been truly injured(apparently for months at this point)still play. Detroit has nothing to play for anymore they aren't making a playoff push. If BG was still injured they would have shut him down for the season.

He's been injures most of the season. He got hurt in November, tried to comeback early (against the Bulls) played another game and got hurt. It's pretty clear he came back too soon there because he was then out until the end of December.

He played on Dec 27th and oddly enough got hurt against the Bulls on Jan 11th and was out until the end of January.

Since then he hasn't played well. and it's pretty clear, based on his carrer trends, that the injuries are effecting him and his shooting. Plus he's not getting the minutes or the shots. I would think the injuries have taken their toll on him this year.

If you look at his numbers from the first month of the season - before the injuries, they were on par with his career trends. So I won't stop with the "he's still injured." because it's clear to anyone that looks at the numbers that the injuries have effected him. and in his current position with Det, being a 6th man, it could take longer for him to get back into a rhythm. He's playing less minutes and talking less shots since his rookie year. Last night he played 19 minutes and was 0-4. We know Gordon is capable of more than that having watched him for 5 years here.

If he is truly injured why hasn't Detroit shut him down for the season?

He is a young player in the 1st year of a 5 year 58 million deal. Detroit has nothing to play for this year. He is not even the starter at this position at Detroit.

If there was a 1% chance that he might get re-injured or a 1% chance that he isn't fully healthy they would shut him down for the rest of the year. Or at best let him heal 100% before letting him play again?

Any reasonable person would agree that Detroit would not risk rushing BG back before he is 100% healthy just to play him during a lost season.

BG is having a bad season and it happens to players from time to time. However, Detroit is playing BG because he is healthy that is inarguable.

I await your rebuttal Kush.

I don't know. How's that for an answer B)

you're right, if he's hurt then there's no point in playing him during a lost season. I agree.

I think he's healthy enough to play but the injuries he's had this season have effected him. Maybe the Pistons are still playing him because they need to justify the money he makes. Not that we agree on that, just a possibility.

He is having a bad season. But if you look at the game log his stats in the first month (before the injury) were on par with what he's done during the course of his career.

He was averaging about 22 ppg on 45% shooting. Since then he's been terrible.

I just don't think Ben Gordon has become a below average player all the sudden. Maybe this isn't the best situation for him. Similar to what happened with Scottie Pippen and the Rockets.

[Kush77]

houheffna wrote:

I act as if basketball is only about jumpshots??? Really? How did you come to that conclusion?

Ellis is a system guy. He plays in Golden State where they just run and gun and don't play defense. You watch them, are you gonna tell me otherwise? anyone who plays in G.S. system or the Knicks' system are gonna have better numbers.

If Gordon played in Golden State he wouldn't put up better numbers than he is in Detroit? Please.

You want to pretend that Gordon's 5 years of numbers in Chicago didn't happen, and that BG's career in Detroit is who Ben Gordon is. But the numbers prove you wrong. Sorry.

And I'm using basic black and white stats. Not goofy stuff like +/- or defensive win share. Basic stats. Gordon's career trends suggest that this year is an exception, not the rule.

If Gordon does this next year, then you can say that this is who he is. But that's not the case based on just 1 season.

So you are saying its Don Nelson's SYSTEM that makes it SEEM that Ellis is a better ballhandler or that he is better than Gordon in other ways...the system does that....OKAY!!!

So without Nelson's system Ellis would be on the bench getting no playing time? I beg to differ on that one. I never said ignore Gordon's 5 years of numbers, they are not hall of fame numbers like you might want to make them out to be. I don't think Gordon sucks as a player, I think he is bad in certain areas of the game and that a lot of the league are better than him in certain areas like ballhandling. Including some forwards in the league. Calling Ellis a system player is suggesting that they hide his inadequacies...so tell me what are his inadequacies...well, I will wait until next year, when you are again able to actually watch him play...

Ah Hou, if I ever need my words twisted I can always count on you.

The only reason you're pumping up Monta Ellis is because he's averaging 25 ppg this year. You're not a champion for Monta Ellis because of his passing skills or ball handling.

And YES, Monta Ellis' numbers are a result of Golden State's system. So if Monta played in Detroit he'd be getting 22 shots per game? Really?

"hall of fame numbers like you might want to make them out to be."
Never said that. Once again, twisting words to help your argument.

And I've watched Monta Ellis play Hou. You act as if you're the only person who has access to league pass, or the internet, and watches other games. I didn't buy LP this year, but I can watch almost just as many games on internet feeds.

I had league pass in 2001 and 2002 to watch the Wizards. And I had it again in 2007, 2008 and 2009. And during those last three years I watched Golden State a lot because they are fun to watch because they play a run and gun shoot it before the clock reaches 10 seconds kind of game. And Monta Ellis benefits from that. Just like Q Richardson benefited from the Suns system. Just like David Lee is benefiting from the Knicks' system.

Or let's use Duhon for an example. Last year Duhon averaged 11.1 points and 7.2 assists. So I guess he's better than Kirk Hinrich and the Bulls were fools to let him go? Because Hinrich has never averaged more than 6.8 assists in his career. And the last 3 season Kirk is scoring on avg. about 10ppg. Well of course Duhon isn't better than Kirk, it's the system. If Kirk played for NY or Golden State he's probably average what he did during his career year. Maybe better.

You're making seem like I'm saying if Monta wasn't playing for Golden State he'd be garbage. No. I'm not saying that. He's taking the shots, but he's also producing. He's produced for them his entire time there. But now he's taking the 2nd most shots in the NBA behind Kobe Bryant. So he's scoring more. On what other team would Monta Ellis take that many shots? The Knicks maybe.

Being in a certain system would help a players numbers. If BG played for Golden State he would easily average 24ppg. And I'm not saying that because I think BG is a special player touched by God. I'm saying that because he's a good scorer and other good scorers would benefit from that system as well.

[Kush77]

houheffna wrote:
[quote]

"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination."

Had to throw Scully's quote out again because you are using stats and suppositions. Yet you admitted that you don't know who the better passer and ballhandler is. Not knowing and then looking at stats and referencing the 41.5 minutes continuously handicaps your argument. I know who the better ballhandler is...and that is Ellis. I know who is better at distributing the ball...Ellis. If Ellis played 15 minutes a game, I would say the same thing, because I see it. How many players can be used for such comparisons strictly based on statistical referencing without taking into account actually observing HOW these players play ball? Countless examples can be made...

Monta Ellis averages 5.3 assists and 4.2 turnovers. Sorry if that doesn't blow my mind. I watched Ben Gordon for 5 years. Nothing I've seen would make me say he's a bad passer, and nothing I've seen from Ellis makes me thing he's so much better than Gordon.
Better ball handler, fine, you can say Ellis is. I know Ben can over-dribble and be wild sometimes. But that's not the reason your hyping up Ellis. Your hyping him up because he's scoring 25ppg.

I know you like to think you're the only person who watched teams outside of the Bulls, but you're not. And I haven't watched Golden State this year because I don't typically watch teams that are 16-40 unless they're my team. But I've watch plenty of Golden State the last three years and I know the type of player Ellis is.

Then you bring up Golden State's record, where are Gordon's rings? That shouldn't even be a question in this argument...

Record does matter because Golden State sucks. And don't give me the "rings" argument. In that case where's Patrick Ewing's, Charles Barkley's, Karl Malone's, John Stockton's rings? Or any other player better than both Ellis and Gordon.

There is a certain thing as statistical integrity. You can actually go to jail for lack of it under certain circumstances. I can prove night and day with stats who scored the most, rebounded the most, better free throw shooter etc. But, you couldn't prove to me or any GM in the NBA by using those stats that Gordon is a better basketball player.

I never said that Ellis was great...I don't use that word too often...I just said he is better than Gordon. You don't have to be anywhere near great to be better than Gordon.

I disagree, if Gordon played in GS system he'd put up similar numbers to Ellis. Again, the main reason your pumping Ellis is because of his scoring. I highly doubt you'd be arguing so passionately if Ellis was averaging 12ppg.

You just admitted that if a player shoots more he will have better numbers...or worse...what???

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say I'm contradicting myself. I'm not. My point is, which always seems to get lost.

Ben Gordon shoots the ball 10 more times, like Ellis, Gordon SCORING would go up. I agreed with Fritz that if a player shoots more it doesn't mean his SHOOTING PERCENTAGE would be exactly the same. Because if you shoot more there is the chance to miss more. THUS your SCORING would go up but you SHOOTING PERCENTAGE could go down. Or he could shoot the same.

I'll use the same example once again. And I have 5 years of Ben Gordon stats to back it up. You have 38 games in Detroit.

Ben Gordon is shooting the ball 12 times per game, Ellis is shooting 22 (2nd most in the NBA)

If Gordon got to shoot the ball 10 more times a game, based on his CURRENT average of .42% he would make roughly 4 more shots in the game. Assuming that non of them would be 3 pointers that would be 8 points. And if he played more minutes and took 10 more shots it's safe to assume that he would probably get to the FT line for 1 more set of FT's. and based on a career FT% of 85% he would make at least 1. So that would be roughly 9 more points. Add that to his current 15ppg and you got 24. If one f those extra shots is a 3 point then you got 25.

It's pretty clear you don't like numbers for some reason. And I'm not a numbers geek like Hollinger. Although you'll try to make it seem that way to help your argument, because if you disparage the numbers you disparage my argument. But certain numbers mean something. I'm not talking about True Shooting percentage or defensive win shares or even PER. I'm just looking at scoring. And if you give a good scorer 10 more shots per game, he'd score more.

But you think Ben Gordon is an average player. So fine.

I would have expected St. Ben to outplay Hamilton over the course of the season and possibly get more playing time, but that hasn't been the case, has it?

Why would you expect that? You said it before that Rip Hamilton is a better player.
And no, it hasn't been the case because Ben Gordon has played poorly. You can come out now and bash Ben all you want. But you wern't so vocal in your Ben bashing when he was putting up his usual number during the first month.
But now that Ben is playing the worst ball of his career it's more convenient for you to make your argument against him.

Oh but Ben is injured...what happened....his leg hurts! Its a routine injury, lets not act like he had to wrestle an alligator here. And he doesn't have that injury now, its subsided and he is still struggling.

Yeah he's hurt. You don't want to acknowledge that reason because you don't like Ben Gordon. Fine.

But I have 5 years of stats to back up what Ben Gordon is capable of. You have 38 games in Detroit.

Just a quick Edit here. How do you know his injury has subsided?

[Kush77]

Let me throw in there that I really enjoy these arguments we have.

It makes work go by a lot faster. By the time I'm done responding to two or three posts about an hour goes by.

[clonetrooper264]

Let me just throw in a few witty comments here because there's just so much here that I can't even respond to one thing.

1) I just think it's funny that this is a KIRK HINRICH thread and you're arguing about Ben Gordon. I admit, I'm at fault too for mentioning him, but come on, it's pretty funny that this happens in pretty much every Hinrich thread.
2) Out of curiosity, if this is the church of St. Ben...is Hinrich the antichrist (or I suppose it would be antiben)? :P
3) It's fairly safe to say that if Ben shot even 5 or 6 more shots per game, he'd be scoring near 20 points if he was 100% fully healthy and still shooting 42% or something that's lower than what we would expect from him.
4) If Kush is a reverend in this church, is Fred the pope or something? (No offense Fred, you know I have the utmost respect for you)
5) Ellis is a good player. A very good player in fact. But he and Gordon have different kinds of games. Ellis is Roselike in that he slashes and attacks the basket a lot. Gordon, as we all know, is a jumpshooter. Now this is just my understanding, but if you shoot closer to the basket, doesn't your FG% go up? And if you shoot a lot of jumpers, won't it go down? Generally speaking, I would expect this to be true. It would then make sense that Ellis would have a higher FG% because he's not shooting a lot of jumpers as part of his 22 shots...relatively. Now I don't know if this is totally true or not as I haven't seen much of Ellis at all, but based on your comments, it seems that it would hold true.
6) It does seem rather silly to have an 11.6 million per year player come off the bench doesn't it? Makes Kirk seem like a bargain...sorta. Except he's starting now so I guess that's no longer valid. :P

[houheffna]

But that's not the reason your hyping up Ellis. Your hyping him up because he's scoring 25ppg.

I just think he is better, you are the one who wants to deify Gordon and his 20ppg in the past...So what do you do for a living, read Tarot cards, you like to tell me what I am thinking and why I think it. Ellis scores 25ppg, Curry doesn't, and I said he is better at basketball than Gordon. All you talk about is long range shooting...sounds like somebody been playing NBA2k too much...

Record does matter because Golden State sucks. And don't give me the "rings" argument. In that case where's Patrick Ewing's, Charles Barkley's, Karl Malone's, John Stockton's rings? Or any other player better than both Ellis and Gordon.

So because the Bulls consistently had a better record, Gordon is better than Ellis....okay...I guess he is better than Durant too right? Being this is your argument, why did you even bring records up? As if the Bulls had so much to brag about when Gordon was here...

I disagree, if Gordon played in GS system he'd put up similar numbers to Ellis. Again, the main reason your pumping Ellis is because of his scoring. I highly doubt you'd be arguing so passionately if Ellis was averaging 12ppg.

Maybe, maybe not...he still wouldn't have the skill level of Ellis. You are the one who looks at stats, not me. Billups has never scored 20ppg, and I think he is a much better player than Ben Gordon. When I say a player is better at basketball, I take everything into account. Offense and the different phases of offense, defense, ballhandling, everything. I said the same thing about Hedo, Odom, a lot of players who can do more on a basketball court than Gordon can...he is a superior scorer to those guys, but they are better basketball players. Early in the season, I said that people were overdoing it with the "Ben sho' is good!" posts...it got to the point that it was ridiculous. And I said as much, now ask yourself where the "Ben is great" talk is now? Before I watched Ellis, I heard about him. I watched him this season and he is somewhat impressive. Again, Ben can't mess with that country boy when it comes to playing basketball. Gordon may win a game a horse, but that aint basketball, though it might be to you, and everybody else who experiences the NBA mostly through their xbox...

Why would you expect that? You said it before that Rip Hamilton is a better player.
And no, it hasn't been the case because Ben Gordon has played poorly. You can come out now and bash Ben all you want. But you wern't so vocal in your Ben bashing when he was putting up his usual number during the first month.
But now that Ben is playing the worst ball of his career it's more convenient for you to make your argument against him.

I think Gordon has been a great shooter and a good scorer, but he is not better than Monta. Let's say that Gordon did got to Golden State and average 25ppg...he is still not as good a player as Ellis. YOU USE PPG BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY THING GORDON IS GOOD AT! Not me...I see what Ellis can do on the court and compared to Gordon, he is better, simple as that. What's the big deal? I said the same about Hamilton, Martin, and other players. I know it goes against the hoopology you preach about but....I said Curry was better than Gordon too, based on what I have seen so far, he will easily pass Gordon because he is better at basketball...just my opinion.

[Dpauley23]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

Let me just throw in a few witty comments here because there's just so much here that I can't even respond to one thing.

1) I just think it's funny that this is a KIRK HINRICH thread and you're arguing about Ben Gordon. I admit, I'm at fault too for mentioning him, but come on, it's pretty funny that this happens in pretty much every Hinrich thread.
2) Out of curiosity, if this is the church of St. Ben...is Hinrich the antichrist (or I suppose it would be antiben)? :P
3) It's fairly safe to say that if Ben shot even 5 or 6 more shots per game, he'd be scoring near 20 points if he was 100% fully healthy and still shooting 42% or something that's lower than what we would expect from him.
4) If Kush is a reverend in this church, is Fred the pope or something? (No offense Fred, you know I have the utmost respect for you)
5) Ellis is a good player. A very good player in fact. But he and Gordon have different kinds of games. Ellis is Roselike in that he slashes and attacks the basket a lot. Gordon, as we all know, is a jumpshooter. Now this is just my understanding, but if you shoot closer to the basket, doesn't your FG% go up? And if you shoot a lot of jumpers, won't it go down? Generally speaking, I would expect this to be true. It would then make sense that Ellis would have a higher FG% because he's not shooting a lot of jumpers as part of his 22 shots...relatively. Now I don't know if this is totally true or not as I haven't seen much of Ellis at all, but based on your comments, it seems that it would hold true.
6) It does seem rather silly to have an 11.6 million per year player come off the bench doesn't it? Makes Kirk seem like a bargain...sorta. Except he's starting now so I guess that's no longer valid. :P

The thing that find wierd is why does everyone clash Hinrich and Ben together. It wasn't Hinrich's fault Gordon didn't sign here it was. It was Deng plain and simple. The Bulls chose Deng over Gordon

[Kush77]

houheffna wrote:

I just think he is better, you are the one who wants to deify Gordon and his 20ppg in the past...So what do you do for a living, read Tarot cards, you like to tell me what I am thinking and why I think it. Ellis scores 25ppg, Curry doesn't, and I said he is better at basketball than Gordon. All you talk about is long range shooting...sounds like somebody been playing NBA2k too much...

Yep, I read tarot cards. Just like you know that Gordon's injury is subsiding. I suppose your the physical therapist for the Pistons? I never knew?

Curry is a rookie and hasn't proven anything yet. He plays in a nice system that suits his skills, shooting. Davidson didn't win because of Curry's passing, they won because of his scoring and... oh my god long-range shooting.

What's with the video game references now. Is that the new theme instead of the church stuff. Gotta mix it up.

So when we agree on something, it's all good. Like Joe Johnson. But when we disagree I all of the sudden get my basketball knowledge from a video game I guess.

So because the Bulls consistently had a better record, Gordon is better than Ellis....okay...I guess he is better than Durant too right? Being this is your argument, why did you even bring records up? As if the Bulls had so much to brag about when Gordon was here...

I brought up records because if Mnta Ellis is so good, as you say. Then why are the Warriors 16-40.

You claim Ben Gordon makes #1 option money. Monta Ellis makes 11 million on average to Gordon 11.6 on average. So I guess Ellis makes #1 option money as well.

You say there's no doubt Ellis is a better player. No doubt means there should be no argument whatsoever. Ellis is just SO much better it can't even be discussed. Since I consider Gordon an above average player (you consider him average) and you conside rEllis to be so much better, then that would mean you consider Ellis to be an all-star player. Sine he's so much better without a doubt.

So if Ellis makes #1 option money, and is SO much better than Gordon, then why are the Warriors 16-40? That's why I brought up the record. If Golden State has players like Ellis and Curry that are better than Gordon, then why are they so bad? That's why I brought up record.

Maybe, maybe not...he still wouldn't have the skill level of Ellis. You are the one who looks at stats, not me. Billups has never scored 20ppg, and I think he is a much better player than Ben Gordon. When I say a player is better at basketball, I take everything into account. Offense and the different phases of offense, defense, ballhandling, everything. I said the same thing about Hedo, Odom, a lot of players who can do more on a basketball court than Gordon can...he is a superior scorer to those guys, but they are better basketball players. Early in the season, I said that people were overdoing it with the "Ben sho' is good!" posts...it got to the point that it was ridiculous. And I said as much, now ask yourself where the "Ben is great" talk is now? Before I watched Ellis, I heard about him. I watched him this season and he is somewhat impressive. Again, Ben can't mess with that country boy when it comes to playing basketball. Gordon may win a game a horse, but that aint basketball, though it might be to you, and everybody else who experiences the NBA mostly through their xbox...

I'm aware scoring isn't everything, but Ellis is a scorer. stop making him out to be some ultra-versatile player. You don't need to explain to me that scoring isn't everything. But you like to frame the argument that way to make me seem like I have no clue. Ben Gordon scores more than Steve Nash. I'm well aware Steve Nash is a better player.

I don't know where the Ben is great talk now. It's not there because he isn't playing great. But you're doing the same thing, only the opposite.

I remember a post by Po3 early in the season talking up Gordon after his hot start. You and him went at it for a while. I don't think I commented actually.

But while Po3 might have went overboard in declaring Ben an all-star, etc. You are going overboard in your criticism of Gordon. And you've done it while he's struggling. Now a rookie in Stephen Curry who's played half a season is better than a guy who's done it for 5 years. Okay.

"Ben can win a game of horse" Okay, what has Monta Ellis done that is so much better than Gordon in there careers?? Take more shots and play is a frantic offensive system.

You don't think stats matter, but they do. Monta Ellis takes more shots, and he scores more. Pretty simple. Other good offensive players take more shots, they'd score more. Pretty simple.

I got 5 years of Gordon's career trends, you have 38 games in Detroit. I'll take the 5 years over the 38 games when it comes to determining what BG can produce as a player.

You can talk about all these great things Ellis apparently does, but apparently it doesn't translate into many wins for Golden State.

I think Gordon has been a great shooter and a good scorer, but he is not better than Monta. Let's say that Gordon did got to Golden State and average 25ppg...he is still not as good a player as Ellis. YOU USE PPG BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY THING GORDON IS GOOD AT! Not me...I see what Ellis can do on the court and compared to Gordon, he is better, simple as that. What's the big deal? I said the same about Hamilton, Martin, and other players. I know it goes against the hoopology you preach about but....I said Curry was better than Gordon too, based on what I have seen so far, he will easily pass Gordon because he is better at basketball...just my opinion.

I've watched Monta Ellis before, but not this year, I guess this offseason he's become Steve Nash because all you talk about is how great he is at everything.

From what I've seen of Eillis, he's a scorer.

What else doesn't Ellis do that is so great. 5.3 assists in 41.4 minutes. 4.2 turnovers. He gets 2 steals but anyone can get steals if they take risks. Doesn't mean you're a good defensive player. And we know Golden State sucks on defense.

You get into this "he's a better basketball player." issue. Guys can be better players but if someone does something really well, like Gordon, I would rather have him.

Horace Grant is better "basketball player" than Dennis Rodman. But I'd take Rodman in his prime over Grant.

Monta Ellis is a good player but the reason is good is because he scores. Not his passing or his ball handling. I'm pretty sure he got that deal from Golden State because he put the ball in the basket, Not because of his court vision.

[Diddy1122]

Dpauley23 wrote:

clonetrooper264 wrote:

Let me just throw in a few witty comments here because there's just so much here that I can't even respond to one thing.

1) I just think it's funny that this is a KIRK HINRICH thread and you're arguing about Ben Gordon. I admit, I'm at fault too for mentioning him, but come on, it's pretty funny that this happens in pretty much every Hinrich thread.
2) Out of curiosity, if this is the church of St. Ben...is Hinrich the antichrist (or I suppose it would be antiben)? :P
3) It's fairly safe to say that if Ben shot even 5 or 6 more shots per game, he'd be scoring near 20 points if he was 100% fully healthy and still shooting 42% or something that's lower than what we would expect from him.
4) If Kush is a reverend in this church, is Fred the pope or something? (No offense Fred, you know I have the utmost respect for you)
5) Ellis is a good player. A very good player in fact. But he and Gordon have different kinds of games. Ellis is Roselike in that he slashes and attacks the basket a lot. Gordon, as we all know, is a jumpshooter. Now this is just my understanding, but if you shoot closer to the basket, doesn't your FG% go up? And if you shoot a lot of jumpers, won't it go down? Generally speaking, I would expect this to be true. It would then make sense that Ellis would have a higher FG% because he's not shooting a lot of jumpers as part of his 22 shots...relatively. Now I don't know if this is totally true or not as I haven't seen much of Ellis at all, but based on your comments, it seems that it would hold true.
6) It does seem rather silly to have an 11.6 million per year player come off the bench doesn't it? Makes Kirk seem like a bargain...sorta. Except he's starting now so I guess that's no longer valid. :P

The thing that find wierd is why does everyone clash Hinrich and Ben together. It wasn't Hinrich's fault Gordon didn't sign here it was. It was Deng plain and simple. The Bulls chose Deng over Gordon

It's a product of the media in this town. They've always been talked about in the same breath. And it's pretty useless because anytime you say anything about Kirk it comes back to a BG argument or vice versa. I find it quite comical.

My only issue is the treatment that Ben got from the media in this town. Ben's faults were paraded around more than Bristol Palin's illegitamate pregnancy during the Presidential campaign. Even when he was doing something good, there was always some sort of slighted comment thrown in there just to let everyone know this guy's not as important to this team's success. It was, and still is, never this way with Kirk. When Kirk stinks it up out there, there's a comment thrown in like "shutdown defense" or "hustle" or "thrust" to justify why he's important to this team. Kirk has always been the Golden Boy, while Ben has been that second cousin who spits when he talks & showers only once a month.

[clonetrooper264]

Diddy1122 wrote:

Dpauley23 wrote:

clonetrooper264 wrote:

Let me just throw in a few witty comments here because there's just so much here that I can't even respond to one thing.

1) I just think it's funny that this is a KIRK HINRICH thread and you're arguing about Ben Gordon. I admit, I'm at fault too for mentioning him, but come on, it's pretty funny that this happens in pretty much every Hinrich thread.
2) Out of curiosity, if this is the church of St. Ben...is Hinrich the antichrist (or I suppose it would be antiben)? :P
3) It's fairly safe to say that if Ben shot even 5 or 6 more shots per game, he'd be scoring near 20 points if he was 100% fully healthy and still shooting 42% or something that's lower than what we would expect from him.
4) If Kush is a reverend in this church, is Fred the pope or something? (No offense Fred, you know I have the utmost respect for you)
5) Ellis is a good player. A very good player in fact. But he and Gordon have different kinds of games. Ellis is Roselike in that he slashes and attacks the basket a lot. Gordon, as we all know, is a jumpshooter. Now this is just my understanding, but if you shoot closer to the basket, doesn't your FG% go up? And if you shoot a lot of jumpers, won't it go down? Generally speaking, I would expect this to be true. It would then make sense that Ellis would have a higher FG% because he's not shooting a lot of jumpers as part of his 22 shots...relatively. Now I don't know if this is totally true or not as I haven't seen much of Ellis at all, but based on your comments, it seems that it would hold true.
6) It does seem rather silly to have an 11.6 million per year player come off the bench doesn't it? Makes Kirk seem like a bargain...sorta. Except he's starting now so I guess that's no longer valid. :P

The thing that find wierd is why does everyone clash Hinrich and Ben together. It wasn't Hinrich's fault Gordon didn't sign here it was. It was Deng plain and simple. The Bulls chose Deng over Gordon

It's a product of the media in this town. They've always been talked about in the same breath. And it's pretty useless because anytime you say anything about Kirk it comes back to a BG argument or vice versa. I find it quite comical.

My only issue is the treatment that Ben got from the media in this town. Ben's faults were paraded around more than Bristol Palin's illegitamate pregnancy during the Presidential campaign. Even when he was doing something good, there was always some sort of slighted comment thrown in there just to let everyone know this guy's not as important to this team's success. It was, and still is, never this way with Kirk. When Kirk stinks it up out there, there's a comment thrown in like "shutdown defense" or "hustle" or "thrust" to justify why he's important to this team. Kirk has always been the Golden Boy, while Ben has been that second cousin who spits when he talks & showers only once a month.

I agree that it is the media who blows things out of proportion, but that doesn't mean that we, as educated and knowledgeable Bulls fans, should too. Kirk is a good player, Ben is a good player. Ben is a shooter/scorer, Kirk is mainly a defender, but is a bit more versatile in that he can also run a team and play off the ball and hit the occasional 3 and whatnot. They're two totally different kinds of players and provide different things for a team. If you want a player who's going to score, you pick Ben every time. If you want a player who can play defense, you'd pick Hinrich every time. The Kirk/Ben backcourt worked so well because they complimented each other so well. Just because the media makes it seem that Kirk was saving Ben's butt with his defense does not mean we need to think that in reality it was Ben saving Kirk's butt with shooting. Both factors contributed. They balanced out each other's weaknesses. And just the same, we need to balance the praise and criticism we give to each player.

[Diddy1122]

Well also the other reason BG was brought up is because he held the 3pt champ title before Kirk, so naturally a BG vs Kirk argument had to break out at some point.

But once we get Bosh next season & are on our way to title town, all this arguments should hopefully be put to bed.

[Kush77]

Diddy1122 wrote:

Well also the other reason BG was brought up is because he held the 3pt champ title before Kirk, so naturally a BG vs Kirk argument had to break out at some point.

But once we get Bosh next season & are on our way to title town, all this arguments should hopefully be put to bed.

I'm not even arguing about Ben Gordon being on the Bulls.

I'm just talking about Gordon as a player on his own. I've moved past Gordon being on the Bulls.

I can't even remember how Gordon got brought up. I'll have to scroll back a few pages.

[Diddy1122]

Kush77 wrote:

Diddy1122 wrote:

Well also the other reason BG was brought up is because he held the 3pt champ title before Kirk, so naturally a BG vs Kirk argument had to break out at some point.

But once we get Bosh next season & are on our way to title town, all this arguments should hopefully be put to bed.

I'm not even arguing about Ben Gordon being on the Bulls.

I'm just talking about Gordon as a player on his own. I've moved past Gordon being on the Bulls.

I can't even remember how Gordon got brought up. I'll have to scroll back a few pages.

Yea I know. I was just poking a lil fun.

And BG was brought up by Mark in the original post cuz we all know we can't talk about BG without talking about Kirk. I think Sinatra wrote a song about it.

[clonetrooper264]

Diddy1122 wrote:

Well also the other reason BG was brought up is because he held the 3pt champ title before Kirk, so naturally a BG vs Kirk argument had to break out at some point.

But once we get Bosh next season & are on our way to title town, all this arguments should hopefully be put to bed.

Amen to that! B)

[Shakes]

Kush77 wrote:

I can't even remember how Gordon got brought up. I'll have to scroll back a few pages.

He got brought up in the first post of the thread.

[Kush77]

Shakes wrote:

Kush77 wrote:

I can't even remember how Gordon got brought up. I'll have to scroll back a few pages.

He got brought up in the first post of the thread.

Oh yeah. He pointed out that Gordon got the record in less shots and games.

[TheStig]

Kush you are crazy, you argue with Kush all the time and expect different results. Its really not worth the pounding your keyboard takes. Its like arguing the color of the sky, you could have ten people saying its blue and Hou will come out and argue for days its red.

[houheffna]

I didnt say anywhere in this thread anything about Gordon and number one option money. He is overpaid...period and shouldn't have gotten a dime over Ellis. Gordon as a Bull, did well, Gordon as a Piston...is struggling...who is the system player again?

My referring to number one option money was Charlie V. But if you paid Gordon to be the number one option then this year is a huge disappointment and if they could I am sure Dumars would move his contract but he can't.

Kush you are crazy, you argue with Kush all the time and expect different results. Its really not worth the pounding your keyboard takes. Its like arguing the color of the sky, you could have ten people saying its blue and Hou will come out and argue for days its red.

By saying that I would argue for days its red, you make it seem as if I am wrong or delusional...If I argue that the sky is red, then dammit it must be red!

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

I didnt say anywhere in this thread anything about Gordon and number one option money. He is overpaid...period and shouldn't have gotten a dime over Ellis. Gordon as a Bull, did well, Gordon as a Piston...is struggling...who is the system player again?

My referring to number one option money was Charlie V. But if you paid Gordon to be the number one option then this year is a huge disappointment and if they could I am sure Dumars would move his contract but he can't.

Charlie V makes about a mill over the MLE this year. He is making about a third of number one option money. He is not stopping any team from doing anything. Not a good deal but not a cap crusher. He certainly has all the talent to be a starting pf, maybe they can get something out of him yet. He is not even a year removed from averaging 16 and 6.7. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't we currently paying someone more who hasn't even played a game for us.

[Shakes]

I don't even know why everyone is so down on Charlie V. He's going through a bad stretch right now, but earlier in the season he was playing really well, and was a major reason they won games even with the injuries. I don't really get why the Pistons are starting Jerebko ahead of him.

Part of it is probably just moving to a different team too. Skiles has his problems as an offensive coach, but he sure knows how to use guys like Deng and Charlie V well. Actually it really doesn't say much good about your coach when both your high priced new guys struggle. Maybe my Dumars bashing should be directed at Kuester?

[houheffna]

Charlie V makes about a mill over the MLE this year. He is making about a third of number one option money. He is not stopping any team from doing anything. Not a good deal but not a cap crusher. He certainly has all the talent to be a starting pf, maybe they can get something out of him yet. He is not even a year removed from averaging 16 and 6.7. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't we currently paying someone more who hasn't even played a game for us.

I apologize for not expounding better. My worthy opponent Kush was spouting out the usual pro-Gordon talking points and using that psychology some of you seem to have down when talking about BG. Which is to denigrate EVERYBODY ELSE around him in order to promote his position. Happened here with Rose and Hinrich and even the people who coached him. Now in Detroit, he is somehow linked with Charlie V. Kush disagreed with me that Gordon should not have gotten that contract, and begin to speak of the advantages of signing Gordon and the disadvantages of signing Charlie V. Kush (putting Charlie V's name right under my name and Kirk Hinrich's on the "satan list") stated that Charlie V was a waste of money and shouldn't have gotten that contract. He stated that Charlie V has never been the number one option on any team. I then replied that he didn't get number one option money so there was no argument there, I think Charlie V's contract is a decent one all things considered. The team would have a much easier time moving Charlie's contract than Gordon's...

As far as the Gordon/Ellis argument, that came up because I said Gordon shouldn't get paid one red cent more than Ellis, who is a better player. So Kush went into "Rev. Kush" mode and started denigrating Ellis' abilities on the court, simplifying them by calling him a system player. So I responded by being very peaceful and serene...:P

And so there you have it, I was just making a point and Kush used his bully pulpit to beat up on little ol' me. Damn shame...lol!

[pinkizdead]

are you high? monte ellis scored 22 pts on 22 shots.

[houheffna]

are you high? monte ellis scored 22 pts on 22 shots.

what exactly are you talking about...