I still love you, Ben Gordon

So I generally try to avoid talking about Gordon much any more because he's gone, not coming back, and I think it's a boring conversation where I know exactly what everyone is going to say anyway.

Last night, though, I realized the recent round of Gordon bashing from guys like Doug Thonus was worth talking about. His basic argument is that Rose needed to step up and be dominant, and couldn't do that with Gordon around for some reason:

I think what ticks me off about this isn't specifically about Gordon, but about the dime store, Neil Funk school of basketball psychology that says you have to "teach" your good players to be selfish by surrounding them with shitty players who can't play.

That makes no sense at all. Rose was going to improve in any case. In that sense, whether he’s playing next to Ben or Kirk is irrelevant. But if you’re saying that Rose is somehow better for not playing next to Gordon, you’re either contradicting yourself or saying he’d also be better if he wasn’t playing next to Hinrich. Which is back to not making any sense.

I mean, to really “fulfill his potential” as a player, do we have to go a season where Derrick is the only player we let on the court? We can just let him play 1 on 5, and I’m sure he’ll get a lot better. The Cavs want to trade us Lebron for a 2nd rounder? No way. Then Derrick won’t fulfill his potential because he won’t get so many touches.

The real irony, and what’s really stupid about the “surround Derrick with shitty players to make him great” argument is that surrounding a good player with shitty ones usually makes a good player worse instead of better.

Folks understand that basketball is very much about learning, hard work and habit. Guys who are constantly struggling because they have shitty teammates learn a variety of bad habits. Like not to trust their teammates. To be selfish. To take shot after shot without looking around for other options. To many guys this becomes ingrained and they’re permanently ruined by it.

Learning to play with other good players takes work too. The difference is, it requires you to have other good players to work with, and it’s actually conducive to winning in the long run.

Last night really put the lie to the "Derrick is going to be accountable now that Ben is gone" lie because we had a must win game. It was time to see where this was going to get us.

I can just hear guys saying "Derrick has learned so much from this. He'd defer with Gordon here! He’d never get the opportunity to shoot enough in a must win game with Ben “Me, Me, Me, and Only Me!” Gordon here. That guy would hog all the shots, and Rose would never get the chance to shine. Thankfully, we dumped him and stuck with Kirk Hinrich and Luol Deng, role players who are happy to let Derrick do the heavy lifting."

Of course, the reality is that last night Rose played 5 minutes less than both Hinrich and Deng, and took only 12 shots versus their 16 and 17. I guess Derrick just forgot to "be the man", "step up", "be accountable", and "not defer" last night. Maybe Ben Gordon called him and messed with his head before the game.

 

You kind of miss the point. The point isn't that Rose needed to play with shitty players. The point is that he needs the ball in his hands to learn how to be effective. And he needs to be around players who make the game easier for him in a team focused way. BG did neither of those. BG needed the ball in his hands to be effective, and didn't make Rose more effective on either the offensive or defensive end. Rose is better this year because he doesn't have to compete for shots with BG, not in spite of BG not being here.

Basketball isn't a democracy. The best teams have an established pecking order where the best players are the most effective. With BG around, the bulls didn't have that. Rose is already a more effective, efficient player than BG will ever be (look at the stats, watch the games.) And BG wasn't interested in being a catch and shoot, play some defense compliment to Rose probably because you don't get $11 mil/year to be that guy. I can't say I blame him for that, but by being a guy who needed the ball and competed with Rose for looks, he ultimately hurt Rose and the bulls.

And no, Hinrich isn't a shooting guard.

And the reason Rose played 5 minutes less than Hinrich has more to do with the "excellent" coaching he's getting from VDN than anything else.

And you don't pay a guy $11 mil/year to sit around and wait for the few nights that Rose doesn't bring his A game.

 

First, Rose got plenty of shots and opportunities last year, so it's far from evident that they were incompatible. They passed to each other plenty, and simply by being on court together they forced teams to change how they defended.

There’s literally no evidence that Gordon refused to do that. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence, based on Rose taking late game shots, and taking plenty of shots, that he was a willing teammate. After locking into a six year contract, if the Bulls had obliged him, Gordon would have had even less incentive, if there ever was any, to not work and play well with Rose. At that point, nothing he did would affect his paycheck one way or another. So the logical thing to do would be to go out and try to win.

To be effective, Rose, like any good player, needs to learn to play with other good players. That means having the ball in your hands, but mostly it means making good decisions with the ball in your hands. And putting shitty players around your decision-maker leads to shitty decision and losing. Like last night.

 

I love how the BG apologists wait for the one bad game to cry about BG leaving. Sorry, but if Deng and Noah don't go out for a month each at the end of the season, last night's game would have been for who gets the fifth seed, and that's with Hinrich shooting 40%. So no, they didn't miss or need BG in any way. Rose isn't playing with shitty players. He's getting shitty coaching. They lost the Phoenix game because of shitty coaching just like they lost last night. The talent is there, they just need to put it together and that is where the coaching comes in.

And the evidence is right in front of you. BG's a guy with a career 2.9 assists per game, and 2.4 TO's per game. He doesn't pass, and you don't want him to. But we've watched him and we know he isn't a catch and shoot guy either. He's a streaky shooter who tries to create off of the dribble and is a below average defender. Exactly how does that help Rose? Deng is a more efficient scorer. Hinrich is a much better defender who is way more adept at getting other players involved. So where is the evidence that the bulls need a player who has to have the ball to be effective, and needs forty minutes a night to ensure that they get the "hot" five minutes?

Seems to me like they need more depth at 3-5 and a better coach than they need BG. At least that's what the evidence shows.

 

I love how "BG haters" sound like completely ignorant douches whenever it gets mentioned. I guess tone has to substitute for lack of content. But really that's sort of an odd statement. I take it to imply you think this is the first bad game the Bulls have had? Laughable. This is the assessment as the season is coming to a close.

Ceteris paribus.

The fact we did well for a while demonstrates we improved in other areas.

* Vinny even shittier last year. If that's possible.
* Deng was healthy. Or more healthy.
* Noah improved demonstrably.
* Rose improved demonstrably.
* We added Gibson and he was pretty good.
* We had somewhat competent play (after the beginning and before the end) from Salmons and Miller.

Our injuries last year were significant too. Hinrich and Deng both missed close to half the season. So that's pretty much a push. Given the various improvements we had from last year, the evidence of Gordon's beneficial effects is pretty clear.

So, once you control for the differences, the evidence is actually that Gordon had a large and positive effect. Despite all the various improvements the Bulls have had in other areas, it hasn't been enough to offset his loss. Thus, Gordon's value to the team was clearly greater than sum of those improvements and the couple extra games we'll probably lose this year that we didn't lose last year.

 

I was of the camp that wanted to resign Gordon and trade Hinrich! We would still have had some money to sign some quality players this summer, but then what do I know.

 

Nice ad hominem reply, that sure proves your point...

No, the Deng and Hinrich injuries were not a wash. They largely didn't overlap like Deng and Noah did this year. The bulls showed last year and more this year that could adjust to being one starter down. So two out at that critical juncture was devastating, especially given how well they were playing when Noah went out.

And Vinny has been worse this year, mostly because he should have learned from the mistakes he's already made. But he keeps making the same ones. Whether it's shitty rotations, or not making in game adjustments, he comes up small at important spots. If Skiles were still the coach, do the bulls limp to the finish like they are?

Btw, I'm not a BG "hater", I'm a BG "lover" hater. Why anybody wants to carry a torch for a one-dimensional player who isn't that good, really only had one good year, and was more interested in the money than anything else is beyond me.

 

There's several points to be made, but this particular one there is that insulting, ad hominem posts are likely to generate ad hominem replies. It'd be a lot more pleasant for everyone to leave that stuff out and just talk about basketball.

Fair point. Yet I also think the rest of the post still stands. Leaving Gordon out of the equation, the Bulls had (even after trading Salmons) more talent this year than last. While we can point to the injuries at the end of the year to some extent, it also should have been offset by better play at the beginning of the year.

I'm not following there. If the actual mistakes are similar he's equally bad, not worse, in real terms. The fact he hasn't lived up to our greater expectations doesn't make him better or worse than he actually is.

Regardless of the precise nature of your hate, it's boring and you'd be better off without it.

The larger point really wasn't about Gordon at all. It wasn't about carrying a torch for him in particular, although I might to an extent. I thought I was acknowledging that without being over the top with the sarcastic "I love you" bit. But anyway, it was this idea that's been promulgated in defense of letting Gordon go that it was somehow necessary to allow Rose to improve. That's just nonsense.

Even if one thinks Gordon is a one-dimensional ballhog, it's irrelevant to the argument that Rose has to be a non-deferential, ball in his hands, macho man on offense and can't play with another guy like that.

Because here's the thing. All the other good players are ballhogs too. The argument that at least somewhat makes sense to me is that we're better off paying Joe Johnson, for example, $18M/yr than paying Gordon $9M/yr is that Johnson brings better defense, rebounding, etc. I don't agree with those valuations, but I can at least understand them. But to say you can't play Rose with have Gordon because he "dominates the ball" or whatever is to say he can't play with Joe Johnson either. Because Johnson dominates the ball too. He's not some catch and shoot guy. Neither is Wade, Lebron, or Chris Bosh.

Neither was Paul Pierce or Kevin Garnett when they teamed up. Ray Allen sort of was, but he was much more so a high usage player who dominated lots of possessions start to finish.

So if you're gonna say that Derrick Rose can't play with Gordon for that reason, you're saying he can't play with any other good offensive players. Because if Gordon's one-dimensional, we at least agree that the dimension he's good at is that dimension.

So at the end of the day, it's sort of nonsense. Rose will have to learn to share and command authority when playing with other players who "dominate the ball" on offense. By letting them have turns, he'll create better scoring opportunities for himself and vice versa. It's not that the player's always need to be passing the ball back and forth, you need the threat of passing the ball back and forth, and the threat of feinting to one guy or the other to create better looks for everyone.

 

A guy who scores around 20 points shooting deep 2's and 3's and averages 2 assts and about as many TO's and doesn't play much D is a one dimensional player. Denny, we get that you don't get it. No need to keep reminding us.