Hinrich gets cheered and a video montage in his return

I think it mostly has to do with sports fan psychology.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I would suggest the story goes something like this:

Sports fandom is largely about group identity and being an easy way to exercise in-group/out-group exclusions in a way that is easily defined by all parties and gives sports fans the advantage of not having to feel like an ass about doing it.

When Pax took over, the team stunk, and his management was obviously guided by a particular ideology, which allowed lots of Chicago fans to embellish their fandom with a new type of identity: gritty, lunch-pale, hard nosed guys who always tried hard.

This may not have been accurate, or even beneficial in light of other things, but to fans it felt good, and it helped elevate the status of the bulls' in their own eyes. It also had the advantage of allowing fans to feel good about the team even if it was not performing well, which is even better.

Kirk Hinrich was the first significant player added when the new regime took over, and at least superficially, symbolized all these qualities.

The Kirk Hinrich that people rooted for was less Kirk Hinrich the player, who was a moderate talent, and was more Kirk Hinrich the symbol. This is not PC, but the fact that he was white and from Kansas (which has the image of being rural) probably helped.

The fact that he wasn't especially good at anything helped as well, because it allowed people to revel in the 'aww shucks, he just tries so hard' kind of stuff.

Ben's calling card was that he was uniquely talented at one particular thing, which is easily measured (scoring), and so it was easy to judge when he was not doing well.

The fact that he played the same position as Kirk did not help as well, since it made it easier to compare the two.

 

We didn't turn the corner and become a signficant team until we had Ben Gordon

/story

 

Well Iowa actually but yeah college at Kansas

Rural modesty ...middle class values and white as the cob with the corn chewed off it

Yah.. that'll do it.

The other thing too is we maybe come back to this bizzare idea of money and how we feel about a player.

Ben wanted to get paid and went where he could get paid. The collective mantra on Ben was that he wasn't worth it because he didn't provide the "intangibles" that Kirk did and that he was doubly a dirty dog for the fact he had the tumerity to determine his market value and take his talents to the Motor City

Kirk stayed and got paid

Ben chased the money and left ... although I honestly believe that once we drafted Derrick Rose I don't think the Bulls had any serious intention of retaining him even at discount.

 

And props to Ben for always having class and being a real pro

He ended his tenure with the Bulls in the best possible way and I will always remember his incredible contributions in that epic Boston series.

 

Yeah, Ben didn't really get a fair deal here from the fans.

Him and Kirk are both good players but I think hindsight would reveal that Ben has been slightly better over the years.

 

Independent of the Ben argument, which I largely agree with but am also aiming to largely steer clear of, my thoughts on Kirk are also a little different.

I agree that there's a big disparity between Kirk the player and Kirk the symbol

What I'd underscore is just how much the player's career is at odds with the myth.

* The myth was a player with limited athletic talent. The reality is that when he came in the league, he was very agile (go look at his combine numbers) and certainly within the margins of what successful NBA players test in other categories.

* The myth is an overachiever, but looking at the totality of his career, it's hard not to see wasted potential and under-achievement. I know PER's an imperfect measure, but it does largely track with everything else I've seen. In summary, Kirk was a very good player his first four years. Maybe the comparisons to Stockton and Nash were overrought, but they weren't as entirely silly as they seem now either. He was very successful, very early.

* And then he really, really fell apart. From 03-07, he compiled a total 15.3 PER, 107 ORtg and 103 DRtg with a 20.9 usage rate. From 07 onward, he's compiled 12.6 PER, 105 ORtg and 108 DRtg with a 17.6 usage rate. He underperformed more or less across the board.

* He put on quite a bit of weight, and I don't see where it has ever helped him on the court. On the other hand, he's clearly slowed down and lost some of his agility, which was his comparative advantage to start with, and some hops, which he couldn't afford to lose much of.

* In other situations, we look at this pattern and see a guy who got a big contract and started to take it easy. In short, the exact opposite of what a gritty, all-heart guy who competes for love of the game would do.

 

Looking back on it, were the bulls really ever a significant team? They never even won 50 games. That's the biggest thing to me, much like the bulls were never really significant, BG wasn't in any way all that special. Sure he made some tough shots, but he took all the tough shots, and a lot of the shots he took were tough because he wasn't good enough to take any easier ones.

On the other hand, Hinrich at least played the PR the right way. His aww shucks routine is hard not to like. That doesn't make him a great basketball player, but he's definitely somebody you can root for. Contrast that with BG, a guy who always seemed to just shrug his shoulders and walk away after bricking another step back, fadeaway 20 footer that would have tied or won a game. And for every shot he did make, there were a couple of bricks and soul crushing strip at the top of the key by the big man who stepped out on the pick and roll.

The difference between how they are received has to do with how they left. Hinrich was traded away after taking the deal the bulls offered him. BG turned his nose up at the same deal, even a little bit more, and left for what, 10% more? And left to go to the bulls most hated rival. It's tough to root for a guy like that.

 

1). I agree that at the end of the day Ben is not a 'super special' player, but he is a darn good one.

2). No one else was better suited to take the shots that Ben did than Ben. Ben was an elite shooter when he was on the Bulls. I never understood the people who thought Ben was an awkward fit on the team. Kirk was a combo guard who could guard both spots equally well and choked in crunch time. Ben was a volume scorer on a team where no one else was particularly good at it.

3). Outside of the way they were perceived, how did one guy play 'the PR game' any better than the other? They were both mild mannered. The examples you give have to do with Ben's shot selection, not how he played the 'PR game.' When it came to good PR, Ben also had a lot more going against him than Kirk.

The only part of your post that I really agree with is the last paragraph. Kirk went out as a sacrifical lamb to the team's greater mission, whereas Ben left for a bigger contract, so people held it against him.

Personally, I don't see why NBA players owe anything to a team outside of what their contract obliges them to, so I had no problem with Ben leaving (besides the fact that he wouldn't play for us). Contract negotiations with Ben went on for two years, and the Bulls never really seemed to make as strong an offer as the Pistons did, so I don't blame him for leaving.

It looks like he went to where he thought he was the most appreciated and paid well.....does anybody do anything that much differently in a job search?