# On hinrich's passing



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Its my belief he is very unselfish and well schooled on basketball , but that he isn't a creative passer or that he has enough passing vision to ever be that good at the position and that his true position is as a 2 guard where his best talent , his shooting ability would be better utilized.

the facts bear me out on 82games.com http://www.82games.com/03CHI2A.HTM

the passing stats show he has an extremely low ratio when it comes to getting the bulls easy shots 

344 assists of the jump shot variety vs. 173 assists that are close to the basket or dunks. 

no pg in the division has such a bad ratio

billups 244 jumpshot assists vs. 202 of the closer variety

Mcinnis 123 jumpshot assist vs 111 of the closer type

TJ ford 202 jumpshot assists vs 154 of the closer type
damon jones 285 jumpshot assists vs 192 of the closer type

jamaal tinsley 169 jumpshot assists vs. 134 of the closer type

this leads me to believe that kirk plays it safe and gets the the safe assists but not the kind that help his team win .

is there a team in the division that has a trio of players who can finish on baskets close to the rim as well as antonio davis, eddy curry(who did lead the league in fg% only a year earlier), and tyson chandler ? i dont think there is , plus i am pretty sure all of the perimeter threats on the other teams shot higher %s from the field and from 3pt range than the quintet of davis , crawford , LJ3, dupree and gill who played mostly alongside hinrich.

and its not personel jamal crawford's ratio is 236 jumpshot assists vs 168 closer shots and the previous year the ratio was 188 jumpshot assists vs. 146 closer shots and for jay williams its 199 jumpshot assists vs. 151 closer shots .

i have gotten my share of opposition on whether or not kirk should be a pg or a shooting guard , the fact is that he seems to misuse his teammates skills and advantages , players who do that generally are not pg's .


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Man, I thought I was about to read an obituary!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I don't know about this. Seems a little overly technical to me. An assist is an assist. I don't care if somebody hits a J or dunks it home. Hinrich got an incredible number of assists on a team that can't hit the broad side of a barn. I can't imagine Hinrich would be getting so many assists if he wasn't making good plays.

That being said, I've not found Hinrich to be the guy that makes the incredible, impossible-looking flashy pass. But, I don't know if that's what's required for him to be a quality PG in this league. It's fun to watch, but it might not matter.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Your threads this weekend remind me of the scene in _Kill Bill_ where The Bride (Uma Thurman) is lining out names on her Hit List.

*Bill's Deadly Viper Assassination Squad:* The Chicago Bulls
*O-Ren Ishii:* John Paxson
*Vernita Green:* Kirk Hinrich

Who's next? *Elle Driver* (Scott Skiles) or *Bill* himself (Jerry Reinsdorf)?

What's amazing is that the opening of _training camp_ is still nine days away. Can't wait to see what you come up with once the regular season actually gets underway.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*for comparisons sake*

the guys in the league considered its best passing pg's 

kidd an astounding 264 jumpshot assists vs.355 closer variety assists

jason williams 261 jumpshot assists vs 230 clser variety assists

andre miller 228 jumpshot assists vs. 273 closer type assists 

steve nash 411 jumpshot assists vs. 275 closer type assists.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Your threads this weekend remind me of the scene in _Kill Bill_ where The Bride (Uma Thurman) is lining out names on her Hit List.
> 
> *Bill's Deadly Viper Assassination Squad:* The Chicago Bulls
> ...


never saw the movie


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Your threads this weekend remind me of the scene in _Kill Bill_ where The Bride (Uma Thurman) is lining out names on her Hit List.
> 
> *Bill's Deadly Viper Assassination Squad:* The Chicago Bulls
> ...



Yeah. I'm definitely seeing the grinch part, but the happy seems to be noticeably lacking.


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

With his assist numbers and still being so new to the leauge, I don't see any reason to starting pushing for his move to SG, yet.

Stockton never made amazing, blow you away passes as a rookie either... Just something to keep in mind.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RoseCity</b>!
> With his assist numbers and still being so new to the leauge, I don't see any reason to starting pushing for his move to SG, yet.
> 
> Stockton never made amazing, blow you away passes as a rookie either... Just something to keep in mind.


passes dont need to be flashy just effective .

john stockton was comparable in his last year to the other top passers above.

342 jumpshot assists vs. 273 closer shots 

unless a player is on a team where players dont finish well close to the basket and shoot very well from the perimeter , its basically a rule, closer is better , the team that is shooting layups will almost always beat a team shooting jumpshots.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

A couple other things to keep in mind.

#1 Crawford took the majority of the Bulls shots, and Crawford rarely finished at the basket.

#2 I don't know if this is true, but it seemed to me that the Bulls were constantly getting beat in the fast break scoring in a large majority of games. If the Bulls were among the celler in this category as the rest of the league, less fast break points would mean less closer shots.

#3 Our two bigs are very young and their basketball IQ was still very low last season. They wouldn't make cuts to the basket to help Hinrich out, and we had no slashers on our team from the SF position outside of Scottie, who was pretty much a non-factor for most of the season. The only other big that played major minutes were Blount and AD, both of whose game weren't to take it to the hole, but to hit the open 10-12 ft jumper.

Point is, this stat can't be taken at face value.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: for comparisons sake*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> the guys in the league considered its best passing pg's
> 
> kidd an astounding 264 jumpshot assists vs.355 closer variety assists
> ...


Well, I would say that some of it is due to the style that teams play and the players on those teams. All of those PG's are on teams that run the fast break alot so they would naturally throw more close assists. The Chicago Bulls (at least to my knowledge) are a slow paced team, that run alot of halfcourt sets. So there's going to be more jumpshots attempted, and thus more jump shot assists. 

Plus, I don't think you can necessarily say that jumpshot assists are not creating. If a PG drives inside, draws the defense, then kicks it out to an open shooter, is that not creating ? Perhaps it's not the best strategy if no one on the team can knock down the jumper. But if that's the case, then maybe the team ought to get some better jumpshooters to complement their PG, instead of another PG to help the scrubs hit a higher percentage of close shots.

Just my opinion...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> A couple other things to keep in mind.
> 
> #1 Crawford took the majority of the Bulls shots, and Crawford rarely finished at the basket.
> ...


1. crawford took 15 shots a game , no more than redd on the bucks , or hamilton on the pistons , or lebron on the cavs and only lebron goes inside alot out of the 3 , most shooting guards are outside players , the point is every team basically have a player who takes alot of outside shots , thats what shooting guards do.

2. its the bulls pg's job to get fast break baskets as much as it is for any other team's. if kirk didn't do it, it shouldn't be overlooked.

3. the previous year tyson and curry were a year less experienced and yet shot a higher % from the field and both jay's and jamal's ratio of getting easier shots were significantly better , they didn't cut much to the basket then either , and yet both crawford and williams were able to find them for easy shots. plus rose from the previous year lived outside shooting more outside shots than crawford did last season, alot of teams have power forwards who are more comfortable than they should be shooting outside shots ...for instance karl malone in his last season with stockton lived on midrange shots and went for like 20 points a game . corie blount avg. 4 points on the bulls last season in 45 games ...how many jumpshots did he really take to give kirk such a bad ratio? 

the thing is the bulls outside shooters arent very good ...why would anyone with a good bball IQ make creating outside shots the staple of their offense?


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

You can only pass the ball to where your teammates are .. or are prepared to move to on the court

I guess getting zoned out has an impact as well 

Any team that shot like we have in recent times your going to triple dog dare to try and make it from outside

Couple this with the concrete boots our players play in which prohibits them from running off the ball - and hey what's a poor messiah to do ?

Pass to the open man in concrete boots ?

And mix it up off your own dribble pen some ? 

I guess


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

¿This topic again?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> 1. crawford took 15 shots a game , no more than redd on the bucks , or hamilton on the pistons , or lebron on the cavs and only lebron goes inside alot out of the 3 , most shooting guards are outside players , the point is every team basically have a player who takes alot of outside shots , thats what shooting guards do.
> ...


It was a combination of everything. Not just a case by case basis.

When you have no one on your team that can finish at the basket outside of Curry (and Curry could really only finish in the post) and Chandler (who did not play very many healthy minutes, you don't get very many close to the basket opportunities.

The PG doesn't create these opportunies, the players around him do. It is the PGs job to get the players the ball when they are open.


----------



## buckums (Jun 25, 2004)

Another reason why his inside assists may be so low is how many misses there were inside. It drove me crazy to see people get inside, and miss easy layups. Kendall Gill was one of the worst at this, and Linton Johnson did it a lot too. It seemed that if they were finally able to work it inside, they would simply miss.

This year we have better (projected) finishers inside than Gill and Johnson. Gordon is quick and can get inside for layups, Nocioni looked to finish well in the Olympics, Curry and Chandler are expected to be better in that department, and the Deng has good timing inside (at least that's what summer league indicated).


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

when i read the title, I thought he died.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> when i read the title, I thought he died.


There's still hope. 

Raymond Felton or Chris Paul anyone? Maybe we can trade Eddy Curry to them next year.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> 
> 
> It was a combination of everything. Not just a case by case basis.
> ...



curry for all his warts as a complete player finishes on shots close to the basket pretty well and its been noted before the prevoius years pg's were able to find him better and easier shots than kirk.

most teams only have one good finisher down low , who did atl have last year , i cant think of anyone who finished the year with them that i thought was a good finisher? and yet jason terry has a better ratio of finding easy baskets than kirk does .

mil. who were their finishers ? and both tj ford and damon jones have much better ratios than kirk
most team have just the one guy who can finish very well and another guy around antonio davis' or tyson's of last year (the previous year tyson was alot better) level of finishing ability .

det . has rasheed and ben wallace ben's finishing ability was very comparable to an injured chandler
indiana had jermaine oneal and some guy named foster. 

so lets compare finishers out of primary post scorers in our division.

big Z in cleve. effective fg% in close .573
jermaine oneal .589
rasheed wallace .609
skinner .616. joe smith .547
curry .610 which is significantly down from the previous year at .667

i think the bulls have at least a good finisher as the other teams primary post players and i find curry to be better than most at it. 

A smart pg imo opinion would want to use that ability , but kirk seems to look elsewhere far more than the avg. pg would .


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

The days of Sportstalk.com are officialy over

:no:


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Hinrich will be most effective at the point guard, which is why Skiles and Paxson both have him locked in as the Bulls "point guard of the future"

Those numbers dont really show me anything. You have to watch him play and watch his passing ability.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

* If the issue was with Curry and Chandler sucking, how come Crawford, Rose, and Williams were didn't have similar problems last year, and how come Crawford and Gill... our number two and three distributing guards didn't have similar problems?

* Just as a point of clarification, it's not just a matter of playing with "jump shooters" because that sort of ignores what an assist is. An assist means the player doesn't have to make a move himself to get the shot.

That is, it's fair to say Kirk's totals will be affected by guys not getting into position for inside buckets, but it's not fair to say that they don't do enough after they get the ball... because if they have to do much after they get the ball it's not an assist any more. But given that other teammates posted significantly different numbers, I tend to think there's more than just guys being out of position.

In general, whether you *want* to hear this or not, it appears to be a statistically valid point. I guess I find it rather distateful that in the face of that, people would rather cast aspersions at the motives of the guy who's pointing it out rather than deal with the facts at hand. Grinch could be on a professed mission to destroy the Bulls and and it wouldn't change the facts he's pointing out. Get over the motive (or your perception of it) and look at the facts. If you can't, it's a strong suggestion that your motivation is something other than the truth.

Personally, after looking at guys around the league and the other guys on the Bulls, it does appear that Kirk creates inside assists at a demonstrably lower rate than both his teammates, the 02-03 Bulls, and the vast majority of other PGs in the league.

Certainly he will be helped by playing with better players, but I think, after taking everything in, it will also take some improvement on his part, just as he needs to improve at finishing inside in his own scoring attempts.

I don't see why saying that he needs to improve in these specific areas should be apostasy. Most folks will recognize that he's not an all-star or anything at this point, but then folks will bristle at any suggestion of specific flaws identified in his game. There's a disconnect there- if he's not great, then he much have some flaws. If, every time a flaw is mentioned, it's dismissed... then what are the flaws that make him not great?

In practice... this is actually an interesting basketball topic... something pretty rare for fans of a ****ty ball team to discuss. As the season starts, these are specific areas we can look to for improvement, and measure it by.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> Its my belief he is very unselfish and well schooled on basketball , but that he isn't a creative passer or that he has enough passing vision to ever be that good at the position and that his true position is as a 2 guard where his best talent , his shooting ability would be better utilized.
> 
> the facts bear me out on 82games.com http://www.82games.com/03CHI2A.HTM
> ...


You know what the field goal percentage is for an assist? It's 1.000% Perfection. Everytime there is an assist made it's two points on the scoreboard. I count 517 assists for the pathetic Kirk Hinrich. I don't see any other player on your list with as many assists. Last time I checked, all the point guards you listed don't have as many assists as the shooting guard that Kirk Hinrich is. What was a point guards primary function supposed to be again? I think maybe you need to go to the Pistons, Pacers, Cavs and Bucks boards and get on those guys for having shooting guards playing the point because obviously they don't distribute the ball nearly as much as Hinrich.

Ahhhh, but never let "facts" get in the way of a good agenda.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: On hinrich's passing*

Hinrich runs an excellent pick and roll which leads to a lot of medium range jump shots.

He also worked very nicely with AD in the mid-range.

It will be interesting to see if this stat trend continutes as Hinrich adds to his game.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> Grinch could be on a professed mission to destroy the Bulls and and it wouldn't change the facts he's pointing out. Get over the motive (or your perception of it) and look at the facts.


With all due respect, I guess this is where you were wrong. Like almost anything in this life, it is "motive" or "intention" that make or break someone as a man. Without right motive, eveything else is just talk. 

When was last time he said anything positive about Bulls, Skile, Paxon, Kirk, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, AD, ... anybody on Bulls?

Yes I believe since the depature of Jamal, Grinch is on his mission to destory BUlls. ANd I really believe that. ;-)

Only thing is the whole antic of his posting his own propaganda is getting really old.

I am still waiitng for him to post one single positive thread. Only then I will change my mind about him. Thank you.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I thought this was an interesting statistical analysis. Not definitive, but interesting. Thanks Grinch for providing it. The non-substantive nature of most of the responses were very revealing.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> * If the issue was with Curry and Chandler sucking, how come Crawford, Rose, and Williams were didn't have similar problems last year, and how come Crawford and Gill... our number two and three distributing guards didn't have similar problems?
> 
> * Just as a point of clarification, it's not just a matter of playing with "jump shooters" because that sort of ignores what an assist is. An assist means the player doesn't have to make a move himself to get the shot.
> ...


They are just statistics. Not everyone respects them like you or others might. Stats should *never* be used to form your opinion, but only as one of the tools to back them up. Obviously grinch provided some nice stats to back up his opinion, but that doesnt take away from or discredit the fact that Hinrich did average 7 assists last season, which can be used as back up for the opinion that Hinrich is an excellent passer. 

The bottom line is, stats can be very decieving, and they will never replace watching the player play, there is too many things that cant be tracked.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> With all due respect, I guess this is where you were wrong. Like almost anything in this life, it is "motive" or "intention" that make or break someone as a man. Without right motive, eveything else is just talk.
> 
> ...


This doesn't make any sense to me. What it boils down to is "I don't like someone so I'm going to ignore him no matter how right he is". Using undisputed facts to argue a point is not propaganda.

Undertaking an argument to appeal to people's emotions and imply they should ignore facts, however compelling, rather than contravert them with other facts, is to my mind, evidence one has no ability to do do so, and rather than simply being honest about it, resort to name calling and smearing people. In short, such behavior is worthy of little respect and little credibility.

Now, someone who responds to facts with other facts, who can demonstrate that the facts in question are actually incorrect or, taken within the whole context of other facts do not have the imported meaning- that person is doing everyone a service, enhancing his credibility, and is therefore deserving of great respect.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

geeez, grinch, what a _horrible_ thread title.

:dead: 

(FWIW) here are the 03-04 assist totals for the players mentioned in the original post:


Billups 446
TJ Ford 356
Tinsley 303
McInnis 430
Jones 478

*HINRICH 517*

the only other *rookie* (obviously) in that group is TJ Ford (and of course his totals would have been higher had he not been injured)...

if the point (yes bad pun) of all this is to convince (who? the bulls coaching staff? Hinrich?) us all that Hinrich should become a SG - then know this:

_Pax and Skiles already think of him as a combo guard - able to play both positions._




> Its my belief he is very unselfish and well schooled on basketball , but that he isn't a creative passer or that he has enough passing vision to ever be that good at the position and that his true position is as a 2 guard where his best talent , his shooting ability would be better utilized.


let's just see how his second season in the NBA plays out before we judge him as a "creative" passer, or a PG with or without passing vision. 

he is already GOOD at the position whether you want to admit it or not. 

question isn't really will he get better, and improve the all important "inside/outside" assist ratios statistic - but what will his play do to help the BULLS WIN.

stay tuned...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> They are just statistics. Not everyone respects them like you or others might. Stats should *never* be used to form your opinion, but only as one of the tools to back them up. Obviously grinch provided some nice stats to back up his opinion, but that doesnt take away from or discredit the fact that Hinrich did average 7 assists last season, which can be used as back up for the opinion that Hinrich is an excellent passer.
> 
> The bottom line is, stats can be very decieving, and they will never replace watching the player play, there is too many things that cant be tracked.


I have my doubts that people watching games can accurately assess all that is going on. What I think happens most often, among fans and front office types, is that once first impressions are formed, people tend to see the things that support their first impressions and ignore those that conflict with them. Careful analyses of statistics can temper these biases.

Second, even though people _say_ that statistics are not dominating their thinking, I think it is very telling that glory stats (points plus assists plus rebounds per game) are the best predictor of players' salaries. So despite all of the talk about GMs having the "sixth" sense that allows them to observe true basketball playing ability, it appears that their actions betray them. They are not putting their money into the guys that do the little things; they are putting their money into the glory stats guys.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> They are just statistics. Not everyone respects them like you or others might. Stats should *never* be used to form your opinion, but only as one of the tools to back them up.


On the contrary- this is precisely the opposite of what one should do. First, you attempt to formulate an analysis you think will answer a question. You may have a hunch, or even a hope, that your analysis will confirm a given suspicion, but if you build your analysis to support it then you are expressly doing what you caution against below- being deceiving. If your analysis gives you an unexpected result and you simply throw it out, then you're throwing out your honesty along with it.

Put another way, if you take some kind of statistical sample and then throw it away when it doesn't say what you thought it would, it's an admission it wouldn't have been worth using as support if it had met your expectation. 



> Obviously grinch provided some nice stats to back up his opinion, but that doesnt take away from or discredit the fact that Hinrich did average 7 assists last season, which can be used as back up for the opinion that Hinrich is an excellent passer.


Of course not, but it provides a better context to understand what's going on. Just as Grinch's stats don't detract from his 7 assists, the converse is true. The challenge is not just to come up with stats that support your point, but to explain all the stats in a coherent manner.



> The bottom line is, stats can be very decieving, and they will never replace watching the player play, there is too many things that cant be tracked.


Well, they certainly are if they're used inconsistently... but that's a matter of people being dishonest, not statistics. It's certainly no worse than "watching the player play", as is evidenced by the game threads here... you can watch a game and read the comments here and be damn sure that you'll find someone who saw the same thing but disagrees with your take on it.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> On the contrary- this is precisely the opposite of what one should do. First, you attempt to formulate an analysis you think will answer a question. You may have a hunch, or even a hope, that your analysis will confirm a given suspicion, but if you build your analysis to support it then you are expressly doing what you caution against below- being deceiving. If your analysis gives you an unexpected result and you simply throw it out, then you're throwing out your honesty along with it.
> 
> Put another way, if you take some kind of statistical sample and then throw it away when it doesn't say what you thought it would, it's an admission it wouldn't have been worth using as support if it had met your expectation.
> ...


This is true, for the most part, but until statistical analysis can paint the whole picture, it will be decieving. There is some stat out there that will work against this stat that Grinch posted, then theres a stat to work against that one, and so on. It seems like a lot of work just to _confirm_ an opinion, I dont need stats to confirm what I see on the basketball court, thats because I have confidence in my evaluating skills. 

We can argue numbers all day, but it all goes back to what happens on the basketball court.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> This is true, for the most part, but until statistical analysis can paint the whole picture, it will be decieving. There is some stat out there that will work against this stat that Grinch posted, then theres a stat to work against that one, and so on. It seems like a lot of work just to _confirm_ an opinion, I dont need stats to confirm what I see on the basketball court, thats because I have confidence in my evaluating skills.
> ...


So where is this stat that will go against Grinch's stat ?

The irony in your post is that you're saying "bottomline is that Kirk averaged 7 assists", but when we cite statistics of HOW that 7 assists, as in these statistics are more specific and thus tell more, is generated, you're doing a 180 saying "I know what I see, I don't need these stats to tell me what's going on."

It seems like you're thinking that the 7 assists a game is all that matters in Kirk's. He's got it, and that proves he's good as if this is what the team should be aiming for.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

This is true, for the most part, but until subjective analysis can paint the whole picture, it will be decieving. There is some evaluation out there that will work against this evaluation that Johnny Mac posted, then there's an evaluation to work against that one, and so on. It seems like a lot of work just to _confirm_ an opinion, I dont need subjective analysis to confirm what I see on the basketball court, thats because I have confidence in my ability to analyze statistics. 

We can argue subjective analyses all day, but it all goes back to what happens on the basketball court.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> The irony in your post is that you're saying "bottomline is that Kirk averaged 7 assists"


You must have quoted the wrong person. My bottom line would never be be that vague and simple minded. Go read what I really put as my bottom line.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> thats because I have confidence in my ability to analyze statistics.


Great. Keep analyzing statistics, I'll keep analyzing basketball players.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> I have my doubts that people watching games can accurately assess all that is going on. What I think happens most often, among fans and front office types, is that once first impressions are formed, people tend to see the things that support their first impressions and ignore those that conflict with them. Careful analyses of statistics can temper these biases.
> 
> Second, even though people _say_ that statistics are not dominating their thinking, I think it is very telling that glory stats (points plus assists plus rebounds per game) are the best predictor of players' salaries. So despite all of the talk about GMs having the "sixth" sense that allows them to observe true basketball playing ability, it appears that their actions betray them. They are not putting their money into the guys that do the little things; they are putting their money into the glory stats guys.


Sorry I missed this, it was last on the 2nd page and I skipped to the 3rd. Its a good post, I understand your reasoning, but I see more players misjudged by statistical analysis than players I misjudge myself, so I just go with my own evaluation of a player over the statistical analysis.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I get a chuckle out of this whole thread. The point is that Kirk Hinrich got MORE assists than any of the players listed, just that Kirk got more of his assists from outside shots than up close? Again, and none of the "statistics are the end-all-be-all" society choses to address it, is how many points did that assist generate? Regardless of whether the shot was a dunk or a 22ft jump shot they both earned the same amount of points, and hence contributed exactly the same amount to that teams total points. Gee, Jamal Tinsley gets to pass the ball to Jermaine O'Neil on a regular occasion. I wonder if O'neil, one of the best low post operators, get's a lot of shots off close to the basket? Of course, we have Chandler who can't hit a shot to save his life and scores off of putbacks and such. No assist generated there.

I'm glad grinch came out and showed that Kirk had more assists than any other "point guard" in our conference. Thanks alot. You must really be impressed with Hinrich. No agendas at all. Gotta love the objectivity of folks.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> I get a chuckle out of this whole thread. The point is that Kirk Hinrich got MORE assists than any of the players listed, just that Kirk got more of his assists from outside shots than up close? Again, and none of the "statistics are the end-all-be-all" society choses to address it, is how many points did that assist generate? Regardless of whether the shot was a dunk or a 22ft jump shot they both earned the same amount of points, and hence contributed exactly the same amount to that teams total points. Gee, Jamal Tinsley gets to pass the ball to Jermaine O'Neil on a regular occasion. I wonder if O'neil, one of the best low post operators, get's a lot of shots off close to the basket? Of course, we have Chandler who can't hit a shot to save his life and scores off of putbacks and such. No assist generated there.
> 
> I'm glad grinch came out and showed that Kirk had more assists than any other "point guard" in our conference. Thanks alot. You must really be impressed with Hinrich. No agendas at all. Gotta love the objectivity of folks.


j
The implication with this outside/inside stat is that Kirk just happened to be the beneficiary of shots going in from outside lower-percentage shots rather than a spark or initiator to get players high percentage shots.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> You must have quoted the wrong person. My bottom line would never be be that vague and simple minded. Go read what I really put as my bottom line.


Yeah, the bottom line is that you don't like stats, I know. 

However, you said, "Obviously grinch provided some nice stats to back up his opinion, _but that doesnt take away from or discredit the fact that Hinrich did average 7 assists last season_, which can be used as back up for the opinion that Hinrich is an excellent passer." 

Damn, if you had just stopped at where the italics end this would've been much easier cause that's all I was focused on. But you added that part of "which can be used as back up for the opinion that Hinrich is an excellent passer." Very clever. 

But basically, you're just at a point where you want to stop this statistic that sort of tells how inefficient Kirk was at getting the ball to guys so you'll discredit all statistics and roll into the covering "hey, it's just my opinion." I can understand that.

I like to discredit statistics all the time, but usually I cite how poorly constructed the stat is and how it doesn't take into account this or that. That has yet to be done as most of the posts have been about "bottomline he's got the most assists." They're basically saying it doesn't matter, when no one's actually saying how it doesn't matter.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Great. Keep analyzing statistics, I'll keep analyzing basketball players.


mac, i was saying the same thing _during_ the season ...i just have recently found out stats that back up what i was seeing.

and that is the pg of the bulls was setting up jumpshots for his teammates and the other point guards were getting their teammates more closer and easier closer shots.

the bulls had last year what i would call a bunch of poor % perimeter shooters and i believe they were last in the league in fg% at .414 and half of the team appeared to shoot career lows from the field, and those who didn't were usually rookies or didn't play much with kirk as they were reserves. it seemed unintelligent to me that kirk primarily worked for jumpshots for players like kendall gill who shot pretty poorly from the outside off of curls instead of taking it into the lane more and creating easy shots by forcing bigs to come over to him and leaving curry , chandler or davis open under the basket or close to it. he didn't do that nearly enough, and you know what, neither did crawford , but the differnce is crawford still found a way , TJ ford found a way , not very pg can take it to the rim , but every pg found a way to deliver the ball to his teammates for easier shots than kirk hinrich.

at some point you have to wonder why this is so , and in this case i believe the obvious answer is kirk hinrich.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> j
> The implication with this outside/inside stat is that Kirk just happened to be the beneficiary of shots going in from outside lower-percentage shots rather than a spark or initiator to get players high percentage shots.


Please educate me then as to the difference in shooting percentage between an assist that came from an "inside shot" and an assist that came from an "outside shot". If you can, in some sensible way, tell me that there is a difference in shooting percentage, I'll go on a campaign to have you replace Paxson and Skiles and I'll also write in your name when it comes time to vote for the President.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> Yeah, the bottom line is that you don't like stats, I know.


When one of the best, most in-depth and "accurate" systems out there is telling me that Andrei Kirilenko is better than Tim Duncan, thats when I choose to evaluate players differently. 



> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> But basically, you're just at a point where you want to stop this statistic that sort of tells how inefficient Kirk was at getting the ball to guys so you'll discredit all statistics and roll into the covering "hey, it's just my opinion." I can understand that.


The sport is basketball, not mathematics or statistics. 



> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> But basically, you're just at a point where you want to stop this statistic that sort of tells how inefficient Kirk was at getting the ball to guys so you'll discredit all statistics and roll into the covering "hey, it's just my opinion." I can understand that.


It would be a useful stat if every point guard he was compared to had the exact same circumstances, exact same teammates, exact same coaches, exact same offensive systems, etc. Thats why relying on my own analysis works better *for me* rather than relying on *someone elses* statistical analysis. I'm sorry you aren't confident in your own ability to evaluate basketball players, so I guess the stats thing works for you.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I think there's truth to both sides of this argument.

grinch's stats do show that Kirk didn't find people cutting or open near the basket. Now, is it because Kirk lacks court vision, or because the Bulls' players and offensive sets didn't free people up for those types of opportunities?

I'd say it's more the latter, but there's no way you can really refute grinch's stats. I'd just mention that we had a team of players who didn't really know the meaning of the words "back cut", and outside of an inconsistent Curry, we didn't have any finishers at the rim considering that Tyson was out for huge stretches. Crawford's unwillingness to consistently drive to the bucket has been argued beyond redundancy. He also had a long way to go as far as freeing himself off the ball. That might have been his fault or the fault of Skiles's vanilla offensive sets. Who else was taking shots? Kirk himself (can't give yourself an assist), Gill who isn't a slashing threat anymore, ERob who said to the newspapers that he's scared to go to the basket, AD who lost his lift a couple years ago and relies on missing 14 footers now. Curry who sometimes provides a great target for close-in assists, but also sometimes disappears for games at a time. JYD who found a way to miss every different type of gimmee he found.

You can't blame Kirk for all those things. It's only possible to get a close-in assist if you have players who will provide a close-in target for you, and Kirk didn't have much to work with in that regard. You also can't refute the stats. 

This year should help to settle this rift. Nocioni moves without the ball. Deng moves very well without the ball for a young player. Gordon should be able to get into the lane and finish once he figures out how to get his shot off on bigger players. Tyson and Eddy look like they're ready to roll. Kirk will be expected to find these guys for easy baskets. I think he will, grinch isn't so sure. I wouldn't say either position is that unreasonable right now.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Please educate me then as to the difference in shooting percentage between an assist that came from an "inside shot" and an assist that came from an "outside shot". If you can, in some sensible way, tell me that there is a difference in shooting percentage, I'll go on a campaign to have you replace Paxson and Skiles and I'll also write in your name when it comes time to vote for the President.


Well, generally, when you're closer to the basket, there's more of a chance that you make a shot. The leaders of field goal percentage tend to be those that do more "inside shots" than "outside shots.}

I'll PM you with my actual name and everything you can do to get involved with my formerly 1-man grassroots campaign. :grinning:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I see this is one of the last Kirk stereotypes to die. First it was "KH isn't athletic", then it was "KH will get eaten alive on defense", then it was "KH can't shoot", then it was "KH can't handle the ball", now it is "KH isn't a good creator". Not that this criticism isn't valid -- grinch brings up an excellent data set to support his conclusions and presents a pretty strong argument. However, there are a few variables I'd like to address:

1. Outside of the high pick and roll, last year's Bulls offensive movement was among the worst I've ever seen at the NBA level. Kirk and Jamal were oftentimes the only ones moving on offense (and, subsquently affecting the defense). I believe this is a major contributor to Kirk's relatively low close-assists numbers as well as both his and Jamal's low FG%. The offense was simply stagnant, and it wasn't any one player's fault.

2. JYD and AD were not starting-caliber frontcourt players, yet they started the bulk of the year. Frontcourt players are usually the recipients of close-type assists. Make of that what you will.

3. If last year's team gets out and runs, Kirk averages 8+ APG and a whole hell of a lot more dimes in traffic. He's most effective when running up and down the court -- one of the most dominating transition players I've seen in 15+ years of watching college hoops religiously. I believe Skiles will try to address this in the coming months.

4. 6.8 apg is 6.8 apg. If you get 6.8 apg on the high pick and roll, by dishing out to the open 20-footer, or simply making the extra pass, you're still contributing 6.8 apg to the team. Moreover, at least on last year's squad, I think I'd rather have Corie Blount or Jannero Pargo shooting the 20' jumper on a feed from Hinrich than JYD or AD trying to convert on the inside.

5. Kirk was a rookie last year and he still finished 7th in the league in assists and 9th in assists per 48. Maybe the problem isn't with him as much as it is with the movement of players and/or offensive scheme.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Please educate me then as to the difference in shooting percentage between an assist that came from an "inside shot" and an assist that came from an "outside shot". If you can, in some sensible way, tell me that there is a difference in shooting percentage, I'll go on a campaign to have you replace Paxson and Skiles and I'll also write in your name when it comes time to vote for the President.


That's very easy to explain- every assist generates basket but not every attempted assist generates a basket.

What's not being measured is the number of "attempted assists". 

Measuring assists by distance is a nice way to get around this lack of data because it gives us a proxy for the effectiveness of the assist.

Just as we expect a shot taken from 5 feet to have a higher probability of generating a field goal made than a shot taken from 25 feet, we expect that a pass resulting that lets the receiver take a shot (which is what an assist is supposed to be) will be more likely to generate an actual (scoring) assist if delivered to a guy 5 feet from the basket than if he was 25 feet away.

To make the example clear, imagine if we didn't measure field goal attempts, just field goals made. Then, imagine that we note field goals made on long-distance shots and those made on inside shots.

Without knowing how many _attempts_ were made at each range, we can't know a precise shooting percentage. However, we would probably be accurate in saying that an inside shot is more likely to be made than an outside shot, and using the ratio of the two to create a proxy for field goal percentage.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> I think there's truth to both sides of this argument.
> 
> grinch's stats do show that Kirk didn't find people cutting or open near the basket. Now, is it because Kirk lacks court vision, or because the Bulls' players and offensive sets didn't free people up for those types of opportunities?
> ...


vicious _always_ able to put into words what i am thinking. 5 stars. 

happyg is setting the bar high for hinrich. i think he will deliver too. and i think we will be seeing him play at SG quite a bit this season, so any "official" move to that spot, as happyg seems to be advocating is really a moot point IMO. 

here is what Sports Illustrated said (and i agree it will make a difference in the play not only of Hinrich, but of the team):

*Nocioni can finish in traffic, which will make Hinrich's giant ears perk up, as Gill constantly blew layups in the lane last season.*

just as an example. the fact we now have more players who can, in theory, actually FINISH plays...i think we will see a marked improvement in this _all telling_ inside/outside stat. 


by the way: glad to see this posted on the bulls site today : http://www.nba.com/bulls/ 

alive and well!!

:| :grinning:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> I think there's truth to both sides of this argument.
> 
> grinch's stats do show that Kirk didn't find people cutting or open near the basket. Now, is it because Kirk lacks court vision, or because the Bulls' players and offensive sets didn't free people up for those types of opportunities?
> ...


Outstanding post


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VF, its not like i cant see reasons to look more for outside shots than inside ones , a team can have more ouside scoring proficiency at the 2 and 3 spots than the 4 and 5 , or the 4 and 5 spots can be better outside shooters than they are inside scorers, or inside players with bad hands ...these instances are rare and they dont apply really to the bulls . most teams have a power forward or center starter who can hit a mid range shot if you set them up for it because the post can be crowded otherwise. 

the damning part of it for kirk was that jamal seemed to have no problem last year or the season before with jay at doing it(finding players for easy baskets) at a better rate around where the rest of the league's pg's were.

jalen provides the same problems that jamal makes for kirk in this area , jalen never cut to the basket , jalen perferred to iso and take jumpshots , yet neither jay nor jamal seemed greatly affected by it


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> When one of the best, most in-depth and "accurate" systems out there is telling me that Andrei Kirilenko is better than Tim Duncan, thats when I choose to evaluate players differently.


I don't know where this is coming from, but it sounds (or reads) like you're saying that this statistic doesn't count because this 82game.com can't measure other statistics.



> The sport is basketball, not mathematics or statistics.


 Wow if only my math professors and teachers only knew I was doing this, maybe they would've thought twice before failing me (actually me ducking out of classes before grades came out) ! 



> It would be a useful stat if every point guard he was compared to had the exact same circumstances, exact same teammates, exact same coaches, exact same offensive systems, etc.


You could say that for any statistic.



> Thats why relying on my own analysis works better *for me* rather than relying on *someone elses* statistical analysis. I'm sorry you aren't confident in your own ability to evaluate basketball players, so I guess the stats thing works for you.


 Ironically, your position of evaluating basketball players rather than statistics is the side I was generally on, especially when people always pointed out Kirk's seven assists a game as some kind of signal that he was a star. 

The reason I like this statistic is because it sort of lets us know how the broad stat, ASSISTS, were achieved. It's a stat within a stat that works toward specifying what actions are done. It tells us more than what plain old ASSISTS does.


----------



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

I would think that the inside/outside proportion of assists would have a lot to do with the offensive system that the pg is asked to run. I did not see an offense last year that called for slashing to the hoop (one way to get inside shots). And, defenses were keying in the paint (the other way to get inside shots.) I wish they'd run a New Jersey type offense but, unless Deng or Nocciani become slashers (a la Jefferson) it won't work.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> billups 244 jumpshot assists vs. 202 of the closer variety
> ...


You do realize that all these guys have much better close assist ratios than Jamal Crawford, right? Now, Jamal wasn't much of a penetrator in Chicago, but he was considered a creative player with good vision. I think his and Hinrich's low close assist numbers tell us more about the inefficiency and stagnancy of the Bulls offense than it does about the effectiveness or lack thereof of any one player.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> That's very easy to explain- every assist generates basket but not every attempted assist generates a basket.
> ...


Yeah you could turn this explanation into a children's 36-font storybook alright. :laugh:


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> Well, generally, when you're closer to the basket, there's more of a chance that you make a shot. The leaders of field goal percentage tend to be those that do more "inside shots" than "outside shots.}
> 
> I'll PM you with my actual name and everything you can do to get involved with my formerly 1-man grassroots campaign. :grinning:


I understand that low post players shoot a higher percentage than permiter players... That's not what I was asking. An assist results in a basket no matter where the shot was taken. Hence, the shooting percentage on an assist, any assist, is 100% regardless of where the shot was taken. Hinrich facilitated more assists than any other player on Grinchs' list. Seems pretty simple to me.

A point guards job is to get the ball to other players so that they are in a position to score. Hinrich did that better than any player on that list. Plain and simple. Yet, because some want to try to denigrate one player by trying to read into the "numbers" something that isn't there I find quite interesting.


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

Then imagine how many assists Kirk can average when teammates are moving, shooting better and creating more fast breaks. So he already gets top 10 in assists with no "close shots" and from sub-par/streaky shooters without "creating"? Heck even if the kid somehow never learns to create and pass to guys cutting or in transition or open under the basket (lol) just better shooters on the team could get him top 5 in assists.

Ahhh, legit reasons for optimism....

Thanks Grinch.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

You take out the occasional Karl Malone monster dunk (which was made possible in part by Karl freaking Malone), and I bet Hinrich's assist-type numbers look a whole hell of a lot like John Stockton's*. A lot of high pick and rolls, a large number of perimeter passes, occasional drives-and-dishes, a few lobs here and there, quite a few "extra" passes. I believe Stockton was known as a pretty decent passer.

* This isn't a comparison of the two players, per se, but rather their styles of passing. Don't freak out.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> The reason I like this statistic is because it sort of lets us know how the broad stat, ASSISTS, were achieved. It's a stat within a stat that works toward specifying what actions are done. It tells us more than what plain old ASSISTS does.


Again, my stance is towards statistics as a whole. I dont completely disregard them, but I dont respect them very much. I think Stephon Marbury is the most overrated player in the league, because I feel his assists per game reflect how much he controls the ball more than anything else. 

This stat does tell more than assists per game tells us, but thats not saying much. Both stats are very vague and cant capture the whole picture.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> That's very easy to explain- every assist generates basket but not every attempted assist generates a basket.
> ...


That's all well and good but it's unsubstantiated. If you want to take your example to the extreme, then every pass and every shot should be taken within 5 feet of the basket, thereby generating the greatest chance that the shot goes in. The game should be reduced, by your reasoning, to players on the permiter passing the ball to a post player and then letting that post player take the shot.

I'd also argue that a decent (note I said decent, which pretty much eliminates most of the Bulls players last season other than Hinrich and Crawford) permiter shooter can hit an uncontested 18 ft. shot at a 50% clip. That would be roughly the same percentage as a post player who's shot would be more likely contested than the permiter player, resulting in right about a 50% chance that the shot goes in. I'd also argue that a player that can find that open jump shooter at a 50% clip is just as well served passing to that player as he is passing to that post player who will hit at the same clip. The main difference being that with the post player, you almost always get a 50-50 chance and with the permiter player, you get that same 50-50 chance only if he's open for the shot. 

In the end, it's what player has the best chance to convert on any given possesion. If it's a post player, then get him the ball. If it's a permiter shooter and he's open, get him the ball. In the end, what matters is whether the ball went thru the hoop or not.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: On hinrich's passing*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> You do realize that all these guys have much better close assist ratios than Jamal Crawford, right? Now, Jamal wasn't much of a penetrator in Chicago, but he was considered a creative player with good vision. I think his and Hinrich's low close assist numbers tell us more about the inefficiency and stagnancy of the Bulls offense than it does about the effectiveness or lack thereof of any one player.


not all of them jamal's ratio was better than damon jones'

jc ratio 168 close assists compared to 236 jumpshot assists
.415 of his assists are closer 
billups .452 are closer
ford .432 are closer
jones .402 are closer 
tinsley .442 are closer 
mcinnis .474 are closer

kirk hinrich .334 are closer 

jc 2003 (his year at pg) .437 are closer 
jay 2003 .431 are closer

even at shooting guard JC is within the norm for a pg , but the lower half ...when he played pg he was compareble to the other pg's in the division .

kirk is far from it.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Now that happygrinch has proven Hinrich to be ineffective, what should we do with him? Should we trade him?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> Now that happygrinch has proven Hinrich to be ineffective, what should we do with him? Should we trade him?


Maybe we could get a decent backup shooting guard for him?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I see this is one of the last Kirk stereotypes to die.


Speaking about the state of the Bulls online community: No, it won't. There will be new ones. I'm convinced now that some fans won't be happy until he's in another uniform.

More on basketball though:



> 1. Outside of the high pick and roll, last year's Bulls offensive movement was among the worst I've ever seen at the NBA level.


Point...



> 4. 6.8 apg is 6.8 apg. If you get 6.8 apg on the high pick and roll, by dishing out to the open 20-footer, or simply making the extra pass, you're still contributing 6.8 apg to the team.


...and great point...



> 5. Kirk was a rookie last year and he still finished 7th in the league in assists. Maybe the problem isn't with him as much as it is with the movement of players and/or offensive scheme.


...and awesome point.

For better or worse, Skiles has anointed KH as the starting PG this season, and the organization is probably close to giving it to him for the decade.

As the only player with a position guaranteed, we're going to see this offense molded to make the best use of what his talents bring to the court. the 6.8 assists validate him as a starter...what type of PG he turns out to be longterm remains to be seen.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> You take out the occasional Karl Malone monster dunk (which was made possible in part by Karl freaking Malone), and I bet Hinrich's assist-type numbers look a whole hell of a lot like John Stockton's*. A lot of high pick and rolls, a large number of perimeter passes, occasional drives-and-dishes, a few lobs here and there, quite a few "extra" passes. I believe Stockton was known as a pretty decent passer.
> 
> * This isn't a comparison of the two players, per se, but rather their styles of passing. Don't freak out.


i am not going to freak out anymore than i did when someone said something similar on the 1st page of this thread about stockton.

342 jumpshot vs , 273 closer .443 are closer and thats with karl taking alot of jumpshots on that pick and roll , in their prime stockton probably had numbers similar to kidd in this ratio.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: On hinrich's passing*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> even at shooting guard JC is within the norm for a pg ,


...yet not for total assists.



> jc 2003 (his year at pg) .437 are closer


Yet his rate of assists is still significantly behind Hinrich's rookie assist rate. Who generated more points for his teammates?



> jay 2003 .431 are closer


Yet his rate of assists is still significantly behind Hinrich's rookie assist rate. Who generated more points for his teammates?



> kirk is far from it.


...yet not for total assists.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Kirk generated a lot of assists because he played PG and he played a lot of minutes.

Comparing absolute totals is near meaningless given the amount of time he spent on the court (which is a function of the lack of guys they had backing him him up vs. the guys they had in 02-03).

The operative questions are very simple:

How many potential assists did he create? 

The question might be obvious if you say you'd rather have a guy who generates 300 assists to 200 assists, but that ignores the most obvious point.

Would you rather have a guy who generates 300 assists per 1000 passes or a guy who generates 400 assists per 1000 passes?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Kirk generated a lot of assists because he played PG and he played a lot of minutes.


Kirk's rate of assists was better than Jay's rate of assists as a PG as well as Jamal's rate of assists as both PG and SG. I calculated for minutes played.



> Would you rather have a guy who generates 300 assists per 1000 passes or a guy who generates 400 assists per 1000 passes?


The guy who generates 400 assists per 1,000 passes, which is my point. This guy would be Kirk, not Jay or Jamal.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Jay two seasons ago: 1 assist every 5.55 minutes played.
Jamal two seasons ago: 1 assist every 5.92 minutes played.
Jamal last season: 1 assist every 6.88 minutes played.

*Kirk last season: 1 assist every 5.23 minutes played.*

Simply put, Kirk creates more scoring opportunities for his teammates than Jay and Jamal did as Bulls.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 3. If last year's team gets out and runs, Kirk averages 8+ APG and a whole hell of a lot more dimes in traffic. He's most effective when running up and down the court -- one of the most dominating transition players I've seen in 15+ years of watching college hoops religiously. I believe Skiles will try to address this in the coming months.


This is a fantastic point.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Kirk is #9 in assists per 48 minutes:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/2003/...rs/LeagueLeadersAST8Query.html?topic=1&stat=9

KH is above Eric Snow, Baron Davis, Andre Miller, Rafer Alston, Tony Parker, Dwyane Wade, Jason Terry, Carlos Arroyo, Gary Payton, Allen Iverson, Steve Francis, LeBron James, Mike Bibby......I guess we should trade him because he's not generating enough points for his teammates.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Kirk generated a lot of assists because he played PG and he played a lot of minutes.
> 
> Comparing absolute totals is near meaningless given the amount of time he spent on the court (which is a function of the lack of guys they had backing him him up vs. the guys they had in 02-03).
> ...


You mean to tell me that you're disregarding certain statistical results as meaningless over other statistical results?????? Perish the thought! Are you telling us that certain statistical results when looked at in a certain context have less meaning than other results or that, in fact, the context of those results can be interpreted to suit whatever argument you choose to support?

Again, what you're looking at is an unsubstantiated position. It's all well and convienent of you to say that "potential assists" are what are in question here and yet there is absolutly ZERO evidence to either support or refute whether Hinrich created more "potential assists" or not. In the abscence of any evidence, total assists is as valid an indicator as anything else and at least there is a modicum of proof and evidence other than the nebulous "potential assist".

I can state that Hinrich didn't get a high ratio of inside assists because his only real option, Eddy Curry, while a gifted post scorer, was routinely triple teamed and had this irritating habit of laying shots up rather than powering them down opponents faces. I thought Tyson "tiny hands of stone" Chandler was only good for garbage points. Points that would not generate an assist. Jerome Williams couldn't make a layup to save his life. Antonio Davis' only real value was in the pick and roll where he'd spot up for a 12 footer. 

Now what I read in this thread is that Kirk had all these wonderful weapons to use in the low post and that it was his complete lack of ability that he didn't get the ball to these studs in the post. I find it ironic that these exact same accusers are those same posters who lamented Davis, Williams, Chandler and Curry as in-effective scorers. These exact same posters who long for the day of Rose and Marshall and then I have to ask myself... Is this a coincidence? I'll leave that for others to figure out.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Jay two seasons ago: 1 assist every 5.55 minutes played.
> Jamal two seasons ago: 1 assist every 5.92 minutes played.
> Jamal last season: 1 assist every 6.88 minutes played.
> ...


VV i have never disputed the # of assists , what i question is the kind of assists he generates .

outside of jamal crawford there really aren't any 3 pts shooters for kirk to pass to so its all midrange J's and crawford wasn't a high % shooter from deep.

if kirk got 7 fg's for antonio davis jumpshots and the other pg lets say got 7 fg's for thier pf and they were all shots close to the basket ....the other team most likely did it with alot less shots from their power forward, getting antonio davis jumpshots is not a good idea, he is not efficient at it , to let you know how bad it is compare that any shot jamal crawford takes with 3 or less seconds on the shot has an effective field goal % of .416 , and we all know that isn't a good shot but the bulls would have been far more effective by just not running the pick and roll with kirk and davis and just waiting for crawford to shoot at the end of the shot clock.

antionio davis effective fg% from jumpshots .358 ,.490 inside
kendall gill efg% from jumpshots .370, .504 on the inside
linton johnson efg % from jumpshots .290, .594 inside
JC efg %.439 from jumpshots .514 inside
TC efg% from jumpshots .329 .518 on the inside 
EC efg% from jumpshots .259 ,.610 on the inside
kikr H. efg% from jumpshots .484, ..434 on the inside

outside of kirk there was not one player on the roster who shot better outside than inside and the bulls without a doubt dont qualify as a team that is better served by a pg that gets such a high # of outside assists vs. inside ones .

in general unless your team is highly efficient jumpshot shooting team , and very poor one from shooting inside , closer is better. so yes he has more assists per. min. he obviously had the ball in his hands more than jay or jamal , what he didn't have was a more efficient offense.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

5 more reasons to trade Hinrich:

1. #24 3PT%

2. #21 3PT per 48 minutes

3. #45 FT%

4. #29 A/TO

5. #24 spg


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I see this is one of the last Kirk stereotypes to die. First it was "KH isn't athletic", then it was "KH will get eaten alive on defense", then it was "KH can't shoot", then it was "KH can't handle the ball", now it is "KH isn't a good creator".


how about the stereotype of any white pg who makes it past training camp being compared to john stockton ?

both hinrich, dan dickau and luke ridnour have had that comparison thrown upon them , and if i cared to make thread on the same topic about luke or dan i am pretty positive it would be much more damning about their ability to find his teammates close to the basket than this one is about kirk.

can we let that one go yet ?

there is only one stockton like there was just one magic, MJ , dr.J and all the other greats .


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 5 more reasons to trade Hinrich:
> 
> 1. #24 3PT%
> ...


thats right overreact, because you know that is what proves my assertion wrong.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> They are just statistics. Not everyone respects them like you or others might. Stats should *never* be used to form your opinion, but only as one of the tools to back them up. Obviously grinch provided some nice stats to back up his opinion, but that doesnt take away from or discredit the fact that Hinrich did average 7 assists last season, which can be used as back up for the opinion that Hinrich is an excellent passer.
> ...


Aren't you contradicting yourself though? You say that they are just statistics, and you mention that these statistics don't take away from his 7 assists, which is also a statistic, right?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> VV i have never disputed the # of assists , what i question is the kind of assists he generates .
> ...


this is all fine. We know that almost every player shoots better inside than outside. I'm more likely to hit a layup than a 3 myself. But laying all the blame for this on Kirk's feet seems a bit of a reach to me. AD shoots better inside than out, but he spent a lot of time shooting and missing that 14 foot jumper. He doesn't have a whirling dervish of post moves and he can't take a lob and slam it home anymore because he's getting old. Jamal showed that he could finish at the basket when he actually penetrated or cut to the basket, but he didn't do it often enough. Curry couldn't handle defensive pressure and didn't finish at the basket as well as he should a lot of the time. How is all of this Kirk's fault? Kirk is the PG, yes, and it's his job to orchestrate the offense, yes. But he can't control his teammates and make them cut to the basket or provide him with an inside target for an easy shot. He can't put springs in AD's legs so that he can go up and dunk over people like he did when he was ten years younger. He can't make ERob stop being a wuss and cut to the basket for lobs. If all these players are only making themselves available to receive passes on the perimeter for lower-percentage shots, there's only so much Kirk can do.

I do think you have a very credible argument here and it has a lot of merit with the stats backing it up. I just think you're assigning the preponderence of the blame to just one person when in fact it's probably a teamwide problem, including the coaching staff for failing to create a more effective offensive gameplan with what we had.

And like I said previously, I think Kirk will have more targets to work with this year with the newcomers at SF and a very gifted Ben Gordon. Hopefully the bigs will improve as well. There will be some lumps, but I think we have more firepower now.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> Aren't you contradicting yourself though? You say that they are just statistics, and you mention that these statistics don't take away from his 7 assists, which is also a statistic, right?


How is it a contradiction? I stated that his 7 assists per game is a stat, just like the stats grinch posted, and theres a million other stats out there that will contradict each other, but seem valid. Thats why at the end of the post you quoted, I said stats are decieving.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

1. VV's assists per minute played is much more convincing to me than some sort of nebulous inside/outside ratio as far as what kind of opportunities Kirk is getting his teammates. Bottom line, Kirk is actually creating more opportunities for his teammates than Jay or JC did. 

2. Grinch's stats, while kind of interesting, don't tell us anything definitive. Who knows what the reason is for the inside/outside proportions? Does KH not see open men in the lane (possible, though I personally don't believe that)? Do the Bulls run an offensive set that isn't conducive to close finishes? Do the Bulls not gets enough points on the break? Do the Bulls only have one decent post finisher? 

The fact is, it could be any one factor or any combination of factors listed above that cause this inside/outside ratio to exist. At the end of the day, I just like to see that KH is finding a way to get things done. 

Plus, weren't you guys listening when ERob explained why you might as well just shoot the J rather than have to go near the hoop and get hurt by the big scary men that hang out down there?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> this is all fine. We know that almost every player shoots better inside than outside. I'm more likely to hit a layup than a 3 myself. But laying all the blame for this on Kirk's feet seems a bit of a reach to me. AD shoots better inside than out, but he spent a lot of time shooting and missing that 14 foot jumper. He doesn't have a whirling dervish of post moves and he can't take a lob and slam it home anymore because he's getting old. Jamal showed that he could finish at the basket when he actually penetrated or cut to the basket, but he didn't do it often enough. Curry couldn't handle defensive pressure and didn't finish at the basket as well as he should a lot of the time. How is all of this Kirk's fault? Kirk is the PG, yes, and it's his job to orchestrate the offense, yes. But he can't control his teammates and make them cut to the basket or provide him with an inside target for an easy shot. He can't put springs in AD's legs so that he can go up and dunk over people like he did when he was ten years younger. He can't make ERob stop being a wuss and cut to the basket for lobs. If all these players are only making themselves available to receive passes on the perimeter for lower-percentage shots, there's only so much Kirk can do.
> ...


i dont say everything is kirks fault i do however say he doesn't find players enough close to the basket for scores , no team is perfect , milwakee has no players who you could call a post option and even if it did it wouldn't matter they dont really give assists for just giving it the guy down low and the he creates a shot for himself . I f that were the case derek fisher or tony parker would lead the league in assists because they feed the leagues best post up options.

thats not the point and it never has been , its about one aspect of kirk's game , his ability to find easy scores for his teammates . it only relies on the other 4 players being only somewhat competent at converting the opportunities presented to them by their pg, kirk doesn't appear to give his teammates as many opportunites as his peer pg's do.

if every other player has to be great at getting opportunities for kirk to be avg. at it and it hasn't been proven he is even with that advantage ....what does that say about kirk?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> VV i have never disputed the # of assists , what i question is the kind of assists he generates .


I agree that close assists are more desirable and ultimately more beneficial to an offense than those manifested further away, generally speaking. However, in this case (last year's Bulls) you're ultimately arguing for style over substance. There were an extremely limited amount of opportunities -- for any player -- on last year's squad to put up statistically substantial offensive numbers, yet Kirk provided more opportunities for his teammates to score than anyone else had in pretty much half a decade prior in Chicago.

In regards to last year's team, I'd rather have Blount (or any number of NBDL players on our roster) shooting 20' jumpers than AD or JYD getting blocked by the rim or bricking 5-footers. Like I stated earlier, if this team gets better flow, better talent under the basket and starts to run once in a while, you'll see Kirk's close assist numbers go up to the 40-45% range, and then all this moaning will be moot. Remember when I defended KH's ballhandling and overall play at the beginning of last year? This is part two of the same common sense defense.



> outside of jamal crawford there really aren't any 3 pts shooters for kirk to pass to so its all midrange J's and crawford wasn't a high % shooter from deep.


Exactly my point.



> getting antonio davis jumpshots is not a good idea, he is not efficient at it ,


AD shot 35.8% eFG on jumpers and 35.9% eFG on close-to-the-basket shots (not counting his very occasional dunks and tips). 6% of his outside jumpers were blocked, while *26%* of his close shots were blocked. I'd say Kirk did AD a favor by feeding AD outside where (a) his eFG% was identical to his eFG% closer to the bucket and (b) the chance of him having his shot swatted into the fourth row was significanly lower.



> to let you know how bad it is compare that any shot jamal crawford takes with 3 or less seconds on the shot has an effective field goal % of .416 , and we all know that isn't a good shot but the bulls would have been far more effective by just not running the pick and roll with kirk and davis and just waiting for crawford to shoot at the end of the shot clock.


Exactly my point.



> outside of kirk there was not one player on the roster who shot better outside than inside and the bulls without a doubt dont qualify as a team that is better served by a pg that gets such a high # of outside assists vs. inside ones .


Kirk (and Jamal) had no choice. Should he and Jamal have simply launched shots from deep all season? Should all the bigs have never ventured outside the paint? How long would that beautiful scheme have lasted before Stern kicked the Bulls out of the league?



> he obviously had the ball in his hands more than jay or jamal , what he didn't have was a more efficient offense.


Exactly. And that's not necessarily his fault. That's not necessarily any player's fault.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> thats not the point and it never has been , its about one aspect of kirk's game , his ability to find easy scores for his teammates . it only relies on the other 4 players being only somewhat competent at converting the opportunities presented to them by their pg, kirk doesn't appear to give his teammates as many opportunites as his peer pg's do.
> 
> if every other player has to be great at getting opportunities for kirk to be avg. at it and it hasn't been proven he is even with that advantage ....what does that say about kirk?


OK, the bottom line here is that we disagree about the competency of Kirk's teammates in getting open for close shots. I think they were utterly incompetent on many, many nights and Kirk did what he could to make lemonade out of the lemons he was playing with. You seem to think they were average or slightly below average - or at the very least, close enough to average that their shortcomings don't explain the stats adequately enough for you. I think we're just digging our heels in on a simple and understandable difference of opinion here, so I'm going to step aside for the time being.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

with all due respect did you just try to say dunks shouldn't count as close baskets by cutting them out of the equation?

dunks count , a player cant get any closer than that.

if AD got his shot blocked alot while trying to score , it still doesn't change the fact that he is much more effective risking a block inside than he is shooting outside shots , because even counting the blocks he was more effective.

if kirk got AD 5 dunks a game 1 lay up at 3 made jumpshots , i'd count the dunks , but the fact remains he didn't , the only pg who got his power forward that kind of ratio was jason kidd.

i dont hold kirk up to that kind of standard, i hold him to the standard of the avg. starting pg.

there were plenty of bad teams in the nba last season and there were plenty of bad offensive teams in the league but i am pretty sure the pg's on their teams were better than kirk at finding easy scores than kirk was.

people on this thread have without shame tried to blame kirk's inability to find his teammates for easy scores on everything from 1.his teammates (despite the fact JC didn't have that problem and alot of the teammates were there last for JC and jay)
2.his coach and system-who when i saw him coach the suns his team was pretty good at finding easy players(once again JC was there for this one too)i'll put in more abbout the system later in the post.
3.the GM-no one said the Gm but when someone mentions nbdl talent you look at the guy who signed them, because kirk didn't sign them and neither did the coach.
4. the stats themselves(who oddly enough hold on to the 6.8 kirk assistavg. like a security blanket)
5. agendas - i am proving a point , its nothing different than what i said about kirk during the season , the only difference is i am using stats to prove it. rather than analysis after watching him play.

the coach and system is really the only argument that affects whether or not a pg will have oppurtunities to find opportunities .

the bulls primarily ran a 1-4 set so as the pg kirk had the ball the majority of the time because of this its a damning thing its tailor maid for kirk to find his teammates for easy shots . at its best kirk is just setting up a post player comes up to the high post and kirk takes it into the lane , and either scores or passes off to a player who has left him to cover for a pg who has been picked off .

if kirk took it into the lane and no one comes over he has an uncontested layup , that very rarely happened someone always came over and theoretically kirk should be able to find someone close to the basket for an easy basket a good portion of the time which should be his 2nd option after his own shot was cut off by someone coming over .

that almost never happened , kirk usually passed outside to either the small forward , shooting guard or back out to the pick setted for a jumpshot. and thats why the play wasn't efficient.

somehow when JC ran this 1-4 set he got more inside shots for his teammates than kirk did , thats the thing with me , if no one else could do it than you can say well maybe its the system, the players who were playing but not producing as they should have.

did kirk get so many more layups from JC passes that it would it take toscrew with the % difference between the 2 in finding easy feeds for their teamates? 

i cant say i think thats the case, and i dont you can either because kirk spotted up outside just like JC did when kirk had the ball and if he moved , he moved to a different spot on the perimeter he didn't come inside much and if he did , he didn't get the ball. i cant remember a single time off a pick and roll kirk got the ball from jamal for a lay-up or dunk.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Somebody bring Jamal back so Grinch can STOP badmouthing Kirk. Gee, I thought once Jamal is gone, he would change his tone. But hell NO.

Once Kirk hater. Alwasy he will be. That's the whole point of this thread in my opinion.

He can stand behing all those non-sense stat as much as he like, but one truth he refused to admit is the fact he is Kirk hater.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Again, what you're looking at is an unsubstantiated position. It's all well and convienent of you to say that "potential assists" are what are in question here and yet there is absolutly ZERO evidence to either support or refute whether Hinrich created more "potential assists" or not. In the abscence of any evidence, total assists is as valid an indicator as anything else and at least there is a modicum of proof and evidence other than the nebulous "potential assist".


Just because there is no statistic to tell us how many attempted assists there are does not mean that, what we are claiming isn't happening. 

On that tip, you seem to want to disregard Grinch's statistic and revert to total assists.

The outside/inside assists stat still sort of tells us where the general category of ASSISTS are being distributed. Wouldn't you agree that this outside/inside statistic is more specific ? And when you're specific aren't you pinpointing something more directly ?

I assume you would say yes, in which case you should see that total assists isn't as valid an indicator as to what is happening on the floor.

It's generally not a good thing to take outside shots, but we have more of them for some reason. But then there's a disconnect when you realize that we suck at outside shots. So either were such a great outside shooting team or outside shots were all that we could take. 

That's not all Kirk's fault, but he was given the ball the most. He should've gotten us inside shots because we didn't have this plethora of decent outside shooters who could knock down 50% of their open shots.

Ultimately, the purpose of pointing out this statistic was just to point out that Kirk wasn't that great as opposed to what Kirk's defenders may think of as us trying to make him seem like a worthless CBA player. Solid, but not dynamic.


> I can state that Hinrich didn't get a high ratio of inside assists because his only real option, Eddy Curry, while a gifted post scorer, was routinely triple teamed and had this irritating habit of laying shots up rather than powering them down opponents faces. I thought Tyson "tiny hands of stone" Chandler was only good for garbage points. Points that would not generate an assist. Jerome Williams couldn't make a layup to save his life. Antonio Davis' only real value was in the pick and roll where he'd spot up for a 12 footer.


While still having a bad ratio, Jamal found a way to get more of his assists to the inside.



> Now what I read in this thread is that Kirk had all these wonderful weapons to use in the low post and that it was his complete lack of ability that he didn't get the ball to these studs in the post. I find it ironic that these exact same accusers are those same posters who lamented Davis, Williams, Chandler and Curry as in-effective scorers. These exact same posters who long for the day of Rose and Marshall and then I have to ask myself... Is this a coincidence? I'll leave that for others to figure out.


Whoa easy on the generalizations there. 

Davis, Williams, Chandler, and Curry proved to be effective weapons when used correctly. Unfortunately in this Skiles offense which Kirk initiated like a good soldier, their abilities were not maximized and they seemed ineffective. I think the Bulls of past few years have done a good job of making players seem less effective than would be.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> with all due respect did you just try to say dunks shouldn't count as close baskets by cutting them out of the equation?


No.

Of course it would be ideal if every basket scored was a dunk. Unfortunately, that's not how it is. AD shot a lot more close-to-the-basket shots than he did dunks, yet he was just as successful outside as he was inside (and he didn't get his shot swatted into the fourth row while taking the 12 to 15-footer). This is my main point in reasoning why Hinrich fed AD the ball a lot on the outside as opposed to dumping it inside and watching it get rejected every fourth try.



> there were plenty of bad teams in the nba last season and there were plenty of bad offensive teams in the league but i am pretty sure the pg's on their teams were better than kirk at finding easy scores than kirk was.


Operative phrase: "pretty sure".



> people on this thread have without shame tried to blame kirk's inability to find his teammates for easy scores on everything from 1.his teammates (despite the fact JC didn't have that problem and alot of the teammates were there last for JC and jay)


Bottom line: Kirk produced more scoring opportunities -- easy opportunities, average, difficult, whatever -- than Jay and Jamal did, both in terms of sheer volume and rate of opportunity. That's a statistical fact. This is another case of you favoring style over substance.



> 2.his coach and system-who when i saw him coach the suns his team was pretty good at finding easy players(once again JC was there for this one too)i'll put in more abbout the system later in the post.


Newsflash: the Phoenix Suns of a few years ago are not the Chicago Bulls of last year. I believe there were a few personnel differences.



> 3.the GM-no one said the Gm but when someone mentions nbdl talent you look at the guy who signed them, because kirk didn't sign them and neither did the coach.


Generally speaking, who is more capable of (a) getting open inside, (b) getting others open inside and (b) converting inside -- a player who was playing in the NBDL a week earlier or a player who's played in the NBA before and perhaps has even had some success on the pro level? I know it's a real head-scratcher, but try to venture a guess.



> 4. the stats themselves(who oddly enough hold on to the 6.8 kirk assistavg. like a security blanket)


Because we all know assist numbers are not a decent indicator of passing ability.



> 5. agendas - i am proving a point , its nothing different than what i said about kirk during the season , the only difference is i am using stats to prove it. rather than analysis after watching him play.


Your data does support your argument. However, your data is hardly complete and your argument is far from definitive.



> the bulls primarily ran a 1-4 set so as the pg kirk had the ball the majority of the time


What about all those times (at a number of junctures during the season) that a fair amount of people on this board said that Jamal was playing a significant (or even majority) of minutes at PG? Inconsistencies kill, grinch.



> at its best kirk is just setting up a post player comes up to the high post and kirk takes it into the lane , and either scores or passes off to a player who has left him to cover for a pg who has been picked off .


I never knew racking up assists in the NBA was so easy! Maybe I should give Pax a call. I think I can still dunk.



> if kirk took it into the lane and no one comes over he has an uncontested layup , that very rarely happened someone always came over and theoretically kirk should be able to find someone close to the basket for an easy basket


Using this logic, Marbury, Francis, Wade, Iverson, et al should average around 15-16 assists a game.



> somehow when JC ran this 1-4 set he got more inside shots for his teammates than kirk did ,


Yet overall he produced far fewer opportunites for his teammates to score than Kirk did. Even when he was playing PG most of the game, as many of you asserted for long stretches of last season.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*when kirk gets alot of assists*

the bulls still lose alot in fact in the games in which he garners 10 or more their record is 6-13 .

when he gets 17 or more points 9-10

when he accomplishes both in the same game the bulls were 3-3 when only got 10 assists and it wasn't accompanied by good shooting from kirk , the bulls were 3-10

you would think that when kirk got more assists it was great thing by the way some are touting his assist avg.(6.8) 

his assists appear not to nearly enough to make the bulls competitive , i think its because they are far too much of the less effective outside variety , in crawford's higher assists games the bulls won more often than in kirk's.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: when kirk gets alot of assists*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> the bulls still lose alot in fact in the games in which he garners 10 or more their record is 6-13 .
> 
> when he gets 17 or more points 9-10
> ...


This is a completely irrational argument. 



> his assists appear not to nearly enough to make the bulls competitive , i think its because they are far too much of the less effective outside variety , in crawford's higher assists games the bulls won more often than in kirk's.


While solid upon cursory statistical review, the problem with the above analysis is this: the greatest indicator of whether or not the Bulls won games last year was not Crawford's assist numbers, but rather his shooting and scoring numbers. When he scored 20 or more points, we were 14-14. I don't want to do the math, but I'd be willing to bet that when he shot at least 45% from the field, the Bulls were at or above .500. Conversely, in games where he had at least 6 assists (a number I think is indicative of his "higher" assist games), the Bulls were 15-20.

Combine this information with the fact that Jamal is a very hot/cold player (ie, above average points correlate with above average assists and vice versa for each game), and Crawford's assist data as an indicator of the Bulls' competitiveness fades in comparison to his scoring data (or, more precisely, the notion of whether or not he was "on" that night).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Kirk's rate of assists was better than Jay's rate of assists as a PG as well as Jamal's rate of assists as both PG and SG. I calculated for minutes played.
> ...


See, that's a good point you're raising, but you're also somewhat overselling it. That is, it doesn't completely show you're purporting it shows.

You calculated assists per minute, but that's says nothing about the efficiency of assists per pass.

Yes, Kirk has more assists per minute played, but if he's making more passes per minute played as well, he's not necessarily the guy who's generating more assists per pass.

Of course, we can and should say that it's better that he generates more assists per minute played, but you also acknowledge that "I agree that close assists are more desirable and ultimately more beneficial to an offense than those manifested further away, generally speaking."

---------------------------

In any case.... this argument is going off into la-la land on both sides. I suggest everyone takes a step back and reads VF's posts, which were solid and compelling without making it obvious that he'd throw any analysis out the window if it didn't support his pre-existing notion of what "right" was. 

How boring.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> See, that's a good point you're raising, but you're also somewhat overselling it.


How so? I'm simply relaying the facts.



> That is, it doesn't completely show you're purporting it shows.


How so?



> You calculated assists per minute, but that's says nothing about the efficiency of assists per pass.


Wow, this thread has really spiraled into heretofore uncharted waters. "Assists per pass"? Are you serious? Sometimes more passing is good, sometimes more passing is bad, so an "efficiency of assists per pass" stat is incredibly irrelevant and statistically insignificant. The fact remains: Kirk Hinrich generated more scoring opportunities for his teammates than Jay Williams and Jamal Crawford did. Period.



> Yes, Kirk has more assists per minute played, but if he's making more passes per minute played as well, he's not necessarily the guy who's generating more assists per pass.


Completely illogical argument.



> Of course, we can and should say that it's better that he generates more assists per minute played, but you also acknowledge that "I agree that close assists are more desirable and ultimately more beneficial to an offense than those manifested further away, generally speaking."


Non sequitur. This facet of the debate is not easily definable, nor is it as black and white as some are portraying it as being, nor is it a direct component of the argument I make (the argument you quote) in your above post. Regardless, I've given my reasoning behind my statement above in multiple posts over the course of this thread.

Easy, average, difficult, close, far away, pick and roll, alley-oops, whatever -- in regards to _total_ assists, _total_ cumulative opportunities, _total_ benefit to the team, Hinrich provided more than did Williams or Crawford. This is statistically verifiable.



> which were solid and compelling without making it obvious that he'd throw any analysis out the window if it didn't support his pre-existing notion of what "right" was.
> 
> How boring.


Then why are you disregarding my answer to your questions "How many potential assists did he create?" and "Would you rather have a guy who generates 300 assists per 1000 passes or a guy who generates 400 assists per 1000 passes?" by simply saying that I made a "good" point, but that I'm "overselling" it? I thought the data I provided was extremely pertinent, extremely significant and extremely illustrative. Yet it is largely disregarded because of an illogical "assists per pass" statistic?

And I have not thrown out any analysis "out the window". I've analyzed all of it, addressed the vast majority of it, complimented most of it, accepted some of it, attempted to disprove a bit of it, and ultimately accounted for all of it in my line of argumentation.

I fail to see how I have made this thread "boring".


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

thanks for the kind words, Mike (and mizenkay a while back).

As a Bulls' fan, I hope grinch is proven wrong by Kirk, his new (talented, though awfully young) teammates, and the coaching staff. But he makes a solid argument with some new and interesting stats, and backs it up with good points. The next couple years will tell the story. This thread will probably cause me to scrutinize Kirk's tendencies more closely when he's setting up plays and making passes. It'd be an interesting thing to keep track of.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> In any case.... this argument is going off into la-la land on both sides. I suggest everyone takes a step back and reads VF's posts, which were solid and compelling without making it obvious that he'd throw any analysis out the window if it didn't support his pre-existing notion of what "right" was.
> 
> How boring.


 Is this exclusively moderator duties or would you encourage any posters to "critique" each poster and their arguements and the entire thread when the mood strikes?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

What is so "illogical" about an assists per pass statistic? Suppose player A comes down the court 10 times and passes off for 3 dunks and the other 7 times hands off to a teammate who dribbles around and then shoots. That teammate scores on 2 of those 7 possessions. 

Player B comes down 10 times and passes off to a teammate who makes 4 out of 10 18-foot jump shots.

Player B ends up with 4 assists out of 10 "potential" assists, while Player A ends up with only 3 assists out of 3 "potential" assists. Which player is helping his team win more certainly is a debateable point. All things being equal, I personally would choose Player A.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: when kirk gets alot of assists*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> This is a completely irrational argument.
> ...


the thing about this is , you are in an argument with me , i am not in one with you. i thought something and saw stats that backed it up.

no one has effectively proven otherwise.

i have said kirks assists appear not to be very efficient assists because a higher % of his than his rival pg's are of the outside variety and the bulls dont have very efficient outside shooters last season. so i question why would kirk continually set up plays that are inefficient no one is counting how many attempted assists kirk has they are only counting the times he has succeded in getting one , but we can see how efficient it is for the players to shoot the kind of shots he is getting them.

a team like the kings or knicks have alot of good outside shooters i could see the beneifit of setting up outside shots for them. but AD isn't a webber or even a kurt thomas at the 4 as far as shooting mid-range J's

linton ,dupree and gill or whoever was starting at the 3 aren't peja or tim thomas at shooting the ball either and JC while in most years a good shooter wasn't really that consisent while when healthy allan houston was deadeye and doug christe did much better than JC % wise shooting .

until anyone can provide a way that says *Kirk's* assists actually help the bulls i am not going to believe they do because i see evidence that they dont really because of inefficiency in the way they are made.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: when kirk gets alot of assists*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> until anyone can provide a way that says *Kirk's* assists actually help the bulls i am not going to believe they do because i see evidence that they dont really because of inefficiency in the way they are made.


Hinrich and Crawford were equally valuable to the Bulls last season and both were much more valuable than anyone else on the team. They were the only two players who could play at an average starter's level. Neither is a star, but neither is worthless either. I would not pick on Hinrich so much. He is the only proven commodity the Bulls have.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> thanks for the kind words, Mike (and mizenkay a while back).
> 
> As a Bulls' fan, I hope grinch is proven wrong by Kirk, his new (talented, though awfully young) teammates, and the coaching staff. But he makes a solid argument with some new and interesting stats, and backs it up with good points. The next couple years will tell the story. This thread will probably cause me to scrutinize Kirk's tendencies more closely when he's setting up plays and making passes. It'd be an interesting thing to keep track of.


VF if the bulls prove me wrong and hit the outside shots at a rate the bulls can win consistently at it , or if kirk gets the team more layups to the point they are competitive with the rest of the league in that dept. , whether they win or lose it will put to rest any thought that this is a reason for the losing , i'll be happy, until then hey just take the way you are, something to keep track of during the pre-season and regular season.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Is this exclusively moderator duties or would you encourage any posters to "critique" each poster and their arguements and the entire thread when the mood strikes?


My intent was to point out the cool, rational, and even-handed manner that VF approached things and contrast it to the rather different approach taken by some others on both sides of the debate. To my mind, the former approach lends credence.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: when kirk gets alot of assists*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Hinrich and Crawford were equally valuable to the Bulls last season and both were much more valuable than anyone else on the team. They were the only two players who could play at an average starter's level. Neither is a star, but neither is worthless either. I would not pick on Hinrich so much. He is the only proven commodity the Bulls have.


the thing is Dan this is just one part of his game , if he is going to be great , he could possibly be great without improving one iota in this department, but it would be harder .

i've picked on this as a part of his game that could use improvement there isn't a player on the roster whom you couldn't do that with, whether it would be Tc's post game or defensive intensity from curry and on down the line throughout the roster and some players you can visit on their flaws much more than once .

i think kirk is better off at sg because the one thing no can say bad about him is his ability to shoot the ball and I think that should be exploited more by the bulls wherever he plays but i'm not so sure ben gordon is a pg because i never saw him really play it in Uconn talik brown played that position for them , indiana is absolutely convinced he was a 1 and wanted to trade up to get him, so who knows maybe ,we'll see how thing start to shake out when they start playing.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when kirk gets alot of assists*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> i think kirk is better off at sg because the one thing no can say bad about him is his ability to shoot the ball and I think that should be exploited more by the bulls wherever he plays but i'm not so sure ben gordon is a pg because i never saw him really play it in Uconn talik brown played that position for them , indiana is absolutely convinced he was a 1 and wanted to trade up to get him, so who knows maybe ,we'll see how thing start to shake out when they start playing.


Well, the nice thing is that you'll more or less get your wish. He'll be the 2 defensively I guess, and the optimistic view would be that he can allow Ben the flexibility to play however his talents end up working best.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Happygrinch - pick on someone else next time just for laughs*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, the nice thing is that you'll more or less get your wish. He'll be the 2 defensively I guess, and the optimistic view would be that he can allow Ben the flexibility to play however his talents end up working best.



exactly. seven pages later.  



*“We believe that Ben will be a good complement to Kirk Hinrich,” says Paxson. “We look at both of those guys as combo guards. The fact that both have the ability to handle the ball, get to the lane and create shots and openings for other people makes for a solid backcourt.”* 

:yes:

don't worry grinch, we're gonna be just fine.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> What is so "illogical" about an assists per pass statistic?


Generally speaking, as a defining statistic it indicates very little about a player's passing ability or passing efficiency. As I said earlier, sometimes it's beneficial to the team to pass a lot (Sacramento Kings), while other times it's beneficial to pass very little (Lakers w/ Shaq, Spurs w/ Duncan). It's all contingent on the offensive system, the players within that system, and what opponent you are playing.

The Kings pass the ball a lot. Mike Bibby has a very low assist number for a starting PG, and I'm sure the system he's in dictates he pass the ball as much or more than most of the other systems in the League. Using the assists per pass statistic, is Mike Bibby a relatively ineffective passer? I happen to think he's a very effective passer playing within a very effective offensive system. Yet the assists per pass ratio would label him a below average passer. I don't agree with this. 



> Suppose player A comes down the court 10 times and passes off for 3 dunks and the other 7 times hands off to a teammate who dribbles around and then shoots. That teammate scores on 2 of those 7 possessions.
> 
> Player B comes down 10 times and passes off to a teammate who makes 4 out of 10 18-foot jump shots.
> 
> Player B ends up with 4 assists out of 10 "potential" assists, while Player A ends up with only 3 assists out of 3 "potential" assists. Which player is helping his team win more certainly is a debateable point. All things being equal, I personally would choose Player A.


Sure, but it's nowhere near this simple. Player B's passing (which spreads the defense more than handoffs) could very well serve to spread the offense and open up the middle for post feeds/backdoors/lobs/iso's etc. It could also keep the defense on its heels both mentally and physically more than simple handoffs. Then again, which team is Player A/B playing? Do they need to open up the middle? Do they need to use the pass to exploit slower defenders, or are handoffs necessary due to defenders overplaying the passing lanes? Nothing is as simple as a Player A vs. Player B comparison.

Some teams/systems pass a lot, some teams don't. It varies from team to team, coach to coach and scheme to scheme.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Happygrinch - pick on someone else next time just for laughs*



> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


me pick on someone?

thats just wrong ...but if I were to look for someone to pick on....:rocket: :starwars: :boxing: :sfight:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Happygrinch - pick on someone else next time just for laughs*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> me pick on someone?
> ...


lol. that was almost too easy wasn't it?

:| :whatever:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: when kirk gets alot of assists*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Hinrich and Crawford were equally valuable to the Bulls last season and both were much more valuable than anyone else on the team. They were the only two players who could play at an average starter's level. Neither is a star, but neither is worthless either. I would not pick on Hinrich so much. He is the only proven commodity the Bulls have.


Can't we all just agree with Dan and move on to the upcoming season?


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Talk about a storm in a teacup 

I refer to my post on page 1 of this thread that VishFlog expounded upon with some depth . Roger that . Check .

Without raining on any statistician's parade sometimes I think the most ardent of proponents of the science ( and yes you know who you are ) use a singular argument about comparative validity ( as to what one sees versus what one can construct to tell a story after the fact ) to beat the drum about a bigger agenda that obviously feel more passionate about in the rationalists view of the Universe

And the more ardent the push the more boorish it comes across 

I also refer to Vega's point about Kirk being probably the one of the most devastating transition push guards in college hoops in recent history .

Michael DC Esquire brought up an excellent point about an assist fails to get recognised as an assist if the inside player "does something with it" True that 

Fact is the majority of our inside play / point production in recent years has been from Eddy trying to back down and jump hook or drop step - that he is not been fed where all he needs to do is finish 

Or Marcus Fizer when he was healthy 

Fact is .. and what I have seen with my own eyes is that the inside has been stacked 

And why ?

Because we are so easy to zone out which dictates to a point our offensive patterns run 

Even Jay didn't run a lot of uptempo and push it before his accident and back to Vega's point - one of the most single most identifiable traits of the running Jayhawks over the collge career was the aggression of Kirk Hinrich in running transition 

And yet we've had the guns and never taken advantage

To this day .. I still see Eddie Robinson as a tragedy under something we could have had and still could

I mean seriously could you imagine Eddie Robinson runnning with Jason Kidd ?

So we don't run and we're easy to zone out 

Why ?

1. We don't move off the ball ( a fact I referenced on page 1 of this thread ) and create opportunity from off the ball movement

2. The rooks / younger players are reticent to dribble pen and create because they know they will get mugged probably turn it over in the process of getting fouled 10 times over and not get the call. ... because we have no respect from the refs ( see : Kersey/Hinrich fiasco from last season ) and so therefore it is a lower percentage play 

3. We are left with lower percentage outside shots , which , when you shoot as poorly as all Bulls do .. your going to give us outside shots all night long - wait for it clang - smack whoever is game to go after it in the chops - grab the easy rebound and throw it down court for easy transition if you want to out run and gun what was ( and maybe still is ) a physically weaker and more poorly conditioned team 

That to my mind is the truth based on the evidence of what you see in a moment of time - not trying to model a set of data to isolate cause in a singular dimension against a singular player 

Hey Quants have their place but the Qualitative view based on a visual experience where there is no need to over intellectualise to bustedise... is far simpler and cleaner as opposed to a 7 page thread full of boredom inspired muck raking, agenda pushing and politically correctful let them speak , be heard and respected mumbo jumbo 

Please let the season start to give some of us more purpose


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when kirk gets alot of assists*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Can't we all just agree with Dan and move on to the upcoming season?


Here Here


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I have a feeling that if the situation were reversed, and most point guards in the NBA got more outside assists than inside assists, and kirk got the opposite, this thread would still be here, and we'd be talking about how Kirk only gets assists to guys who are going to get layups or dunks, or something of that measure. Theres a lot of nit picking going on, stupid offseason, I just wish the season would start already. That way our boredom wouldnt get the best of us.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I think a more efficient method would be to normalize the assist statistic, using something like:

((Assist Total - Fast Break Assists) / (Turnovers - turnovers not from a pass).

-subtracting fast break assists would normalize how the PG runs the half court offense, which would be the best indicator of his 
setting teammate up ability
-divide by turnovers because you can have all the assists you want, but if you turn the ball over than most, your inside/outside percentage means squat.
-subtract out turnovers not from a pass, because a players ballhandling shouldn't be factored into his passing ability, or the ability to set his teammates up more inside than outside.
-then use this to figure out an inside/outside measurement would be fine, as the assist statistic would be normalized to reflect passing game in a set offense.

I got tired of arguing for the sake of arguing grinch, but this was the thesis behind my posts.

I was just trying to point out some potential flaws with your statistic, and you and other stat buffs start taking offense. My point is, is that the statistic you are looking at to your generalization isn't very accurate because there are so many other variables. I wasn't disputing your numbers, I was just pointing out causes for a probable wide standard deviation.

I'm surprised that Dan couldn't come up with a better measure and was seemingly supporting you. This stat is like looking at (TO attainted)/(TO given up) ratio to look at whether a player is productive. It's just a poor statistic to represent your argument. It is a good thesis building statistic, but this stat as law is not a good measure.

My comments before was to try and point some other things to look at without trying to slam your "statistical analsys." It was supposed to be constructive, not trying to rip what you had to say apart.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: when kirk gets alot of assists*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Hinrich and Crawford were equally valuable to the Bulls last season and both were much more valuable than anyone else on the team. They were the only two players who could play at an average starter's level.



Just as an aside, I think Curry plays at least at an average starter's level. I'm still disappointed in him that he doesn't seem to "get it" and play up to his potential (which I hope will change soon), but I think he is still an above average starting center.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> I think a more efficient method would be to normalize the assist statistic, using something like:
> 
> ((Assist Total - Fast Break Assists) / (Turnovers - turnovers not from a pass).
> ...


I sort of like the first suggestion, but why exactly would inside/outside percentage mean squat if you turned the ball over more than most [More than what ? Who exactly is "most" ? League average ?] ? If you're trying to measure passing/playmaking ability, how would you label a player with tons of turnovers, but makes a lot of big plays that go inside and go towards winning.

And if you do use the turnovers, why SHOULDN'T a player's ballhandling be factored into how he sets up his teammates ? You're not going to get anywhere if your point guard keeps fumbling the ball. Or are you talking about turnovers from DIFFERENT players other than the passer ?

With this pure passing ability talk and this , seems like your system wants to figure out if they can pass a football through a tire rather than a basketball to a player with theoretically better chances of converting the basket.



> I got tired of arguing for the sake of arguing grinch, but this was the thesis behind my posts.
> 
> I was just trying to point out some potential flaws with your statistic, and you and other stat buffs start taking offense. My point is, is that the statistic you are looking at to your generalization isn't very accurate because there are so many other variables. I wasn't disputing your numbers, I was just pointing out causes for a probable wide standard deviation.


There are many other variables in every statistic. Take for example, I don't know, assists, the near-7 apg, to which Kirk lovers always give us as an example of his omnipotence. There's more chance for deviance in interpreting that more so than the statistic we are discussing because it's not saying where the assists are going to. I mean of course this statistic isn't law, no statistics are, but as it stands it's much more telling of what's going on than what plain old general "assists" tells us.

But, where people ultimately fall in this argument (or any argument on this board over players) comes down to this duality: is Kirk just a figure in this terrible system or does Kirk have character flaws ?

Usually when there's such a duality like this, it's probably a sophisticated (pop that collar for the word "sophisticated") combo of both.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> I have a feeling that if the situation were reversed, and most point guards in the NBA got more outside assists than inside assists, and kirk got the opposite, this thread would still be here, and we'd be talking about how Kirk only gets assists to guys who are going to get layups or dunks, or something of that measure.


why would anyone complain about that ?...the only guys in the league i have seen deliver more inside assists than outside ones are jason kidd and andre miller i think most people would consider them 2 of the better passers in the league i have yet to see anyone complain about their ability to find easy baskets for their teammates. And most of the considered better passing pg's are usually between 45-50% and those who are usually not considered good passing pg's, 2 guards playing pg or selfish pg's are usually much lower , in fact the only pg's i found to have a lower % than kirk have had selfish labels attached to them and discussions have been had that they would be better served at shooting guard (marbury and cassell) and marbury had a far better outside to inside ratio on the suns so it looks like he just changed his style of passing significantly to suit his new team which shoots much better from the outside. the same really cant be said for cassell , he just appears to play it extremely safe as i think kirk does due to the fact that he was the same player more or less on the t'wolves that he was for the bucks.

this is a discussion about efficiency unless a team is filled with good outside shooters and poor inside shooters its simply less efficient because its easier to convert close shots than ones farther away.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> I think a more efficient method would be to normalize the assist statistic, using something like:
> 
> ((Assist Total - Fast Break Assists) / (Turnovers - turnovers not from a pass).
> ...


Ryhder some of the things you are asking for are simply not available if they were, i would use them and some i dont agree with ,some are actually counted but dont apply, i think fast breaks should count , i have never seen a young team that didn't want to run , and the bulls have an ample # of good athletes , the only guy on the roster who i think would not do well in a running game is probably antonio davis , but for a fast break kirk really only needs one other guy and out of tyson , jamal, e-rob , curry dupree , LJ3 jerome williams he had quite a few guys who could get up and run , in fact as soon as skiles was installed as coach they ran quite a bit but it stopped suddenly , i dont know why.

i think mostly this is a case of people reading stuff they simply didn't want to because they know it might be true, it isn't air tight but its a lot more conclusive than just counting assists and saying "there ya go"


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

In my mind, what you called "inside assist" is more about whether post players are at the right position. PG's job is to find them and feed the ball to them. You just can't feed them when they are out of position. To criticize Kirk's inability to feed the so-called inside assist, you have to say that either Kirk couldn’t them inside when they are at the right position or Kirk find them at the right position yet fail or refuse to pass the ball. I have my personal opinion that neither was the case. A lot of times, our post player were out of position and available option fro Kirk was to drop down the ball to AD 12-15 ft from the board or dish out to perimeter player, mostly Jamal (and we all know Jamal's low percentage shooting and his tendency to dribble before shoot, hence no assist for Kirk even if Jamal made it). I have watched time and time again AD received the ball and missed 12-15 footer. 

Your argument that Jamal was better at fighting inside big man is probably based on couple of dunks he connect with Eddy and no way definite analysis.

So before you criticize Kirk's game with some fancy-still-make-no-sense stat, do you really think that Kirk is such a bad PG that even if there were open man deep down and yet didn't connect them? Do you really think that was the case?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i think mostly this is a case of people reading stuff they simply didn't want to because they know it might be true, it isn't air tight but its a lot more conclusive than just counting assists and saying "there ya go"


I think you are doing exactly same thing you mentioned when you are selectively using stat to say bad thing about Kirk. Not once you say positive thing about Kirk with or without the backup of stat.

Hence so much for objectivity. You have your own agenda regarding Kirk. (You thought Jamal was PG of Bulls for the future and becuase of Kirk he is not here any more.)

Prove me wrong with one single stat info on good thing about Kirk.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> I think you are doing exactly same thing you mentioned when you are selectively using stat to say bad thing about Kirk. Not once you say positive thing about Kirk with or without the backup of stat.
> 
> ...


i've said he was unselfish , i've also said he was a good shooter and i've said both more than once on this thread. , wait no i didn't, because if i said that , then that would blow your lil' idea of me just hating kirk til the end of time out of the water.

forget i said anything


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

The reason turnovers have to be counted is because if a guy is forcing the ball inside and throws bad passes repeatedly, his inside/ouside assist total would lean heavily towards inside assists. However, if he turns the ball over more throwing these inside passes, that should have some weight other than strictly looking at inside/outside assist numbers.

It's pretty much the same argument about AI. He gets a lot of assists, because the ball is always in his hands. Thus, his assist numbers are inflated compared with your typical PG. I would say that Hinrich averaging 7apg would be better at setting up his teammates than AI averaging the same number of assists, simply because Hinrich's assist per pass would be much higher than Iverson's.

You have to normalize your stats if you are going to use them to explain multiple variables. The inside/outside ratio is a very interesting stat, and props to Grinch on coming up with it, but it can't solely be put on Hinrich. Other factors, like those I listed before would also be a contributor to this ratio. I'm sure Hinrich is somewhat at fault, but I won't put much weight on this stat since he was a rookie learning a new system.

I know what I suggested isn't perfect, but what I put out there would be a lot closer to a better analysis of Hinrich exlusively. (and yes I meant subtract turnovers due to ballhandling mistakes, as this stat is designed to be a passing measure, and leave out fast break assists because they are random, and other players have to create these opportunities as well, not just Hinrich). I do understand the argument of why you would want to, but I'm trying to come up with a normalized assist/TO measure that eliminates as many variables as possible, and I do realize what I suggested is not perfect either. I just threw it out there to generate more discussion.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

assists / turnovers * wins


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> assists / turnovers * wins


Stephon Marbury is obviously a bad passer.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> assists / turnovers * wins


i guess that means antonio daniels is the nba's biggest winner http://www.nba.com/statistics/2003/...rs/LeagueLeadersATRQuery.html?topic=0&stat=17


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

This would be a nice game theory problem to set up.

Here's something interesting about Marbury

* In New York 47 Games, 27% inside assists. 6.8 outside apg, 2.5 inside apg

* In Phoenix 34 Games, 45% inside assists 4.6 outside apg, 3.7 inside apg.

---------------------

What does this tell us? It tells us that teammates matter. In Phoenix, you can pass inside to Amare or to a slashing Shawn Marion. In New York, you've got uh... Kurt Thomas and Nazr Mohammed. Whether Marbury was a bad passer or not, he was a passer who knew enough to change the direction of his passes towards the best scoring options he had.

In practice, the Bulls inside options were more like the Knicks than the Suns. Saying that Kirk didn't pass inside enough assumes that the players on the inside were actually good options. They weren't necessarily.

OK, so why did Kirk have less inside assists than, say, Jamal. Well, look at the margins. What were Kirk's options when he went to set up a shot? He could go outside to a guy who was a pretty good scorer- Jamal, or he could go inside to a guy like Davis or Curry. At the margin, Jamal was a better option, so he got the ball more.

When Jamal was setting a guy up, however, who were his choices. He didn't have the choice to pass it to the best perimeter scorer on the team, his options were to pass it to Kirk on the outside, or to Curry or Davis on the inside. In relative terms, there was less difference when passing inside or outside, so it's not surprising that the ratio of his assists was more balanced.

Simply put, you'd expect Kirk to go outside more because his best option was outside.

Jamal's options were more equal, and his assist distribution reflected that.

Similarly, if you look at last year's team, Marshall and a more effective Chandler provided more balance inside against Rose on the outside.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> This would be a nice game theory problem to set up.
> 
> Here's something interesting about Marbury
> ...


Mike, this is an excellent post. 

Next year will clear up a lot of things for us. I dont think Kirk will be a perennial top 5 passer in the league like some think, and I do think grinch touched on something with this stat. Its called poor offense. Hinrich and Crawford controlled the ball *a lot* more than they should have, because Skiles was running the same offense he ran in Pheonix. That resulted in a lot of assists for Hinrich. 

However, I am very excited about Kirks overall game, and I think he _could_ be one of the best passers in the league, along with one of the best point guards in the league based on his overall game, athleticism and intelligence. He really doesnt have too many weaknesses when you get right down to it. His defense on point guards is great, his passing skills seem sound to me, despite the fact that his assists numbers _may_ be decieving, and his all around game is fantastic.


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

hinrich could be one of the best passers in the game some day....


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

You statheads need to get together and write a book on basketball analysis...


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> You statheads need to get together and write a book on basketball analysis...


Chapter 1: How the Happygrinch stole Christmas.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

I was gonna write something, but I changed my mind... nothing to see here... move along.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> This would be a nice game theory problem to set up.
> 
> Here's something interesting about Marbury
> ...


5 stars. Tremendous analysis.

Read it and weep, grinch.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> 5 stars. Tremendous analysis.
> ...


VV , its not a competition , for some reason with you it is , i think Mike's post was pretty good , i do disagree somewhat , i agree Jc is a better scorer , but if JC dribbles the ball and doesn't take what is given and then shoots it, its not an assist and it wouldn't count to make kirk's ratio in any way.

its more a measure of their spot up ability , i think they are equal in that regard , most posters i have the distinct feeling that they believe kirk is actually the better spot up shooter,either way it doesn't make it logical that kirk would pick JC for a shot like that more than JC would pick kirk, the only way that makes sense is if kirk has alot higher opinion of JC's shot than the other way around .

in truth the amount of inside assists for both JC and kirk are pretty close 168 for Jc and 173 for kirk , the difference is that kirk has the ball alot more and chooses with his extra assists attempts to go outside more and i dont think the # of kirk to JC and jc to kirk assists are that far apart i think they are actually pretty close , it seemed to me they kicked it out to each other about 2-3 times a game.

i think true indictor are the other perimeter players and shooters , off of a pick and roll how likely was JC really to pass the ball out to gill, or linton johnson , or whomever set the pick?

imo it wasn't very likely at all unless they rolled , he is a scorer , why would he pass the ball out to LJ3 to shoot a J when he could shoot it from an area that was proabably of a similar distance?

there wasn't much reason and i didn't see it much.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> VV , its not a competition , for some reason with you it is ,


Never said it was a competition. I do think comparing various analyses is helpful and illuminating, however.



> but if JC dribbles the ball and doesn't take what is given and then shoots it, its not an assist and it wouldn't count to make kirk's ratio in any way.


But if JC doesn't dribble the ball and takes what is given and then shoots it, it is an assist and it would add to Kirk's outside assist ratio.

As for the rest of your post, what do you have to say about Mike's analysis of Marbury's assist numbers in Phoenix and New York? To me, that's the bigger (more telling) issue here -- one you seem to be avoiding. To wit:



> What does this tell us? It tells us that teammates matter. In Phoenix, you can pass inside to Amare or to a slashing Shawn Marion. In New York, you've got uh... Kurt Thomas and Nazr Mohammed. Whether Marbury was a bad passer or not, he was a passer who knew enough to change the direction of his passes towards the best scoring options he had.
> 
> In practice, the Bulls inside options were more like the Knicks than the Suns. Saying that Kirk didn't pass inside enough assumes that the players on the inside were actually good options. They weren't necessarily.


_This_ is the beef of Mike's post.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Never said it was a competition. I do think comparing various analyses is helpful and illuminating, however.
> ...


the beef of mike's post was something i had already answered earlier in the thread(post 111) before he apparently asked about it, but i'll go into it with a lil' more depth now.

a team like the knicks has better outside shooters , Tim thomas (40.6%) from 3 as a knick allan houston (43.1% from 3) penny hardaway(36.4 from 3)

kurt thomas as a pick setter and primary mid range shooter (47% from the field .460 efg% on jumpshots )

on the knicks its actually a good idea they are efficient jumpshooters.

on the bulls there was linton johnson, gill ,dupree e-rob and pippen who combined to shoot 34-133 from 3pt range for a 25.5% clip from 3 and jamal crawford who shot 31.7% from 3 

and davis as kirk's primary picksetter who shot 40.7 as a bull and had a jumpshot efg of .358.

on the bulls it wasn't, they have inefficient shooters from the outside .


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Everybody go easy on Grinch, including me. I am positive this year will prove Grinch wrong. This year will proves what Mike DC pointed out. Kirk will have higher Assist and even so-called inside-assist this year with current roster and Grinch will come and eat his word happily (after all, if Kirk can prove Grinch, then something good happened for Bulls in terms of Win/Lose).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> Never said it was a competition. I do think comparing various analyses is helpful and illuminating, however.


Unlike the snide remarks you've been making in this thread. Well, they're illuminating but not particularly helpful.



> But if JC doesn't dribble the ball and takes what is given and then shoots it, it is an assist and it would add to Kirk's outside assist ratio.


Right, but Grinch made a valid point that gets to the heart of the matter. The distinction between Kirk and Jamal's ratios was explainable only in terms of *relative* disparity in the options each had available when making a pass. My starting assumption was that Jamal was a relatively better option to receive a set up pass from Kirk than Kirk was to receive one from Jamal. 

However, if they are about equal as spot up shooters, it cuts into that argument because there is no longer as much of a relative benefit of a Kirk to Jamal (outside) pass. There's still a benefit because of Jamal is the better scorer and the goal of the pass is to score, not just get the assist, so it doesn't completely undermind the point, but it's far from the black and white "read it and weep" rhetoric you're employing.

-------------------------

Grinch,

I'll somewhat disagree with your last point about the Bulls having inefficient scorers from the outside and the Knicks having efficient ones. What you say is correct, but the only that matters is whether, when factoring in defense, the Bulls were relatively more efficient from the inside or the outside.

Truly, they were inefficient in each facet compared to most teams, but where a smart distributor will direct his passes most often depends on relative, not absolute efficiency.

Now, I don't have the numbers on this, so you could be right that going inside was more efficient for the Bulls and Kirk failed to do it. However, to do this, we need to see more than just the inefficiency of the Bulls jump shooters. We need to see the relative efficiency of the Bulls interior players (and see that it's greater).

Unfortunately, that's probably pretty hard to get, because simple field goal percentage doesn't tell the whole story. There's no statistic for how easily a defense could deny a pass to say, Curry, or how often he put himself out of position to get a pass. There would need to be a measure of how successful you can be of getting the ball to a player.

Suppose he's got a "get it to him" percentage of 50% and a FG% once he gets it of 50%. That gives you a 25% chance with him.

If Jamal has a "Get it to him" percentage of 70% and a FG% of 40%, then he gives you a 28% chance.

If another player- say, Kirk- has a "get it to him" percentage of 60% and a FG% of 40%, then he gives you a 24% chance.

Basically, once you get the ball inside, it's easy to score. The "hard" part is actually getting the ball inside and being in a position to receive it.

The "hard" part of an assisted score on the outside isn't getting the ball, it's making a longer-distance shot.

------------------

One way to actually go out and try to measure this would be to look at turnovers too. I believe, for example, that Curry turned the ball over a whole lot, thus making him an inefficient player to try and score through despite his high effective field goal percentage when he actually shoots.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

It does look like there is quite a bit of fluxuation on this stat.

For Outside assist ration:
A. Miller was at 55% 2 years ago -> 45%
Arenas was at 60% 2 years ago -> 50%

My personal conclusion that the bulk of this can be attributed to the Bulls personal and Kirk's comfort zone as a rookie PG. And thus I expect the Outside Assist % to fall. Should be interesting to check back in on this.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> It does look like there is quite a bit of fluxuation on this stat.
> 
> For Outside assist ration:
> ...


i would agree with this , quicker than most opinions on this thread in the sense that i believe kirk was very comfortable kicking the ball out rather than , going for a higher risk/reward pass of going inside .

i am not comfortable with it because the bulls generally had bad outside shooters playing and i feel the style of play should siut the guys you are playing with to get the best out of them , their personal should be better suited for that kind of play this year , i dont think there is much of a chance of gordon being a significantly better shooter than JC last year , but he is a good shooter , most rookies just shoot badly compared to their talent at it. so it should improve in following years .

deng is a decent midrange shooter now, but nocioni who should actually be playing alot appears to be a good shooter , even chandler i expect to be an upgrade over AD provided he is healthy and e-rob if they ever decide to play him can hit a J ...a hidden jewel for kirk's kickout style could be jefferies who shot over 40% from 3 pt range last seson but played less than 200 minutes.

also i do realize its not always the best thing going for an inside assist in arenas' case i think he went for too much which is a reason he turns the ball over so much , i find him to be someone at the other side of the spectrum from kirk who i think plays it safe too much.

for the other players on the court they have to know when to pass and when to shoot but for pg's imo it goes deeper they also have to know who to feed and when , because its their job to get the most out of the other 4 positions on the floor.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Here is an additional point on MikeDC's very interesting and relevant analysis. The Knicks have the 4th highest percentage of of outside or "jump" field goal attempts at 71 percent. The Suns have one of the five or ten lowest at 65 percent. The Bulls are right between these two at 68 percent, which appears to me to be a little above the league average. Thus, it is a bit difficult to pin Hinrich's high percentage of outside assists on the Bulls' personnel.

That said, too much can be made of this statistic and I suspect there is a good chance we have reached well beyond that point.

By the way, anybody have a guess which team is by far and away the league leader in the percentage of outside shots at 77 percent? To make it a little easier, #2 and #3 are Seattle and Toronto at 72 percent.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Here is an additional point on MikeDC's very interesting and relevant analysis. The Knicks have the 4th highest percentage of of outside or "jump" field goal attempts at 71 percent. The Suns have one of the five or ten lowest at 65 percent. The Bulls are right between these two at 68 percent, which appears to me to be a little above the league average. Thus, it is a bit difficult to pin Hinrich's high percentage of outside assists on the Bulls' personnel.
> 
> That said, too much can be made of this statistic and I suspect there is a good chance we have reached well beyond that point.
> ...


I'm going to say it's Dallas (based on Nash's nos. in one of Grinch's earlier posts).

But if not them, then Milwaukee.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Has anyone considered that this measurement of inside vs. outside assists and scoring efficiency misses the mark?

To me, it does measure something - the effectiveness of the offensive scheme using the players and not necessarily their abilities.

If the Bulls ran a scheme designed to get ERob dunks or outside shots or didn't force Crawford to catch-and-shoot (instead of creating off the dribble), the numbers would measure something quite different.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> I'm going to say it's Dallas (based on Nash's nos. in one of Grinch's earlier posts).
> 
> But if not them, then Milwaukee.


Nope, Dallas is 68 percent like the Bulls and Milwaukee is at 64 percent - one of the lowest percentages in the league. Both of these teams run quite a bit and get close shots in transition.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Has anyone considered that this measurement of inside vs. outside assists and scoring efficiency misses the mark?
> 
> To me, it does measure something - the effectiveness of the offensive scheme using the players and not necessarily their abilities.
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Nope, Dallas is 68 percent like the Bulls and Milwaukee is at 64 percent - one of the lowest percentages in the league. Both of these teams run quite a bit and get close shots in transition.


That's interesting; I guess I was blinded by all the threes . . . I think there's something relevant to our Hinrich discussion vis a vis Nash's high proportion of outside assists, but I'm not the one to piece it together.

So a team that doesn't run and doesn't have an inside presence--Orlando?

EDIT: I realize Orlando's not a good guess, either, because they don't shoot the ball well overall. So I'm making one last guess with a good jump-shooting team, Utah.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Nope, Dallas is 68 percent like the Bulls and Milwaukee is at 64 percent - one of the lowest percentages in the league. Both of these teams run quite a bit and get close shots in transition.


i'd say the t'wolves


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

mike the thing about the inside /outside assist is all relative , the knicks probably still despite their relative stregnth on the outside statisically would look better getting the ball inside , but because they have good outside options I could see passing up the inside threats because the outside pass is an easier pass . its the safer pass .

but if they aren't hitting it , it becomes less intelligent to continue giving it to players who aren't making it.

same situation with the bulls , i admit i am making kirk the fall guy ,letting kirk call a pick and roll repeatedly with guys like LJ3 and gill on the court is probably as much skiles fault as it is kirk's . seeing how it was turning out , with imo opinion kirk's overeliance on his outside shooters

hinrich is going to do what he knows best , you cant fault him for that , the bulls after dec. 1st of last year only had 6 plays in the playbook , and they only really used 3 , the curl play, the post up for curry and the pick and roll ,and really the only times the bulls won using the offense it was because curry played well out of his post up play or Jc got hot from the outside using the pick and roll , which he generally didn't need to get open anyway seeing as he is equally happy creating shots with his dribble alone.

back to hinrich , its not an absolute science as i've said before , if he is going to play pg , i think its something he needs to work on , will this factor alone make the bulls a playoff team ? i doubt it very much but it would help the bulls in general and i think it would help kirk out as a passer and distributor and any time you help out one part of you offensive game there is the potential it will make the rest of you game better.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Could someone please define "as nauseum" for me?  Thanks!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Unlike the snide remarks you've been making in this thread.


Give me a break. I've argued my point, and in doing so I might not have been goody-goody-two-shoes towards the points that I didn't agree with (such as your "efficiency of assists per pass" statistic, which I think has since been shown to be a pretty tenuous and inconclusive figure).

You were the one who implied that I was "making it obvious that I'd throw any analysis out the window if it didn't support my pre-existing notion of what 'right' was", and that such supposed behavior was "boring". 

Remember?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Grinch is right. 77 percent of Minnesota's field goal attempts are outside shots. (Note ScottMay that this statistic does not say anything about whether they went in or were assisted.) No one is even close to them.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Has anyone considered that this measurement of inside vs. outside assists and scoring efficiency misses the mark?
> 
> To me, it does measure something - the effectiveness of the offensive scheme using the players and not necessarily their abilities.
> ...


it depends , really on the offensive sys. the bulls run a 1-4 set the pg's ability to distribute is talior made for it because the set requires it to be in his hands , its not like a triangle off. where anyone on any possesion can be the guy in charge of getting the ball to someone .

on the bulls last year it was primarily the pg's responsibility. so its a decent measure of where he sends the ball .

it isn't an exact science but it is somewhat telling.

for instance when Jc was in the same position he found inside players more often in proportion the chances he had to distribute.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> for instance when Jc was in the same position he found inside players more often in proportion the chances he had to distribute.


Sure, but in the grand scheme of things (aka, what really matters) he didn't create near as many scoring opportunities as Hinrich did. In a utilitarian sense, JC wasn't as effective as Hinrich was in regards to passing the ball. We've already been over this.

Who would you rather have -- a guy who gets 4 baskets (8 total points), including 2 high-percentage dunks, or a guy who gets 5 baskets (10 total points), including only 1 high-percentage dunk?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Who would you rather have -- a guy who gets 4 baskets (8 total points), including 2 high-percentage dunks, or a guy who gets 5 baskets (10 total points), including only 1 high-percentage dunk?


This example may illustrate a couple of the points made in this thread. If these two players are 100 percent shooters on dunks and 50 percent shooters on non-dunks, then the first player scored 8 points on 6 field goal attempts. The second player scored 10 points on 9 field goal attempts. Provided the first player had teammates who could score more than 2 points on every 3 field goal attempts, I probably would prefer the first player.

The same logic works on potential assists (passes that would have been assists had the shot gone in). If one player assisted four baskets, two being high-percentage dunks and a second assisted five baskets, only one being a high-percentage dunk, I may very well prefer the first player. Presumably, the second player had more potential assists than the first player.

In both examples, the first player is more efficient, but the second player generates more points. And it is debateable which player is more valuable.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Excellent points, Dan.

I submit we wait until at least halfway through the season, and then break this thread out again with more thorough data.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i wasn't aware if they even updated stats like that reguarly , if they do i'll be looking back it alot quicker than halfway through the season probably in the 1st month. and then from there throughout the season along with some other things on that site i think bear watching.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> Its my belief he is very unselfish and well schooled on basketball , but that he isn't a creative passer or that he has enough passing vision to ever be that good at the position and that his true position is as a 2 guard where his best talent , his shooting ability would be better utilized.
> 
> the facts bear me out on 82games.com http://www.82games.com/03CHI2A.HTM
> ...



I thought I’d bump this thread with some updated statistics and some of my conclusions. We’ve played 32 games so far so perhaps there isn’t enough data but I thought it would be interesting to analyze. For me, this thread included some of the most interesting discussion and analysis of the offseason. As a result, from game 1, I have paid particular attention to how many “close assists” Kirk has created thus far. It was my impression from watching the games that Kirk was indeed finding his teammates closer to the basket. So, I dug up this thread and crunched a few numbers to see if my impressions were valid. I included some stats on players that happyg used for comparison in his initial post. And threw in a few others for yucks.

Hinrich: 126 “jump” assist to 85 “close” assists for a ratio of 1.48:1. 8.8 AP48

McInnis: 104 “jump” assist to 77 “close” assists for a ratio of 1.35:1. 7.2 AP48

Billups: 107 “jump” assist to 77 “close” assists for a ratio of 1.1.39:1. 7.8 AP48

Tinsley: 110 “jump” assist to 85 “close” assists for a ratio of 1.29:1. 10.1 AP48

Williams: 108 “jump” assist to 79 “close” assists for a ratio of 1.1.37:1. 10.5 AP48


Nash: 202 “jump” assist to 171 “close” assists for a ratio of 1.18:1. 15.3 AP48

Ridnour: 134 “jump” assist to 69 “close” assists for a ratio of 1.94:1. 9.9 AP48

Crawford: 67 “jump” assist to 30 “close” assists for a ratio of 2.23:1. 4.9 AP48

Duhon: 78 “jump” assist to 68 “close” assists for a ratio of 1.15:1. 9.9 AP48


Of course, we have to keep in mind that it’s not exactly comparing apples to apples anymore since KH is playing more time at the 2 than he did last year.


Conclusions:

1.	Despite playing more time at the 2 this year, Kirk has improved in creating shots closer to the basket for teammates. His ratio improved from 1.99:1 to 1.48:1.
2.	Teammates are moving better without the ball and getting into better position for high percentage shots. The maturation of Chandler and Curry also a lot to do with this.
3.	Bulls are running the floor and pushing the ball more effectively.
4.	We have more efficient outside shooters (i.e. Pike, Gordon), which allows for better spacing, better ball movement and thus, better opportunities for high percentage shots inside. In other words, opponents’ can’t cheat on our outside shooters and clog the middle. By the way, this was my impression from watching the games last year. Kirk had fewer opportunities to create high percentage shots last year since defenses were practically giving us the outside shot and doubling down below. So Kirk was often faced with the dilemma of passing to the OPEN shooter or throwing into double teams. Though our outside shooting was pathetic last year, one could perhaps make the case that this was indeed the better play rather than risking forcing it down low.
5.	Skiles has had a full offseason to implement his offensive gameplan AND the players have bought into it. Not something we could say last year. This has to help.
6.	Our starting PG has a better ratio than the premier PG in the league. Of course, I’m not saying that Duhon is in the league of Nash, but he is indeed a valuable contributor to our offense despite his pathetic shooting.

Kudos to happygrinch on this thread topic. I’m not really a stat-geek per se but I think it does provide a useful perspective. Stats revolutionized baseball. Though not to the same extent, who’s to say it couldn’t be put to use more in basketball.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: On hinrich's passing*



> Originally posted by <b>badfish</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very very good post Goodfish...badfish!

5 star post!

Thanks for the hard work - it was fun reading it when someone else had to look it up


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

That was a very good read, thanks for all the work you put in it.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwst25</b>!
> That was a very good read, thanks for all the work you put in it.
> 
> :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


yep that was awesome badfish...

good read


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: On hinrich's passing*



> Originally posted by <b>badfish</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bingo.

Great post.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

kirk's improvement and duhon's arrival have definitely had alot to do with the bulls improvement on the offensive end.

Its a fact that outshooting your opponents leads to winning , whether by holding your opponents down and/or converting easier shots on the offensive end.

in short good work by kirk.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

At the time of badfish's resurrection of this thread, Hinrich had a "close assist" number of 59.7%. It's most likely higher now.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

bump.

i basically wanted to take a look at hinrich's passing numbers a few years later .

he didn't improve like i had hoped ...this year his % of close assists to total # is at .257 which is extremely low in fact he is having his worst season handling the ball by a significant margin....according to 82games.com his career ratio is at .348 entering this season which isn't good but not the worst i've ever seen like this season.

around the league starting pg's are generally a good bit better in the low 400's, high .300's and guys who are considered great passers like kidd and nash are usually over .500. kidd is slightly below that at the moment at .496 while nash is at .533.

the guys who are scorers 1st, passers 2nd and not considered to be especially good passers for pg like tony parker tend to be on the low end of the spectrum....and they tend to make up for it with excellent shooting/scoring

it seems kirk's 2nd season was by far the best he was capable of with a % of .396 which is decent , but in the 2 seasons since then it has been at .319 and .346 last season well below what starting pg's generally do.

duhon his backup over his career has been better but he hasn't been very good either.

.415 as a rookie
.329 2nd yr.
3rd year.345 
this season .314.

I thought by adding how pg's do in regards to passing to's would help give a clearer picture since if you are being safe with the ball, not threading the needle with interior passes your passing turnovers should be lower , 

for the most part its very true, in kirk's case its not he has pretty bad with a ratio of 1.24 , out of the league's 30 pg's i only saw 1 worse than that memphis' Lowry at 1.20, most of the league's point guards are in the 1.8 range ...

kirk's previous 4 seasons he exceeded 1.8 at 1.82 in last season and 1.88 in 2004-05 twice in his 2nd season and last season so its not like he cant do it, he just isn't now.

when compared to the league's other starting point guards basically they get their teammates better shots and are safer with the ball. 

it may be time to move kirk over to the 2 if he cant get his distributing together...especially since he seems to be regaining his touch lately.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> bump.
> 
> i basically wanted to take a look at hinrich's passing numbers a few years later .
> 
> ...


That is the scientific way of saying, "TRADE HIM!"
:mad2:


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Bulls4Life said:


> That is the scientific way of saying, "TRADE HIM!"
> :mad2:


:laugh:

As for Da Grinch's thoughts, I think it's clear that we need a flat-out PG on this team (better than Duhon). Depending on who that PG is, Gordon or Hinrich's gotta go.

EDIT: Also, did anyone else see the thread title and think "kirk's _passing_?"


----------



## Reignman (Feb 15, 2005)

Loooooooooooooooool .... okay, not funny.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

King Joseus said:


> :laugh:
> 
> As for Da Grinch's thoughts, I think it's clear that we need a flat-out PG on this team (better than Duhon). Depending on who that PG is, Gordon or Hinrich's gotta go.
> 
> EDIT: Also, did anyone else see the thread title and think "kirk's _passing_?"


:lol:


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

again somebody bumping an anti-kirk thread after he scores over 30 points.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> again somebody bumping an anti-kirk thread after he scores over 30 points.


its not anti kirk , its anti how he is being used.

its not like i'm the only one who thinks that way.


from sam smith yesterday:



> I believe that is one change you are starting to see. Some believe Kirk never can be a true point guard since he really wasn't one in college and doesn't have the ultimate point guard instincts. It's one of those positions you really do not teach. Don Nelson was the latest trying it with Monta Ellis and gave up. You either see the floor and the plays ahead of time or you don't. Kirk is more the old fashioned combo guard like a Danny Ainge and has shown of late that without having to defend those bigger players he can be more effective.


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...hewriter/cs-080129asksamsmith,1,1681199.story


----------

