# Fallacy: Hinrich not good at running the team



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

What evidence is there for this? I think it's a hackneyed, lazy sentiment along the lines of a) KH isn't a starter in this league, b) KH will get abused on defense in this league, c) KH can't dribble, d) KH can't shoot, e) KH isn't that great of a defender, f) KH isn't that good at PG because his rookie year we sucked, etc. etc. etc.

Anyone else notice a pattern here?


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> What evidence is there for this? I think it's a hackneyed, lazy sentiment along the lines of a) KH isn't a starter in this league, b) KH will get abused on defense in this league, c) KH can't dribble, d) KH can't shoot, e) KH isn't that great of a defender, f) KH isn't that good at PG because his rookie year we sucked, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Anyone else notice a pattern here?


You really didn't present an actual argument.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> You really didn't present an actual argument.


well my eyes tell me Duhon is better at running a team than kirk.

VV you dont want me to bring back those passing stats again.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Maybe Kirk can fly like Superman, too. How would you prove he can't?

But really, Kirk is adaquate as a PG. He does run a nice pick and roll. 

Clearly, he is the same or inferior to Duhon in initiating the offense. Since neither guy can get to the hole and create big-time for teammates, neither Duhon or Kirk make may top 10 in the NBA for pure PGs.

Now if Kirk plays next to a SG that did most of the creating, this weakness becomes less important. It's not nearly to the same scale, but think John Paxson next to MJ.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I wouldn't say Kirk isn't good at running a team, but I will say that he tends to over dribble and that he often does a very poor job passing into the post.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

The thing about VV is this. Inspite of being a great guy and a damn whiz with the stats, he cant seem to understand that its NOT A PUT DOWN to say Kirk isnt that great a PG. I mean, someone like me will say Kirk sucks at the point BUT WAS WORTHY OF BEING THE 44th BEST PLAYER IN THE NBA. Heck, I have said about a 1000 times that Kirk is a better all around player then Gordon. You can compliment Kirk to no end. But as soon as you say he cant play the point, and he really cant, then its a putdown and an argument. Kirk was a better 2 guard in the NBA then a 1 guard the year before. Kirks team was better with him as a 2 guard then a point. THEN Kirk was a better 2 guard in college, no matter what VV says, (all american as a 2 guard, maybe twice) and his teams went to the final 4 and a championship with him there vs being merely a good pg in college on good teams. Kirk can play in the NBA. He is a damn good player. But he isnt the best PG on the roster. And the question becomes, is he the better 2 guard in what eventually will be a war between him and Gordon? I say he is better all around but the question could be, who has more impact? I think Gordon until Kirk actually learns to knock down Js in the mid 40s.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> a) KH isn't a starter in this league, b) KH will get abused on defense in this league, c) KH can't dribble, d) KH can't shoot, e) KH isn't that great of a defender, f) KH isn't that good at PG because his rookie year we sucked



Ummm.... is D correct?.... D --Final Answer


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I thought we were done with the "Kirk can't pass" stage? KH's rookie year, people slammed him because of the low amount of "close assists" he had (per 82games.com). Keep in mind this stat was thought of as a defining characteristic of passing efficiency and the ability to run an offense. Last year, KH had a very good "close assists" number, and the same people who had ripped him a year earlier shrugged it off and moaned about a new topic -- shooting.

39.6% of Hinrich's assists last year were "close" or "dunk".

41.5% of Duhon's assists last year were "close" or "dunk".


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> The thing about VV is this. Inspite of being a great guy and a damn whiz with the stats, he cant seem to understand that its NOT A PUT DOWN to say Kirk isnt that great a PG. I mean, someone like me will say Kirk sucks at the point BUT WAS WORTHY OF BEING THE 44th BEST PLAYER IN THE NBA. Heck, I have said about a 1000 times that Kirk is a better all around player then Gordon. You can compliment Kirk to no end. But as soon as you say he cant play the point, and he really cant, then its a putdown and an argument. Kirk was a better 2 guard in the NBA then a 1 guard the year before. Kirks team was better with him as a 2 guard then a point. THEN Kirk was a better 2 guard in college, no matter what VV says, (all american as a 2 guard, maybe twice) and his teams went to the final 4 and a championship with him there vs being merely a good pg in college on good teams. Kirk can play in the NBA. He is a damn good player. But he isnt the best PG on the roster. And the question becomes, is he the better 2 guard in what eventually will be a war between him and Gordon? I say he is better all around but the question could be, who has more impact? I think Gordon until Kirk actually learns to knock down Js in the mid 40s.


I wish we could compare quotes about Kirk from the summer of 2003.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

The funny thing about kirk is this . 

He is unselfish , and he really has the mentality to get everyone involved at point guard.

on a team like the heat where the point guard isn't a primary playmaker it would be great , and it would fit his strengths as a point guard.

on most teams he would be ok , but there would be something missing from him being an elite point guard, probably people would consider him even a better player than they do now.

On the bulls in a pg run system he is exposed as a guy who has neither a true point guard's vision or the ability to break down defenses to allow himself the easy passes that lead to easy buckets on a consistent buckets and/or fouls.

so what is a guy who can shoot, dribble , play defense at both guard spots , is about 6'4 but lacks a true pg's vision and the handle or athletic ability to break down a team consistently.

a 2 guard,

and it really is that simple , kirk can take the reins at times , most notably in the 4th quarter when its gordon's time to carry the offense with his scoring ....but no , he isn't a true 1 and most likely never will be. And thats fine because Kirk is a good player , he is a 2 with the ability to slide over at the 1 , not as VV would seem to want to convince , the the other way around.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> I wish we could compare quotes about Kirk from the summer of 2003.


But is it the summer of 2003? Why not be a bit more current and look at quotes from me YESTERDAY? Kirk gets a ton of compliments. But he isnt the best PG on the roster. Skiles has even alluded to that himself. Now am I a Skiles fan? No, not really. But he was a PG and I would assume his knowledge of the spot is 1000x better then VV+rlucas's knowledge of that spot. But in the end, all that matters to you is that Kirk not only gets the compliments but that he gets them at the PG spot. Well, I would rather have the best team out there and if that meant playing Kirk at the SF spot, then so be it. But last night, any fool could tell you that the Bulls did best with Duhon at the point and Kirk at the 2. Now, can Kirk be better then Gordon? Now you know I feel about that and my quotes from even the past month should be clear enough.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

" and it really is that simple , kirk can take the reins at times , most notably in the 4th quarter when its gordon's time to carry the offense with his scoring ....but no , he isn't a true 1 and most likely never will be. And thats fine because Kirk is a good player , he is a 2 with the ability to slide over at the 1 , not as VV would seem to want to convince , the the other way around."

DaGrinch, bingo, post of the day.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VV explain this to me .

if kirk has the same ability as duhon to get easy baskets for his teammates , why doesn't he do it at the same rate.

also it should be noted that the previous season Jamal crawford was at a similar rate to duhon on the same stat....and i was fed alot about how kirk would be at the same rate as soon he got better players around him(although none of that answered why JC was able to do it with inferior talent yet Kirk wasn't ), but while he got better , he wasn't at the same level as either of those 2 in the same system.

why?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

You know Bullsville has in his signature our wins and losses with Crawford and without Crawford. But he could easily have our wins and losses with Kirk at the PG spot. Alot of things happened on game #10 last year but one key one was that Kirk was moved to the 2 guard spot. Sure, he played the point some after that, but he was mostly a 2 guard or an off the ball player at that time. And he did a damn good job at it. It was a key moment to our success. Getting Kirk to play his more natural 2 guard spot while getting a PG who actually initiated the offense and could handle pressure led to the success last season. Moving Kirk was a big reason why the Bulls succeeded. And I am assume by Skiles comments that he actually would agree with that.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Hinrich is a great point guard if he can just get into the offense quicker. He has the handles, the vision, and the unselfishness.


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

During the game coverage last night, there was some discussion about how much better a shooter Hinrich is at the United Center than elsewhere (although I believe it was based on this preseasons statistics only not an assessment of his two years prior,) but it made alot of sense. He played four years in college in one of the best home courts you can play in, and they don't play near as many road games. The United Center has a terrific home court advantage as well. Perhaps he should be sneaking into other teams arenas to do his shooting practice.

He also was used to playing for post season, and last year when the post season came around, he did elevate his game. Winning makes him more of a winner, and I suspect Gordon may have similar adjustments to make spreading his fourth quarter intensity to an all around game. Time playing on the road, and continued winning intensity for the team in general is likely to make both players far better than any of their naysayers thinks possible.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

thebullybully said:


> During the game coverage last night, there was some discussion about how much better a shooter Hinrich is at the United Center than elsewhere (although I believe it was based on this preseasons statistics only not an assessment of his two years prior,) but it made alot of sense. He played four years in college in one of the best home courts you can play in, and they don't play near as many road games. The United Center has a terrific home court advantage as well. Perhaps he should be sneaking into other teams arenas to do his shooting practice.
> 
> He also was used to playing for post season, and last year when the post season came around, he did elevate his game. Winning makes him more of a winner, and I suspect Gordon may have similar adjustments to make spreading his fourth quarter intensity to an all around game. Time playing on the road, and continued winning intensity for the team in general is likely to make both players far better than any of their naysayers thinks possible.



Good point on the post season. Hinrich was really very good in the post season and took his game to another level at that time. He was by far the best Bull. VV, did you get that? The best Bull.

My only complaint was that Gilbert Arenas was still better. But then again, Gilbert is going to dust alot of players and I would hardly say he dusted Kirk. But Kirk made it competitive when they were matched up though most of the time Kirk was doing his damage on Hughes and Gilbert was doing his on Duhon.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I wouldn't call Kirk's role last year with Duhon starting at PG to be a pure SG-type of role. He may not have brought the ball up or made the first pass all the time, but a TON of our offense went through him. He ran a lot of pick-and-roll, and it seemed like on any possession where we couldn't quickly get it into Curry for a good look inside, Kirk ended up making the decisions. That may not make him a "pure PG", but I think it does highlight that he could distribute the ball and catalyze the offense. He had good assist numbers despite not being the starting PG in name.

In other words, I think this argument is splitting hairs. Kirk is a basketball player. He can handle the ball, pass, and (sometimes) shoot. He does a good job breaking down defenses off of pick and roll, but can only occasionally create for himself. He plays decent defense on anyone under 6'6" or so, except for the superquick short PGs. Does it really matter whether he fits the profile of a pure PG or SG? I don't think so. I feel pretty comfortable with the ball in his hands, whether he's looking to shoot or distribute. FWIW.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> The funny thing about kirk is this .
> 
> He is unselfish , and he really has the mentality to get everyone involved at point guard.
> 
> ...


Nice post Grinch


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Can I beat the dead horse too?

Vega, I'm with you. Hinrich is very good at running the offense. Duhon is better at it, but he's not so much better at it than Hinrich that he becomes the superior point guard to have on the floor. 

Hinrich's complete package of skills far exceeds Duhon's. Hinrich does have some hybrid skills, but in my book its a point guard with some two guard skills and not the other way around. 

Its great that Hinrich can slide over and play the 2 so that Duhon's undeniable skills can be utilized. But I look forward to the day, hopefully this season, where Hinrich spends most of his time at the 1 with Gordon at the 2. Its up to Gordon to accomplish this, however, not Hinrich or Duhon.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Can I beat the dead horse too?
> 
> Vega, I'm with you. Hinrich is very good at running the offense. Duhon is better at it, but he's not so much better at it than Hinrich that he becomes the superior point guard to have on the floor.
> 
> ...


actually i don't it's upto Gordon anymore... Gordon did his thing this summer, he improved his D, passing and awareness... it all depends if Hinrcih can match upto Du's ability to run an offense... but I think Gordon also needs to WANT the ball and SHOOT it


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

nanokooshball said:


> actually i don't it's upto Gordon anymore... Gordon did his thing this summer, he improved his D, passing and awareness...


that's what people were saying, but he has yet to show it in preseason. That's the issue. Luckily it's only preseason.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> VV explain this to me .
> 
> if kirk has the same ability as duhon to get easy baskets for his teammates , why doesn't he do it at the same rate.


Because KH spends significantly less time at PG, the position that facilitates easy baskets the best out of any on the floor, than does Duhon.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Because KH spends significantly less time at PG, the position that facilitates easy baskets the best out of any on the floor, than does Duhon.


the previous season jamal spent a great deal of time at the 2...it didn't seem to effect him.

why?


I find that this fellow crawford is excellent at debunking myths about kirk.,


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> the previous season jamal spent a great deal of time at the 2...it didn't seem to effect him.


Crawford averaged 5.1 assists and 2.41 turnovers in 35.1 mpg in '03-04. Last year on the Knicks he averaged 4.3 apg in 38.4 mpg.

Hinrich averaged 6.4 assists and 2.29 turnovers in 36.4 mpg last season (and also shot the ball better than Crawford did the year prior).

Between the two, apparently Kirk does a better job of distributing and taking care of the ball.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Crawford averaged 5.1 assists and 2.41 turnovers in 35.1 mpg in '03-04. Last year on the Knicks he averaged 4.3 apg in 38.4 mpg.
> 
> Hinrich averaged 6.4 assists and 2.29 turnovers in 36.4 mpg last season (and also shot the ball better than Crawford did the year prior).
> 
> Between the two, apparently Kirk does a better job of distributing and taking care of the ball.



jamal also avg. 17.3 points 
kirk 11.9

has anyone ever turned the ball over an attempt to score in your world?


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

I agree that Du does better run the team. But if we would have an all-star PF post player ( (preferable 6-10” 250 lb ) and with further development of Deng/Nocioni, our team will be better by playing Kirk and Gordon together, as two guards. 

So, today , IMO we should start :

1.	Smart Duhon
2.	Captain Kirk
3.	Deng- big hope
4.	“Skinny”
5.	Runs like a deer.

Coach : Drill –Sergeant Skiles; Manager : Priest Pax; Owner : Banker JR


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VV 

i question kirk's passing vision and his ability to break down defenses which is why that ratio is inferior.


if kirk is such a true pg this wouldn't be the case, being a true pg is about more than mentality its also about ability, and kirk just doesn't have it to the degree that makes the bulls winners .

supposedly as a rookie it was because he was a rookie and because of inferior talent.

crawford as an experienced vet(even though both kirk and jamal were the exact same # of years out of high school, and JC missed almost a whole year due to injury ....but moving on)

i hear from you that it was because Kirk spent some of his time at the 2 , but jamal the previous year spent _more_ time at the 2 and was still better at it...and was using that inferior talent to do it.

well the following year duhon as a rook was still much better at that than kirk as a 2nd year player and it shows up in his close assist ratio.

all i hear is excuses ...just face the facts Vega, kirk is a 2 and no self respecting fan of the bulls wants his/her team at a disadvantage, and that would be the case with kirk at the 1 all game, in place of duhon.

skiles system as it is now works , and kirk at the 1 the previous season didn't work(19-41 as a starter at pg)....and kirk last season at the 1 was 0-9, even if you were to go back with crawford he has a better record as a starting pg, and duhon as a starting pg is 47-26 ...lets move on its a failed experiment. And no one but you is interested in Kirk as the starting pg at the expense of wins.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> jamal also avg. 17.3 points
> kirk 11.9
> 
> has anyone ever turned the ball over an attempt to score in your world?


Hinrich averaged 15.7 ppg last year. Compared to Crawford, he doesn't turn the ball over as much when attempting to score because he usually shoots smarter shots than does Crawford.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> VV
> 
> i question kirk's passing vision and his ability to break down defenses which is why that ratio is inferior.
> 
> ...



The last paragraphy should be highlighted. Now, we werent terrible because Kirk was the 1. Lets just make sure VV and others know that. Kirk just gives too much to the team to put the blame on his shoulder. But that game in Utah last year changed the fortunes of the club. And undeniably, the biggest change was Kirk going to the 2 in a predominant way. Those are the simple facts. Duhon ran the show better and Kirk and the team were better for it. And it shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone considering that Kirks teams were better in college with him at the 2 and he was better at the 2. The offense clicked better with Kirk at the 2 and a big reason is because Kirk is a tremendous off the ball player. Put him outfront in a set up system as a 2 however and things bogged down. While Skiles wont come out and say it, his comments regarding Duhon recently leave little doubt that he thinks in a similar fashion.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> The last paragraphy should be highlighted. Now, we werent terrible because Kirk was the 1. Lets just make sure VV and others know that. Kirk just gives too much to the team to put the blame on his shoulder. But that game in Utah last year changed the fortunes of the club. And undeniably, the biggest change was Kirk going to the 2 in a predominant way. Those are the simple facts. Duhon ran the show better and Kirk and the team were better for it. And it shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone considering that Kirks teams were better in college with him at the 2 and he was better at the 2. The offense clicked better with Kirk at the 2 and a big reason is because Kirk is a tremendous off the ball player. Put him outfront in a set up system as a 2 however and things bogged down. While Skiles wont come out and say it, his comments regarding Duhon recently leave little doubt that he thinks in a similar fashion.


does that mean gordon has to learn how to be a PG at least as well as hinrich is even though he rarely played a PG in his career?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

nanokooshball said:


> does that mean gordon has to learn how to be a PG at least as well as hinrich is even though he rarely played a PG in his career?


I dont know where Gordon comes in on this. I really dont. If your under the belief that the Bulls are a better team with Duhon at the 1, which I am, then you have to choose between Gordon and Kirk at the 2. Kirk is the better all around player but Gordon might have more impact. I have said that atleast a 1000x. This Bulls team lacks scoring. That is what Gordon can give us at a decent %. Kirk gives us everything else. I wouldnt rule out bringing Kirk off the bench. For a few reasons. Kirk would be open to it. Doing that to Ben again might cause us to lose him entirely. I think he might be more about himself then the team sometimes. Plus Kirk does have the ability to play the 1, though it isnt his best position so a bench role for him might allow him to sub in for either Ben or Chris. Either way, I dont think the Bulls can win a title unless they bring in 2 different guards. Ben and Kirk cant co-exist in my opinion unless Kirk comes off the bench, long term. And Kirk is too good to come off the bench. And eventually the Bulls will have to upgrade the PG position to win, IF we continue having a PG dominated offense like we do. We are not the 96-97 Bulls or 2002-03 Kings that didnt need a PG. Getting someone like Baron Davis would have to be the answer.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Grinch, I agree with the peanut gallery, great post.

But I wonder... do the Bulls really have the kind of system where a point guard really needs to distribute first?

I only say this because the stats seem to argue that Duhon and Kirk do get their teammates involved similarly well. Kirk does have a tendency to start the offense slow, and he does tend to "overdribble" (but you know, he's got a great handle and doesn't often lose the ball by overdribbling into double teams... maybe that's just how he sets up the offense, by looking at the defensive sets from different spots on the floor). And I'd be willing to say that Duhon is a better prototypical point guard than Kirk.

Skiles does like to build the team in his image, and for the most part, it's been working. I'd say Duhon is more of a Skiles-type player than Kirk is, although Kirk might be the translation of how Skiles would play the shooting guard spot, if he had the body for it.

My question is this, then: from an OBJECTIVE viewpoint, not from Coach Skiles' personality view, do we WANT a Skiles at 1 and Skiles-translated 2? Or do we maybe want a combo guard at the 1 more often and an explosive non-Skiles 2 type?

I offer the question in that form because this is NOT about who starts. It's more about what offensive lineups Scott uses.

In my opinion, Scotty's going to probably overuse Gordon one of these games just to keep things somewhat civil and to give him a shot in a close game where the Bulls aren't clawing their way to stay alive in the game. Like I said in another thread, Skiles isn't actually angry with Ben Gordon the person; he just thinks that in certain games at certain times, Gordon isn't the guy that should get the minutes when he's playing a certain way. I see very little chance of enmity developing between them unless Gordon acts immaturely and reads into Skiles' actions something that's not there. And to his credit, Skiles is more experienced and mature coach than say a Bill Cartwright, who really did have a doghouse and would really bench guys cuz he didn't really like them.

So for what it's worth, I have a feeling that BG is still going to get his 28-30 mpg and Duhon will still be closer to the 22-24 mpg range, meaning that Hinrich and Gordon will probably share the floor nearly as much as Duhon and Hinrich will. But from a basketball philosophy standpoint, do we REALLY need a guy that can create offense for other players?

Deng seems like he can make wise decisions in any circumstance; Nocioni is an aggressive player that loves to drive and is getting better at it. Sweetney seems to do fine after he's got a solid entry pass, which I think Kirk could easily learn to do. Gordon can create his own shot, without a doubt.

This isn't a team like San Antonio, where Barry, Nazr, even Manu and TD sometimes need Parker to be pass-first and a quick decision-making type. This is a team like Detroit, and Billups is certainly not an assist-first kind of guy. Billups, if I remember his Boston days, had problems starting the offense quickly as well as Hinrich does now. Billups learned, and became the superior point guard for it. I think Hinrich should be encouraged in that direction rather than being a pure 2.

In other words, might the case be that on a scale of 1 to 10 in PG skill, maybe Duhon's like a 7 and Hinrich is like a 6, while at the 2 guard, Hinrich is more like a 7. But if Hinrich might one day mature to the 8.5 level as a multi-faceted Billups-like PG while Duhon's near his maturity around a 7, shouldn't we encourage that? Especially when we have a potential 8.5 level SG on our squad already?

In the short-term, we might be underutilizing Duhon, but in the long-term, it might be the better move.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> I dont know where Gordon comes in on this. I really dont. If your under the belief that the Bulls are a better team with Duhon at the 1, which I am, then you have to choose between Gordon and Kirk at the 2. Kirk is the better all around player but Gordon might have more impact. I have said that atleast a 1000x. This Bulls team lacks scoring. That is what Gordon can give us at a decent %. Kirk gives us everything else. I wouldnt rule out bringing Kirk off the bench. For a few reasons. Kirk would be open to it. Doing that to Ben again might cause us to lose him entirely. I think he might be more about himself then the team sometimes. Plus Kirk does have the ability to play the 1, though it isnt his best position so a bench role for him might allow him to sub in for either Ben or Chris. Either way, I dont think the Bulls can win a title unless they bring in 2 different guards. Ben and Kirk cant co-exist in my opinion unless Kirk comes off the bench, long term. And Kirk is too good to come off the bench. And eventually the Bulls will have to upgrade the PG position to win, IF we continue having a PG dominated offense like we do. We are not the 96-97 Bulls or 2002-03 Kings that didnt need a PG. Getting someone like Baron Davis would have to be the answer.



Another way to put my point, in view of your post. You've agreed that Kirk is a better overall player. Everyone agrees that he should be on the floor. You've agreed that this bulls team lacks scoring.

So why does it not make sense for Kirk to be at the "point guard" position and Gordon to be at the 2? Kirk is not better than Duhon at the position, I'll agree there, but doesn't it make sense to maximize scoring by having the best scorers out on the floor?

82games offers stats for both positions. I would remove the 5-man lineups that include Curry, because Duhon is clearly the better guy to get the ball into the most effective scorer, who we no longer have. The next best 5-man lineup for us last season was with Duhon and Hinrich, according to the +/-. But in terms of the win %, Hinrich-Gordon lineups were both better.

Largely, those are inconclusive because many of the lineups had Davis and Curry, both of whom are no longer Bulls. But I think it makes a lot of sense to ask Hinrich to play with Gordon if we're needing to score, especially if Gordon's defense has been elevated to "average" and continues to rise, as Skiles says. I don't know if that needs to happen right now, but the earlier we get Hinrich into the 1 guard role, the better I think it'll be overall for the team.

The other argument is that we're basically choosing between Duhon or Gordon right now, since Hinrich is going to get his minutes regardless. Duhon is a more mature talent now, but I think Gordon has way more upside and has all the other factors he needs to actualize it... he only needs more PT now. Skiles has been playing his most effective lineups, but I wonder if there's not some validity to a slightly more balanced approach of growing your players and notching the wins. Especially with Basden now stepping up and showing he might be able to handle 20 mpg, at least on defense and maybe even on offense...

Hinrich/Duhon
Gordon/Basden 

looks like a more efficient usage of talent than

Duhon/Hinrich
Hinrich/Gordon/Basden


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

am i too old to laugh at the word "fallacy?" just checking. . .


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> b) KH will get abused on defense in this league


Isn't Hinrich one of the better starting ones in the NBA, defense wise?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Hinrich averaged 15.7 ppg last year. Compared to Crawford, he doesn't turn the ball over as much when attempting to score because he usually shoots smarter shots than does Crawford.


also because his ballhandling skills aren't as advanced as crawford's thus he doesn't take any chances...most very good pg's have a high # of turnovers not because they are sloppy ballhandlers, but because being a good pg means attacking the defense not just for scores but with passes...something kirk does not do at an acceptable level.

nothing you say changes that fact that kirk doesn't attack defenses enough to make life easier for his teammates as a point guard.


----------



## settinUpShop (Jun 8, 2002)

thebullybully said:


> Time playing on the road, and continued winning intensity for the team in general is likely to make both players far better than any of their naysayers thinks possible.


Great point. Post of the day. Point guards take about 5 years to adjust to the league, some do it quicker, but I see Kirk following a development pattern similar to Nash. Not that he'll be the same type of player skill or technique wise, but I think he'll be as impactful of a player, but we won't see the complete picture for another 2-3 years. And without a doubt, I expect to see a lot of development in Kirk and Ben's games this year.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> also because his ballhandling skills aren't as advanced as crawford's thus he doesn't take any chances...


According to Knickerblogger.net, Hinrich has a higher Pure Point Rating, Assist Ratio (ie, passing skills) and nearly identical Turnover Ratio. According to 82games.com, Hinrich has a significantly higher Passing Rating and Hands (ballhandling) rating.



> most very good pg's have a high # of turnovers not because they are sloppy ballhandlers, but because being a good pg means attacking the defense not just for scores but with passes...something kirk does not do at an acceptable level.


Percentage of "close" assists last year per 82games.com:
Hinrich: 39.6%
Crawford: 32.1%

Hinrich takes more "close" shots than Crawford does according to 82games.com. He also has more "close" assists than Crawford. I'm of the opinion that a player who 1) generates more assists, 2) generates a greater percentage of "close" assists inside to big men, and 3) shoots more inside shots is generally attacking the defense more than a player who posts lesser stats in these areas.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Grinch, I agree with the peanut gallery, great post.
> 
> But I wonder... do the Bulls really have the kind of system where a point guard really needs to distribute first?
> 
> ...


Showtyme i agree with the bulk of your post.

i dont think the bulls need their pg to be a pass 1st player at all , but they need him to be very effective at getting points on the board by whatever means he can, if its by setting players up or by shooting at an effective clip .

in skiles sys. the pg makes most of the important decisions.

i personally find kirk to be a better 2 for a couple of reasons , 1 he is a better shooter/scorer than a distributor, and the other is i find his passing to be better when he is off the ball and has to make a quick , instinctive decision without the defense having set up for him like they do to whomever is playing the 1.

so its not just a matter of moving him off the 1 for the team's benefit its also he is just the best option at the 2 , until the team just needs scoring(as in the 4th quarter when gordon is in the game) in which he is a better option than duhon when he can basically play off the ball, but handle keeping other people involved , because Gordon will absolutely not do that, and its still way to much to ask of deng or anyone else outside of the backcourt. 

another note , i am not so sure duhon is near his peak as a player at all.
he shoots 35% from the field , but takes almost either uncontested shots or layups or close in shots, his FG% should rise significantly over the next couple of seasons probably at 40% at which rate he would be highly effective if not flashy or eye catching.

also i think there is always a need for a pure pg unless the other players are good at getting their own offense , and i mean very good at it, its hard to create stuff on your own in the nba , which is why only very good offensive players tend to try it often. outside of gordon everyone needs some help in my opinion.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> According to Knickerblogger.net, Hinrich has a higher Pure Point Rating, Assist Ratio (ie, passing skills) and nearly identical Turnover Ratio. According to 82games.com, Hinrich has a significantly higher Passing Rating and Hands (ballhandling) rating.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


different system, the knicks were a drive and kick team , marbury's stats without looking i am pretty sure were similar to crawford's last season...i know they weren't in phoenix...just like crawford's weren't in chicago ....new york was an exeption because by virtue of their game plan.

and it not a matter attacking the D because marbury is in the lane to score far more than either kirk or jamal. its just their game plan. which is easily proven by virture of 82games.com

you are free to try again , but its ok that kirk is not what you are billing him to be.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> different system, the knicks were a drive and kick team , marbury's stats without looking i am pretty sure were similar to crawford's last season...i know they weren't in phoenix...just like crawford's weren't in chicago ....new york was an exeption because by virtue of their game plan.
> 
> and it not a matter attacking the D because marbury is in the lane to score far more than either kirk or jamal. its just their game plan. which is easily proven by virture of 82games.com
> 
> you are free to try again , but its ok that kirk is not what you are billing him to be.


Okay, so we can now use "game plan" as an excuse for Crawford but not for Kirk? Good to know.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Okay, so we can now use "game plan" as an excuse for Crawford but not for Kirk? Good to know.


knowledge is power.

kirk doesn't have a different playbook and game plan when he is running the point than when JC was a bull , or duhon...seeing as they were on the same team, in the same backcourt., it stands to reason they were operating on the same plane, therefore held to the same criteria.


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

According to 82games.com, last season Chris Duhon had a passer rating of 11.3 and a "hands" rating of 22.9. Kirk Hinrich had a passer rating of 10.4 and a "hands" rating of 23.8. Which sort of shoots down the idea that Duhon is a "much" better playmaker or ballhandler than Hinrich. (Gordon had horrible numbers of 2.1 passer rating and 8.9 "hands" rating). I agree that Duhon does get the offense into sets slightly better than does Hinrich, but the difference isn't very big. 
If Hinrich is such a bad playmaker, why does he rank SEVENTH in the entire NBA in total assists over the past two seasons? This DESPITE the fact that the Bulls' scoring average of 92.1 PPG over those two seasons ranks TWENTY-FIFTH in the NBA. Yes, he overdribbles at times, he needs to look to penetrate and dish more and he needs to improve on setting up the offense more quickly. But to call him a poor or below average PG (as some, not the majority, but some posters on this board suggest) is foolish and inaccurate.

Also, look at the three players' PER from last season

At PG, Duhon had a PER of 10.8 but opponents had PER of 15.2 against him, for a -4.4 difference
At PG, Hinrich had a PER of 15.2 but opponents had PER of 16.9 against him, for a -1.7 difference
At PG, Gordon had a PER of 18.7 but opponents had PER of 19.7 against him, for a -1.0 difference

At SG, Hinrich had a PER of 17.6 while opponents had a PER of 13.8 against him, for a + 3.8 difference
At SG, Gordon had a PER of 15.3 while opponents had a PER of 11.1 against him, for a +4.2 difference
At SG, Duhon had a PER of 8.5 while opponents had a PER of 22.2 against him, for a -13.7 difference

So while Duhon was the best defender at the PG position, his lack of offense put the Bulls in a bigger hole at that spot than they had with either Hinrich or Gordon at either guard spot. Hinrich, meanwhile, had a better offensive PER at the 2-guard spot than Gordon. Surprisingly, Gordon had the best defensive PER at this spot. (remember, a PER of 15 is considered average for either defensive or offensive stat)

Now, I understand that what Duhon brings to the team cannot always be measured in stats. In fact, most of the time it cannot be.Still, these numbers suggest that, although Duhon should probably start games in the backcourt (with Hirnich), it would be to the Bulls' best advantage to have Gordon and Hinrich on the court for more minutes than Duhon.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

girlygirl said:


> According to 82games.com, last season Chris Duhon had a passer rating of 11.3 and a "hands" rating of 22.9. Kirk Hinrich had a passer rating of 10.4 and a "hands" rating of 23.8. Which sort of shoots down the idea that Duhon is a "much" better playmaker or ballhandler than Hinrich. (Gordon had horrible numbers of 2.1 passer rating and 8.9 "hands" rating). I agree that Duhon does get the offense into sets slightly better than does Hinrich, but the difference isn't very big.
> If Hinrich is such a bad playmaker, why does he rank SEVENTH in the entire NBA in total assists over the past two seasons? This DESPITE the fact that the Bulls' scoring average of 92.1 PPG over those two seasons ranks TWENTY-FIFTH in the NBA. Yes, he overdribbles at times, he needs to look to penetrate and dish more and he needs to improve on setting up the offense more quickly. But to call him a poor or below average PG (as some, not the majority, but some posters on this board suggest) is foolish and inaccurate.
> 
> Also, look at the three players' PER from last season
> ...


:clap: :clap: :clap: 

Big props for articulating more clearly and with much more evidence what I've been ineffectively trying to say.

Hope to see you on the boards more... it's been long time no see.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

What works in stats doesnt necessarily translate to the games. Thats obvious. And that appears to be what Skiles thinks as well. We have some real stat whizzes here. Some of the very smartest people around (dan rosembaum, take a bow, great article in SI). But sometimes I actually wonder if people watch the games? Stats say Gordon was a better defender then Kirk but a worse offensive player? Thats what the stats actually said? If anyone watched the Bulls last year, they knew that was the exact opposite. Kirk was a far better defender and Ben was a far greater scorer. 

Regardless, Duhon gets the Bulls into their sets quickly, handles the pressure well and doesnt have a propensity to overdribble. When he took over for Kirk at the PG position was the time the season was saved. Kirk is a damn good 2 guard and showed it last year. Ben might be a better 2 guard this year if he really improved his D. Skiles should take a few games and start Ben and Chris together with Kirk coming off the bench to see if it would work. What do the Bulls have to lose in the preseason anyway? We know Duhon gets the Bulls into their sets and we know the Bulls need scoring, which Ben brings. Why not give Kirk his usual minutes but in an off the bench capacity leading the second unit? Or is Kirk above that?


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

Have you forgotten how poorly Kirk played off the bench as a rookie? Granted, 10 games is a small sample, but he shot under 36% from the floor and just 32% from the 3-point line. He didn't seem at all comfortable coming off the bench. Ben, on the other hand, has been quoted several times, including in this morning's papers, that it isn't a big deal to him whether he starts, as long as he gets his minutes. Given that, and that the Bulls played their best ball last season with Duhon & Hinrich starting and Gordon & Hinrich usually in the game in the 4th quarter, it would make sense to continue that rotation.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

i just wish gordon would bring the same mentallity he came off the bench... just pop and shoot
... now he thinks he has to pass the ball all the time... but that's not what we want... we want him to be selfish


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> Why not give Kirk his usual minutes but in an off the bench capacity leading the second unit? Or is Kirk above that?


I'm in favor of Skiles trying this as well for at least a couple of games. If it works, and if it makes the team better, then it's a no-brainer. Bring KH off the bench. I think it's a strategy worth trying, even at the beginning of the regular season.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Now, for the record, I want to be on record saying that wherever they play Kirk this year, I predict he will be the first Bull to make an the Allstar game since that crybaby, used, sad sap Michael Jordan. And yes, the adjectives to describe Jordan are meant to be digs at those who are having a little fun at the cost of his Airness


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> Why not give Kirk his usual minutes but in an off the bench capacity leading the second unit? Or is Kirk above that?


Kirk plays a lot of minutes and he needs a break once in a while. I think on a perfect team Kirk is the perfect bench player in a three guard rotation, but f right now we need him on the court as much as possible.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Saturday afternoon mind-nudger:

Perhaps Duhon appears to be the better PG because he gets to pass to Hinrich and Gordon (while KH isn't afforded the same luxury)?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Saturday afternoon mind-nudger:
> 
> Perhaps Duhon appears to be the better PG because he gets to pass to Hinrich and Gordon (while KH isn't afforded the same luxury)?



Now that is a definite possibility. If he had 2 other good guards that could score and create off the dribble that would benefit him highly. I can actually buy that theory.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hinrich did get to pass to Curry and Crawford, our two leading scorers over the past two seasons.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Hinrich did get to pass to Curry and Crawford, our two leading scorers over the past two seasons.


1. Duhon got to pass to Curry in his best season to date (Hinrich did too, but mainly as a SG).

2. Most of Crawford's points were not the result of assists, as he had/has a strong proclivity to take a dribble or two before shooting (even when wide open). I covered this last year.

3. Curry/Hinrich/Gordon averaged a lot more points at a considerably more efficienct clip (and had a lot more fluidity) than Curry/Crawford the year before.

It's all about context.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> Now that is a definite possibility. If he had 2 other good guards that could score and create off the dribble that would benefit him highly. I can actually buy that theory.


SirPatchwork and I have hinted at this theory for almost a year now.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> 1. Duhon got to pass to Curry in his best season to date (Hinrich did too, but mainly as a SG).
> 
> 2. Most of Crawford's points were not the result of assists, as he had/has a strong proclivity to take a dribble or two before shooting (even when wide open). I covered this last year.
> 
> ...


I remember Skiles working on Crawford to get him to shoot coming off screens. This flies in the face of your defense of Hinrich in this case.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I remember Skiles working on Crawford to get him to shoot coming off screens. This flies in the face of your defense of Hinrich in this case.


No, it doesn't.

Skiles worked with Crawford (throughout the season) on shooting off of screens _because Crawford shot off screens neither with the rate nor with the efficiency of a starting-caliber SG_. To the credit of both men, Crawford's shooting off of screens -- both the mechanics of navigating the screen [cutting at the right moment, catching the ball with the correct hand and foot positioning, reading the defender(s) and the defensive tendencies of the opposing team, squaring up and rising up in the same motion, etc.], as well as the frequency of shooting off screens -- increased and improved throughout the season. But Crawford still had the habit of dribbling whenever he received the ball, regardless of whether or not he was coming around a screen. This is why Skiles took extra time during Crawford's 4th year in the league to practice and correct something that most NBA SG's have pretty much mastered by the start of their first preseason in the pros.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

What was he... 4-12 passing to Rose and Yell, too?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

According to 82games.... last season stats.

field goals "assisted"
craw 52%
gordon 48%
hinrich 53%

If we're talking proclivities.... it looks like all three guys have around the same FGs assisted. I don't think Crawford changed this aspect of his game last season.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

FYI -- In the Street & Smith's NBA preview mag, an opposing team's scout had this to say about Hinrich (paraphrased): "He's more of a point guard than he is a scoring guard."


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> "He's more of a point guard than he is a scoring guard."


Could be... but he still could be more of a PG than a SG and still not a above-average NBA PG.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> 1. Duhon got to pass to Curry in his best season to date (Hinrich did too, but mainly as a SG).
> 
> 2. Most of Crawford's points were not the result of assists, as he had/has a strong proclivity to take a dribble or two before shooting (even when wide open). I covered this last year.
> 
> ...


1. i agree although curry's season ended short so its very debateble his impact compared to the previous year , chances are it was about the same because of games missed

2.this past season kirk was assisted on 53% of his baskets

the previous year jamal crawford was assisted on 49% of his shots ...

so while technically most of JC's baskets were not the result of passes , its not a big difference at all.

3. is actually the crux of the matter , of course curry , kirk and gordon scored more points in a more efficient manner ....they had a better playmaker setting them up. Oddley enough this point actually you made kind of hurts your argument. Kirk was a more efficient player EFG wise the previous year with i'm guessing JC as the guy setting him up primarily ...but Curry was alot more efficient this past season, his lowpoint was the year kirk was his primary playmaker.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Could be... but he still could be more of a PG than a SG and still not a above-average NBA PG.


So Hinrich is a below average NBA player? Not sure I'm buying that. IMO, he's certainly an above average PG.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> 3. is actually the crux of the matter , of course curry , kirk and gordon scored more points in a more efficient manner ....they had a better playmaker setting them up. Oddley enough this point actually you made kind of hurts your argument. Kirk was a more efficient player EFG wise the previous year with i'm guessing JC as the guy setting him up primarily ...but Curry was alot more efficient this past season, his lowpoint was the year kirk was his primary playmaker.


That's it, in a nutshell.

An effective PG makes his teammates _better_.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> That's it, in a nutshell.
> 
> An effective PG makes his teammates _better_.


If I had a team of a mature Jamaal Tinsley, a young Steve Francis, and a 2nd-year Kobe Bryant, along with a normal frontcourt (say Al Harrington, Marc Jackson and Dan Gadzuric), I'd definitely start (or at least give the vast majority of the minutes) to Francis and Bryant. Tinsley is by far a better point guard, he showed that he can lead a team last season when all the big dogs were out, he really gets his team involved and runs the offense, and he's developed into a very decent defender. Nevertheless, I'd want Francis and Bryant in there over Tinsley and Bryant.

Let's say Tinsley ups the overall effectiveness of the team by increasing each player's ability by a score of .5. So if Kobe is an 8 player, then he becomes an 8.5 player. But Tinsley himself is a 5.

Francis is a 7.5 by himself, and let's say he also increases the effectiveness of his team, just not by as much. Maybe only by .15 or so. 

To me, 7.5 + (8+x+y+z)*1.15 is better than 5 + (8+x+y+z)*1.5.

That's my own personal take on it, simply because I'd say that Francis has the ability to become a multiplying factor of 1.3 on his team, but a position like PG you have to really PLAY in games to learn how to do better. The only way to truly practice reading opposing defenses is to actually play against opposing defenses when you're in a role to read them and make plays.

So in the hope that Francis becomes a 1.3x guy who is already a 7.5 by himself, I'd slot most of the minutes for him. And it's not like Tinsley would disappear; the guy would be a supersub off the bench and the guy that you could use more often when Francis struggles to set up the offense, but you don't give up on Francis' ability to do it.

Now. I think Duhon ~ Tinsley, Hinrich ~ Francis, and Gordon ~ young Kobe. Not like they'll actually BE those players (no, I'm NOT saying BG is the next Kobe Bryant...sheesh), but that they have those roles. Hinrich is an effective scorer with the passing vision and defense to play the 1 spot, like Franchise. Gordon is an explosive young scorer that is working like crazy in the offseason to improve his skill sets and play better defense. By giving Tinsley majority minutes, I feel like it would not effectively use the talents of Kobe and Francis to contribute on the floor.

So if we have to move one way or another (and I think we do... asking players to wear several hats on the floor is not really healthy), then I say you take a short-term hit in having less effective players on the floor for the long-term result of benefitting the team the most.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> So Hinrich is a below average NBA player? Not sure I'm buying that. IMO, he's certainly an above average PG.


No, he's an above average NBA player.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think stats are overused to make peoples cases. My analysis based primarily on eyesight and watching practically all of the games reveals that Duhon is indeed a better pg than Kirk but Kirk is not nearly as abysmal as some want to make him out to be. I also think Kirk is more of a pg than a sg. That is all, carry on! :banana:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> ..but Curry was alot more efficient this past season, his lowpoint was the year kirk was his primary playmaker.


I thought he worked best with Crawford? Wouldn't that shift some (most?) of the blame on Crawford?

This is a neverending argument without a satisfactory answer to either side.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> That's it, in a nutshell.
> 
> An effective PG makes his teammates _better_.


The mistake some of you make is presenting or framing things in absolutes. That's simply illogical and inaccurate when it comes to a game as multifaceted and dynamic as basketball.

Steve Nash's first year in Dallas ('98-99) he had Nowitzki, Finley and Ceballos as teammates. That team finished with a 38% winning percentage. The next year, with the addition of Dennis Rodman and his 14 rebounds per game, Dallas was below .500 as well. These were Nash's 3rd and 4th years in the league, respectfully.

Again, it's all about context.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> I thought he worked best with Crawford? Wouldn't that shift some (most?) of the blame on Crawford?
> 
> This is a neverending argument without a satisfactory answer to either side.


check month by month stats for that season sometime.

as kirk ran more of the offense , curry's fg% went down...with JC as starting pg he has shot nearly 60% thoughout his career.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> The mistake some of you make is presenting or framing things in absolutes. That's simply illogical and inaccurate when it comes to a game as multifaceted and dynamic as basketball.
> 
> Steve Nash's first year in Dallas ('98-99) he had Nowitzki, Finley and Ceballos as teammates. That team finished with a 38% winning percentage. The next year, with the addition of Dennis Rodman and his 14 rebounds per game, Dallas was below .500 as well. These were Nash's 3rd and 4th years in the league, respectfully.
> 
> Again, it's all about context.


and this means what exactly ?

kirk is considered a weaker pg than duhon , but a better player , not just off of stats but because we also watch the games, what the mavs did in 1998 has nothing to do with how kirk runs pg in 2004-05 for the bulls.

kirk is not nash , nor is he stockton or any other player .


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> and this means what exactly ?


It means the black and white "an effective PG makes his teammates _better_" statement is not entirely true and not universally applicable to any particular player and/or team. A lot more goes into it than that.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> It means the black and white "an effective PG makes his teammates _better_" statement is not entirely true and not universally applicable to any particular player and/or team. A lot more goes into it than that.


and why does any of this make kirk a better pg than duhon?

duhon runs the offense in a better way and does make his teammates better, kirk included.

no one is saying kirk cant play pg, just that the team is better with chris at the 1 & kirk at the 2 with gordon coming off the bench...and in the 4th kirk's strengths are magified and his pg weaknesses are hidden a bit and its best if he plays pg in these instances for him and much more importantly for the bulls.

nothing you have said has changed that. bringing up what nash failed to accomplish in dallas 7 years ago doesn't help kirk today. they are different people in different times on different teams, and nash is a true 1 and kirk isn't, nash has played pg all his life kirk has started counting college and pro, only 1 started 1 of the last 4 seasons at pg and for the most part has been essentially a 2 guard the only things they have in common to me is that they are both white , they aren't even both american.

i am wondering what makes you think he is a pg after roy williams and scott skiles both gave him a run at pg only to decide later to go with him at a role as a playmaking 2 off the ball primarily, for the most part in an identical role.

both coaches looked at him as pg and moved him for the team good,I saw him as more of a 2 in college, watching him in the pro's only makes me more convinced he in fact isn't a pg, and the damning evidence wasn't watching him at the 2 last season it was watching him at pg in 2003-04.

everyone basically thinks of gordon as a better player than duhon. and if you were right and kirk is a better pg than anything else , its a no brainer to keep kirk in that role, but that didn't happen qand more important than that the team didn't win ...at all in that set up , nor did it win after gordon was removed from the starting lineup and other 2 guards were inserted, until kirk was moved there.

kirk was not the sole reason the team was losing but its obvious at this point he and the team is better off in the role he is now in. I said it last offseason and when it happened the team became better.


hinrich's passing

its been 13 months since i posted that thread and its still valid.

VV you seem to be a person who wants kirk to be a starting pg no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary that he shouldn't , he has been given chances and in the team's best interest(as well as his own) he has been moved to the 2 . He may be a starting pg someday , possibly even a standout but it will most likely be on a team that needs the type of pg that he is , one that can and should play off the ball , spot up shoot, make good decisions and play defense. not a steve nash/stockton/kidd/marbury/baron type, who carries offenses, he is simply not the kind of player who would prosper in that role.

in truth he seems to be more this guy , with less shooting, more defense
http://aol.nba.com/playerfile/jeff_hornacek/

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it , in fact there is a heck of alot good with it.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> and why does any of this make kirk a better pg than duhon?


I never said Kirk was a better PG than Duhon. However, I am implying that Kirk is an effective PG, an above average PG, and a PG that makes his teammates better.



> no one is saying kirk cant play pg, just that the team is better with chris at the 1 & kirk at the 2 with gordon coming off the bench...


Agreed.



> nothing you have said has changed that. bringing up what nash failed to accomplish in dallas 7 years ago doesn't help kirk today.


But bringing up a team from two seasons ago, a team drastically different than the one from last season, doesn't help him either, correct? Gotcha.



> i am wondering what makes you think he is a pg after roy williams and scott skiles both gave him a run at pg only to decide later to go with him at a role as a playmaking 2 off the ball primarily, for the most part in an identical role.


They're both identical situations when you think about it. At Kansas, KH was recruited as a point guard and played there his first two seasons (7th in the nation in assists and set a Big XII 3PT% record his sophomore year). When Aaron Miles (a McD's AA) came to Kansas, the best possible starting lineup featured him in it. Miles could only play one position -- PG -- while Kirk had the versatility to play the 1, 2 or 3. Naturally, the starting lineup had Miles at PG (the only position he could play) with Kirk at the SG or SF (two of the three positions he could play). It wasn't because KH wasn't as good a PG as Miles was, but rather the fact that the team was better with both Miles and Hinrich in at the same time, and this was only possible with Miles playing PG and Hinrich playing SG or SF. The same was true last year with Duhon in the role of Miles.



> He may be a starting pg someday , possibly even a standout but it will most likely be on a team that needs the type of pg that he is , one that can and should play off the ball , spot up shoot, make good decisions and play defense.


Agreed.

Look, I don't care where Kirk plays as long as the team wins. I just think the arguments for him not being an effective PG who can't run the team as well as Duhon are flawed due to rushed judgment (a ubiquitous feature of messageboards), which is a result of limited and incomplete observations and data.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Duhon does look more LIKE a point guard than Kirk does. But the stats don't say the same story, and having an unconventional point guard that might not resemble our classic idea of a point guard doesn't mean that it's not wise to have that player there. It's like closer by committee, or a combo guard, or a tight end that catches well but doesn't block all that great. It's not what it's supposed to look like, but you put them out there anyway because a) you hope that it'll start looking more conventional after a while and b) you think it's the effective way to go.

I don't argue that Kirk is a better point guard than Duhon. I argue that he's at least a pretty dang good point guard altogether, and just because he's a great shooting guard too, doesn't mean he shouldn't be playing the 1 spot primarily. It's more important to capitalize on Gordon's star ability than to use what Duhon can offer us now.

And, as many have pointed out, I think all interests in playing good lineups and developing strong skill sets can all be balanced.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Great post, Showtyme.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> Duhon does look more LIKE a point guard than Kirk does. But the stats don't say the same story, and having an unconventional point guard that might not resemble our classic idea of a point guard doesn't mean that it's not wise to have that player there. It's like closer by committee, or a combo guard, or a tight end that catches well but doesn't block all that great. It's not what it's supposed to look like, but you put them out there anyway because a) you hope that it'll start looking more conventional after a while and b) you think it's the effective way to go.
> 
> I don't argue that Kirk is a better point guard than Duhon. I argue that he's at least a pretty dang good point guard altogether, and just because he's a great shooting guard too, doesn't mean he shouldn't be playing the 1 spot primarily. It's more important to capitalize on Gordon's star ability than to use what Duhon can offer us now.
> 
> And, as many have pointed out, I think all interests in playing good lineups and developing strong skill sets can all be balanced.


Amen.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VV,

You seem to take offense to anything said about Hinrich other than "he's superman, and you don't tug on superman's cape."

Some of us see him as quite valuable in the role he played last season. He was so valuable, that he and gordon were used as SG at the same time with Duhon (and late season) Pargo running the offense.

You started this thread as "Fallacy: Hinrich not good at running the team." The evidence presented by several posters indicates he is not good at running the team. But I agree with several of those other posters that it is not an indictment of Hinrich or particularly a bad thing.

As a SG, he's hopefully going to get his FG% up and everyone will recognize him as a darn terrific player.

In the mean time, I understand that there's a squeeze for minutes at G. With Duhon being the better PG and a hot player like Gordon playing the SG position as well, it's understandable that a big Hinrich supporter wants him to play somewhere. The good news, I believe, is he will play somewhere, and get his minutes.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> VV,
> 
> You seem to take offense to anything said about Hinrich other than "he's superman, and you don't tug on superman's cape."


No I don't. That's hyperbole to the point of being puerile. Please provide actual quotes and present accurate arguments if you are to label me.



> You started this thread as "Fallacy: Hinrich not good at running the team."


Good observation.



> The evidence presented by several posters indicates he is not good at running the team.


And vice-versa.



> The good news, I believe, is he will play somewhere, and get his minutes.


You're really going out on a limb there.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Look, I don't care where Kirk plays as long as the team wins. I just think the arguments for him not being an effective PG who can't run the team as well as Duhon are flawed due to rushed judgment (a ubiquitous feature of messageboards), which is a result of limited and incomplete observations and data.




and yet you add nothing to the table to support your assumptions just arguments against the assertion that kirk cant play pg or any postings about kirk that may say he is better off in another role.

in fact i dont really remember anyone saying he couldn't ...mostly the closest to that is what i say in that he is better off , off the ball with a lessened pg role, or that he needs improvement in his point guard play.i dont understand what are incomplete observations are , i have been watching kirk play since college and i have watched the bulk of games he has played in as a pro and as far as data i use the best available to me , but only to back up what i see in games.

what is it you have thats better?

because until proven otherwise (and it is possible for me to be swayed or at least look at things in a different light) you have shown absolutely nothing.


----------

