Luol Deng: Top 5 Player in the League?

[quote name='Denny Crane'][quote name='Kid Chocolate'][quote name='Denny Crane'][quote name='Kid Chocolate']

So what you are basically saying is that the Bulls would always be competitive to the point where it was close in the 4th quarter, and Ben Gordon is single-handedly responsible for winning them 24 games?</p>

[/QUOTE] Yep, that's about the truth.</p>

Not only did he hit an amazing number of clutch game winners at the buzzer, he also had a number of 20pt 4th quarters. When the bulls don't need a game winner and win, a lot of the time, he has like 8 of the team's last 10 points.</p>

21.4 PPG, 3.6 APG, 45.5% FG, 41.5% 3PT and good defense.</p>

I think it's pretty fair to say that Hinrich needs Gordon and Deng, to win, more than the others need Hinrich. Not that Hinrich is a bad player or anything. He's just not a #1 guy.</p>

</p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

</p>

So you are saying that the acquisitions of Deng and Hinrich meant nothing, if BG was single-handedly responsible, correct? So the Bulls would always be competitive, but just needed a clutch scorer to take over in the 4th? So, if we eliminate Hinrich and Deng, the team would still be just as good?</p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

No.</p>

But I think without Gordon, the team wins several fewer games.</p>

Without Hinrich, I don't think the team loses many fewer.</p>

</p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

</p>

I can understand that more, but you answered yes to my question which was, "Ben Gordon is single-handedly responsible for winning them 24 games?" I can see Ben being important to the team, but I feel like BG7 is throwing Kirk under the bus and giving ALL the credit to Gordon, & nothing else. </p>

 

[quote name='Denny Crane'][quote name='Kid Chocolate'][quote name='Denny Crane'][quote name='Kid Chocolate']

So what you are basically saying is that the Bulls would always be competitive to the point where it was close in the 4th quarter, and Ben Gordon is single-handedly responsible for winning them 24 games?</p>

[/QUOTE]
Yep, that's about the truth.</p>

Not only did he hit an amazing number of clutch game winners at the buzzer, he also had a number of 20pt 4th quarters. When the bulls don't need a game winner and win, a lot of the time, he has like 8 of the team's last 10 points.</p>

21.4 PPG, 3.6 APG, 45.5% FG, 41.5% 3PT and good defense.</p>

I think it's pretty fair to say that Hinrich needs Gordon and Deng, to win, more than the others need Hinrich. Not that Hinrich is a bad player or anything. He's just not a #1 guy.</p>

</p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

</p>

So you are saying that the acquisitions of Deng and Hinrich meant nothing, if BG was single-handedly responsible, correct? So the Bulls would always be competitive, but just needed a clutch scorer to take over in the 4th? So, if we eliminate Hinrich and Deng, the team would still be just as good?</p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

No.</p>

But I think without Gordon, the team wins several fewer games.</p>

Without Hinrich, I don't think the team loses many fewer.</p>

</p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

</p>

I agree, that if BG7 wasn't there, they would have lost many more games, but to say that if they didn't have Kirk Hunrich, they wouldn't lose much more games. Kirk Hinrich is a key player to the Bulls. He puts up 12.1 PPG and 7.5 APG + 4 RPG.</p>

To say that their record wouldn't change if they lost that is wrong. They would of lost a lot more games without Kirk Hinrich...</p>

 

Just putting it out there, from 04/05.</p>

Without Hinrich: 5-0 (82-0)Without Deng: 6-4 (49-33)</p>

I think in order of importance for the 04-05 team was Gordon, Chandler, Curry, Davis, Deng, Nocioni, Hinrich, Duhon. </p>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Just putting it out there, from 04/05.</p>

Without Hinrich: 5-0 (82-0)Without Deng: 6-4 (49-33)</p>

I think in order of importance for the 04-05 team was Gordon, Chandler, Curry, Davis, Deng, Nocioni, Hinrich, Duhon. </p>

</div></p>

</p>

5 games without Hinrich they beat</p>

Toronto - 33-49</p>

Boston - 45-37</p>

</p>

Indiana - 44-38 (without starting PG, J. Tinsley)</p>

Memphis - 45-37 (without starting SF, J. Posey)</p>

Charlotte - 18-64</p>

Not to mention it was in the midst of a 9 game winning streak, so the team was playing good ball.</p>

</p>

 

Deng missed from March 1st to March 21st of that year. When he came back the Bulls rattled off a 9 game winning streak.

 

In 04-05 Gordon played the 7th most minutes per game on the team. Why would the most important player on the team only play 24 minutes a game?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'>In 04-05 Gordon played the 7th most minutes per game on the team. Why would the most important player on the team only play 24 minutes a game?</div></p>

Because what he did in his 24 minutes was more impactful than what the other players did in their minutes.</p>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'>In 04-05 Gordon played the 7th most minutes per game on the team. Why would the most important player on the team only play 24 minutes a game?</div></p>

Because what he did in his 24 minutes was more impactful than what the other players did in their minutes.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

So what was the reasoning for him not getting more minutes?</p>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'>In 04-05 Gordon played the 7th most minutes per game on the team. Why would the most important player on the team only play 24 minutes a game?</div></p>

Because what he did in his 24 minutes was more impactful than what the other players did in their minutes.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

So what was the reasoning for him not getting more minutes? </p>

</div></p>

Scott Skiles was prepping him to be a superstar in the league. Gordon has been a noticeably tighter leash than any other player on the Bulls. In 2004, when Paxson made Ben Gordon the #3 overall pick, Paxson made Gordon his prized posessions of sorts. It was Skiles job to allow Ben to reach his potential. With the short leash approached, Ben has become a more disciplined player because of it, allowing him to be a much more efficient scorer than guys like Allen Iverson and Gilbert Arenas, keeping Ben out of the chucker category.</p>

Same thing is happened with Tyrus Thomas last year. He's on the short leash because he is one of Paxson's prized posessions. He only gets limited burn, but Skiles was able to try to suck as much of the immense positive impact that Tyrus would bring last year as he could. Gordon was more experienced than Thomas of last year, thus Gordon was allowed to have a larger role while still being on the short leash. </p>

 

So by coddling Gordon, they were catering to the individual and not the team. If Gordon made such a huge impact, in larger minutes the team could have been that much better, and not get knocked out in the first round.</p>

</p>

Screw the Bulls, let's just market BG!</p>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'>

So by coddling Gordon, they were catering to the individual and not the team. If Gordon made such a huge impact, in larger minutes the team could have been that much better, and not get knocked out in the first round.</p>

</p>

Screw the Bulls, let's just market BG! </p>

</div></p>

They weren't coddling Ben. They're tougher on him than any other player on the team. The only guys that Skiles has acted tougher on have been Eddie Robinson and Tim Thomas, and thats just because he thought they were lazy jackasses. </p>

The Bulls playoff problems (getting knocked out in the first round) were more so due to both Curry and Deng being out. </p>

 

If Deng & Curry were out, why did Ben still only play 25 mpg (basically on par with his season average) in the playoffs?

 

so are you saying ben gordon is a better than on defense than hinrich? or deng?</p>

so then who is the best all-around player on the bulls, really?</p>

who's gonna try to guard a player like ray allen, or iverson, or someone like that when they get hot? certainly not gordon, that'd go to hinrich or deng. </p>

and really, ben gordon just takes more shots than anyone else in the 4th quarter. and that season, he was "chillen" till the 4th quarter, where he was counted on to score the most. he was used more as a role player in that sense, to simply put up points with the advantage of being less fatigued than other players. </p>

i'll give it to gordon, though, he sure did thrive in that role.</p>

but, ya know, ben gordon just sucks at defense. that's why he doesn't get more minutes than hinrich and deng, and that's why hinrich and deng are better.</p>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'>In 04-05 Gordon played the 7th most minutes per game on the team. Why would the most important player on the team only play 24 minutes a game?</div>ya...chris duhon, the 2nd round pick that year, played 25 minutes per game. and played much better defense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (peg182)</div><div class='quotemain'>

so are you saying ben gordon is a better than on defense than hinrich? or deng?</p>

so then who is the best all-around player on the bulls, really?</p>

who's gonna try to guard a player like ray allen, or iverson, or someone like that when they get hot? certainly not gordon, that'd go to hinrich or deng. </p>

and really, ben gordon just takes more shots than anyone else in the 4th quarter. and that season, he was "chillen" till the 4th quarter, where he was counted on to score the most. he was used more as a role player in that sense, to simply put up points with the advantage of being less fatigued than other players. </p>

i'll give it to gordon, though, he sure did thrive in that role. </p>

but, ya know, ben gordon just sucks at defense. that's why he doesn't get more minutes than hinrich and deng, and that's why hinrich and deng are better. </p>

</div></p>

Ben would guard Allen Iverson like he did in every match up last year against Iverson. Kirk is too slow to guard Iverson. Kirk would guard Ray Allen.</p>

In 2004-2005, the defense (overall team defense) was better with Gordon on the court than Hinrich and Deng. (Not sure where the Deng argument really comes in, no one thought he was really special until last season. Most of us were shocked when Skiles said he would start the season instead of Nocioni). Antonio Davis and Chris Duhon were the only ones that did better defensively than Gordon.</p>

2005-2006, the team was better with Gordon on the court on defense than Hinrich and Duhon (not Deng this time).</p>

This year was the first year Hinrich beat him. Gordon's wasn't that bad. .6 points less than Hinrich per 100 posessions, .4 points less than Wallace per 100 posessions on defense. But whats clear as day to see is that the team is best on offense with Ben on the court. Team was best with Ben on the court on offense again last year. </p>

I think looking at this past years playoffs is more telling.</p>

Defensively, when Gordon was on the court, Bulls gave up 88.0 points per 100 posessions. Compare that to Deng, 91.5, and Hinrich, 94.3, and for fun, Sweetney, 143.3.</p>

Offensievly, 96.6 points per 100 with Gordon on the court. 93.6 for Deng, 94.6 for Hinrich. </p>

Now I'm not saying that Ben is a superior defender than Kirk and Deng, or used to be, even though the stats say so. But what this shows is that the Bulls are ALWAYS their best offensively with Ben on the floor, and MOST OF THE TIME at their best defensively with Ben on the court. All the talk about Ben being a defensive liability, holding back the team, is a ton of hog wash.</p>

</p>