# On Hinrich's Play



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Offense* 

he simply cant shoot right now ..346 fg% for 15 points a game.

*Passing and Ballhandling* 

6.8 assist against 3.4 turnovers, a 2/1 ratio which definitely below avg. for a point guard. 

*Defense*

opposing starting point guards(bibby, jaric, nash, tinsley and vaughn ) are avg 15.8 points on 51% shooting

opposing starting point guards are avg. 8 assists a game against 2.2 turnovers for a 3.6/1 ratio

all the while avg. 4.6 personal fouls a game.

if it were anyone else there would be widespread cries for him to be benched , traded , or both. because i doubt very much the bulls can win many games with the point guard position being such a weakness, especially considering kirk is supposed to be our best player.

Isn't skiles supposed to be a guard's coach?


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

The problem is not that skiles is or is not a guards coach the problem is we have only one guard on this team right now and that is hinrich. One of the reasons we looked much better last night is that Pike finally showed up and we got some production from the SG spot. Poor hinrich has to guard the sg some of the game, run the offensive, and score.

He is a PG and would perfer to just run the game. What this team really needs is a SG, period.

david


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

As one of Kirk's biggest fans, I can't disagree with much you said. I'm not sure if it has to do with how Skiles wants certain sets run, but it seems that our point guards bring the ball across the half court stripe and often have the ball at the top of the key still with only 9 seconds left on the shot clock before they initiate the offense. It doesn't matter if it's Duhon or Hinrich at the point. It was the same thing when JC was at the point last year. 

I would like to see Kirk try to penetrate more. He is a lot quicker than most people give him credit for. If he penetrates, the defense will collapse and our bigs can get more easy baskets. Duhon seems to be able to get into the lane with regularity which results in a lot of his assists.

The amount of fouls he gets is frustrating. Not to sound like a Hinrich apologist, but he gets a lot more fouls than most of his teammates because he plays a lot harder. Let's face it, if you're not getting fouls, you're probably not playing good defense. He does committ his fair share of dumb fouls. For example, do you really want your starting PG committing his 6th foul as he did last night with a lot of time left in the 4th Q to prevent an easy basket? That would be a smart play if he only had 3 or 4 fouls.

IT's hard to explain his FG%. His form looks fine. He does seem to force a lot of desperation shots as the clock is winding down (just like he and the other guards often had to do last year). Hopefully he can into a groove soon, it would mean a world of difference.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkg1</b>!
> His form looks fine.


I keep throwing this out there, but no one wants to roll with it: Hinrich's form is NOT fine. He's got classic vestiges of a little kid's shot -- he starts his shot from his waist and has a ton of vertical elbow movement on his release. This is why so many of his shots are on line but either short or hit hard on the back rim, and it also makes it tough to achieve nice, soft backspin, or "shooter's touch."

Shooters obviously do need to raise their elbows to get into a shooting position, but with Kirk it is part of his release. Compare Kirk's J to Kyle Korver's (who is textbook) and you'll see what I mean. Kirk needs to lock his elbow before releasing.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Better than a vestigial tale


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> I keep throwing this out there, but no one wants to roll with it: Hinrich's form is NOT fine. He's got classic vestiges of a little kid's shot -- he starts his shot from his waist and has a ton of vertical elbow movement on his release. This is why so many of his shots are on line but either short or hit hard on the back rim, and it also makes it tough to achieve nice, soft backspin, or "shooter's touch."
> ...


I'll be looking for that. In the meantime, please sign me up for the club in your signature. I hope he sells both the Sox and Bulls.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> I keep throwing this out there, but no one wants to roll with it: Hinrich's form is NOT fine. He's got classic vestiges of a little kid's shot -- he starts his shot from his waist and has a ton of vertical elbow movement on his release. This is why so many of his shots are on line but either short or hit hard on the back rim, and it also makes it tough to achieve nice, soft backspin, or "shooter's touch."
> 
> Shooters obviously do need to raise their elbows to get into a shooting position, but with Kirk it is part of his release. Compare Kirk's J to Kyle Korver's (who is textbook) and you'll see what I mean. Kirk needs to lock his elbow before releasing.


Short or long is how good shooters miss. Larry Bird even made that comment on how Peja shoots. He said he either misses short or long, never to the side, and that is how he (Bird) used to be. Hinrich isn't even close to those guys, but missing short and long is how you want a shooter to miss.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Short or long is how good shooters miss. Larry Bird even made that comment on how Peja shoots. He said he either misses short or long, never to the side, and that is how he (Bird) used to be. Hinrich isn't even close to those guys, but missing short and long is how you want a shooter to miss.


I agree (Peja is another example of a great fixed elbow), but Hinrich has a flaw in his shot that is going to cause him to miss long or short a lot until he fixes it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkg1</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll be looking for that. In the meantime, please sign me up for the club in your signature. I hope he sells both the Sox and Bulls.


Welcome aboard. I don't know why a city as great as Chicago has ended up with such horrible owners. The McCaskeys, Reinsdorf x 2, Bill Wirtz, the Trib . . . yikes.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

personally i couldn't care less what his form is like as long as it went in, for instance reggie millers shot his wrists hit each other and his elbow is sidways almost.

but it goes in, so no one complains, and thats how its supposed to be.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> personally i couldn't care less what his form is like as long as it went in, for instance reggie millers shot his wrists hit each other and his elbow is sidways almost.
> 
> but it goes in, so no one complains, and thats how its supposed to be.


There's more to it than that. I'm not talking about aesthetics -- the key to a good jump shot, like a good golf swing or batting swing or forehand or pitcher's delivery, is its ability to be repeated consistently. Miller's shot is ugly, but it's consistent to the extent that I bet if you freeze-framed every jumper he's ever taken, his release point is pretty much the same on all of them. When you achieve this consistency, you're more likely to hit shots under duress -- be it a guy closing out on you or the shot clock about to expire.

Hinrich's floating elbow, on the other hand, means his release point is all over the place, and his spotty percentage is the result.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ScottMay,

A couple years ago on 810 AM (Kansas City), Oklahoma State coach Eddie Sutton once said that Kirk Hinrich's jumper was "the most textbook" he'd seen in the Big XII in "quite some time". I remember this show because my friend called in and was on the air that day.

Kirk's shot is fine. His mechanics are fine. He's rushing shots and appears to be mentally frustrated on the court, probably because he knows he can't play two positions at once.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> *Offense*
> 
> he simply cant shoot right now ..346 fg% for 15 points a game.
> ...


WOW!!! We agree. 

PS_ I took you off ignore. Seemed so petty.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> ScottMay,
> 
> A couple years ago on 810 AM (Kansas City), Oklahoma State coach Eddie Sutton once said that Kirk Hinrich's jumper was "the most textbook" he'd seen in the Big XII in "quite some time". I remember this show because my friend called in and was on the air that day.
> ...


I guess it's just my TV, then.

No disrespect to you or Eddie Sutton, and regardless of whether the problem is rushing or frustration or still adjusting to having bigger, faster guys closing out on him, Kirk's release point is all over the place and he needs to start his jumper from someplace higher than his waist.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess it's just my TV, then.


I just saw him take a jumper that looked...weird.

It's definately different from last season. I think he may have overdone it in working on his jumper this summer.

Oh...Hinrich just released a perfect one. Never mind. 

Nice drive too.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I just saw him take a jumper that looked...weird.
> ...


Hinrich has completely taken the team off its game tonight. the rest of the Bulls are scared to shoot. something has to be done. The team cannot continue like this, and we are watching Kirk's skills wane.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich has completely taken the team off its game tonight. the rest of the Bulls are scared to shoot. something has to be done. The team cannot continue like this, and we are watching Kirk's skills wane.


I have to think that Skiles's constant and harsh berating of everyone but Saint Kirk and Andres Focker isn't helping matters.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> I agree (Peja is another example of a great fixed elbow), but Hinrich has a flaw in his shot that is going to cause him to miss long or short a lot until he fixes it.


You know, I gave this some thought, watched some of his shots to see what you're talking about. But I think his shot looks fine, and really, Kirk is shooting 87% from the free throw line this season, and was 80% last season. What player shoots that well from the line consistently, and doesn't have a consistent shot? Not too many.


----------



## goNBAjayhawks (May 3, 2003)

Kirky posted back to back Double- Doubles and over the last two games he's had 20ast/3to. Thats more like kirky, and he has got his 3pt% up to 37%, and grabbing a couple more boards then at the beginning, if only him and the rest of the team could hit their open jumpers


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Kirk's form on his jumper looks fine to me, ScottMay. I confess don't understand your "locked elbow" comment— it's impossible to shoot a basketball with a locked elbow. From all I know about shooting, proper form starts with the elbow cocked at roughly 90° and ends with the arm fully extended.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Kirk's shot is fine.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Kneepad,

I didn't do a good job of explaining the point. I'll try again.

By "locked elbow" I meant pretty much what you're saying -- that at the start of one's release, one should have a consistent arm angle "locked in". I'm guessing for most players it's a smaller angle than 90, but I guess that's what's taught.

Here's a picture of Peja at his release point, e.g.










What I've noticed with Kirk is that this arm angle is not consistent when he starts his release. You can gauge this by looking at the height of the point of his elbow -- it is all over the place (up and down, not left or right), especially when he's shooting under duress. 

It's a very subtle thing, but I'm positive it's there. Even if my diagnosis is not the correct one, clearly SOMETHING'S off. We're approaching a big enough of a sample size for it to be a little more than "oh, his form is flawless, they're just not falling for him."


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> It's a very subtle thing, but I'm positive it's there. Even if my diagnosis is not the correct one, clearly SOMETHING'S off. We're approaching a big enough of a sample size for it to be a little more than "oh, his form is flawless, they're just not falling for him."


The combination of his three point and free throw percentage is very good. His field goal percentage measures his scoring efficiency, which has little to do with his actual shot, because it factors in everything from layups, runners, etc. Thats where Kirk needs to be more efficient and raise his percentage, but the shooting percentages (FT an 3PT) are there.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> The combination of his three point and free throw percentage is very good. His field goal percentage measures his scoring efficiency, which has little to do with his actual shot, because it factors in everything from layups, runners, etc. Thats where Kirk needs to be more efficient and raise his percentage, but the shooting percentages (FT an 3PT) are there.


Free-throw percentage is only meaningful when a guy actually gets to the line, so let's factor that out for the moment (Kirk's only gotten to the line 15 times in 7 games).

His 39% from three last year was terrific--23rd in the league. But from what I've seen this year, it would appear Kirk owes at least some of that percentage to the dastardly Jamal Crawford. Kirk is not getting as many open looks as he did last season, and his shot is noticeably rushed and inconsistent when he's aggressively closed out on during his release.

Kirk's down to about 36% for both two-point and three-point percentages. On threes he's now 50th in the league, right behind LeBron James, of all people. I'm confident that Kirk will put in the work to get better and that a big part of this is the Bulls' overall lack of offensive options, but keep in mind that I'm arguing my case with people who are saying Kirk's shot is flawless, textbook, the best a long-time college coach has ever seen, that he's Jerry West redux, etc. If all of those things are true, why are so many other shooters putting the ball in the basket at such a higher rate? 

I think making Kirk's primary role scoring is a giant mistake. In a perfect world, Kirk is your distributor and your balls-out defender and nothing more than an escape-valve shooter who finishes the wide-open looks generated by a smart offensive scheme that moves the ball crisply. 

Fortunately (and in a rare tip of my cap to our GM), I think this is what Paxson's envisioned for Kirk. It's just that the rest of the horses haven't shown up yet. Hopefully they will before Kirk's walk year.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> I'm confident that Kirk will put in the work to get better and that a big part of this is the Bulls' overall lack of offensive options, but keep in mind that I'm arguing my case with people who are saying Kirk's shot is flawless, textbook, the best a long-time college coach has ever seen, that he's Jerry West redux, etc.


Enough said, I understand and agree. Everyone wants to boost Hinrich in one thing or the other, but in reality, he is just _very good_ at everything, and not _great_ at any one thing. A lot of people want to make him out to be one of the best passers the game will see since Stockton, which is far from the truth, but he is a *very good* passer. Same goes for shooting, very good but not even close to Peja or Dirk great. 

Hinrich is a very good passer, very good shooter, a very good defender when he has confidence in the interior defense, and just a smart player. He won't be near the greatest at anything, but I think his versatility is his best asset. The fact that he is a *versatile* point guard, who can switch over and play good minutes at the shooting guard, speaks volumes of his versatility, imo.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Enough said, I understand and agree. Everyone wants to boost Hinrich in one thing or the other, but in reality, he is just _very good_ at everything, and not _great_ at any one thing. A lot of people want to make him out to be one of the best passers the game will see since Stockton, which is far from the truth, but he is a *very good* passer. Same goes for shooting, very good but not even close to Peja or Dirk great.
> ...


Fantastic post. Agreed.


----------



## goNBAjayhawks (May 3, 2003)

Kirk gets his 3rd straight Double Double with 24pts 12ast on 9-15 shooting (60%) including 4-7 from 3. And only 2 to's. his ast/to ratio is not exactly 3-1


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

the lakers announcers tonight were loving him.

"hinrich has a beautiful stroke. beeeeeeeautiful."

uh huh! :yes: 

fwiw :sigh:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> the lakers announcers tonight were loving him.
> 
> "hinrich has a beautiful stroke. beeeeeeeautiful."
> ...


there is no such thing as an ugly jump shot when it goes in.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> there is no such thing as an ugly jump shot when it goes in.


I don't know. Bill Cartwright comes to mind. Make it, miss it, still ugly, ugly, ugly.

I agree with your point, though.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> there is no such thing as an ugly jump shot when it goes in.


They were calling it beautiful when he was 1-6 from the field.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> They were calling it beautiful when he was 1-6 from the field.


since he finished 9-15 i am assuming by the end game they were proposing marrige to it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hinrich upped his FG% to .391 with tonight's game.

He's now averaging 8.25 APG and 15.5 PPG


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> since he finished 9-15 i am assuming by the end game they were proposing marrige to it.


Pretty much. It makes you think when the opposing teams announcers rave about a guys shot even when its not falling. But maybe they too, like us involved with the Bulls, are just too bias to make the call.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Hinrich upped his FG% to .391 with tonight's game.
> 
> He's now averaging 8.25 APG and 15.5 PPG


And 40% from three.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Hinrich upped his FG% to .391 with tonight's game.
> 
> He's now averaging 8.25 APG and 15.5 PPG


and to think people on here wanted Hinrich benched.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

He made all his shots down the stretch (that one that was blocked was a foul)

Kirk insisted on passing to Eddy inside (which was good since he was the only one that could setup Eddy correctly. Even his passes were phenomenal) but he passed to Nocioni and Gordon who just kept shooting 3's that missed. If I'm Skiles I draw up plays just for him. He has to know he has the hot hand. "Kirk, you just shoot for now on. The rest of the team, just set screens and get away." and until he drew a double team, he should have kept shooting. The lakers had no answer for him. chucky atkins? tierre brown? puh lease.



> Skiles said. "But what he has to do is play aggressive offensively and when he does that he's very good."


what the heck. tell him.

Kirk, IMO was not selfish enough. He was clearly hot and was fired up for getting called for phantom fouls.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I was roundly scolded when I suggested Kirk has a flaw in his "textbook," "gorgeous" jump shot.

So if I'm wrong, anyone else want to take a crack at what's ailing him? Because "he'll come around" and "everything's okay" aren't cutting the mustard anymore. Dude's game is all kinds of ****ed-up right now. 

I suggest this in all seriousness: perhaps Kirk needs a five-game mental health hiatus like he got last year. Hopefully it straightens him out and we get a recharged guy for the stretch run.


----------



## KwaZulu (Jul 7, 2003)

Perhaps we should just let Kirk play his natural position, PG, instead of trying to make him something he isn't, a SG!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I was roundly scolded when I suggested Kirk has a flaw in his "textbook," "gorgeous" jump shot.
> 
> So if I'm wrong, anyone else want to take a crack at what's ailing him? Because "he'll come around" and "everything's okay" aren't cutting the mustard anymore. Dude's game is all kinds of ****ed-up right now.
> 
> I suggest this in all seriousness: perhaps Kirk needs a five-game mental health hiatus like he got last year. Hopefully it straightens him out and we get a recharged guy for the stretch run.


I don't remember Kirk getting the health thing last year, just the games at the start of the year due to flu.

I think Kirk sitting out 5 games would be beneficial for the team. Most definitely Gordon would still come off the bench, and say Piatowski starts. Well Skiles has some weird trust, that Kirk Hinrich should be our main offensive option. Well Kirk sucks at being a good offensive player. So then the team starts going to the post more to Eddy Curry and Othello Harrington off the bench, developing a strong post presence for the Bulls which draws double teams, and opens up the games for other people. With Kirk's absence, Gordon is also able to show his point guard skills that we all know he has, and will get more shots, and will be able to score from the point guard spot which Kirk obviously cannot due efficiently. So with the improved offense, the Bulls become a better team without Kirk then with him, because instead of allowing Kirk to play within the offense which he is good at, Skiles makes Kirk THE offense, which he is not good at.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I keep throwing this out there, but no one wants to roll with it: Hinrich's form is NOT fine. He's got classic vestiges of a little kid's shot -- he starts his shot from his waist and has a ton of vertical elbow movement on his release. This is why so many of his shots are on line but either short or hit hard on the back rim, and it also makes it tough to achieve nice, soft backspin, or "shooter's touch."
> 
> Shooters obviously do need to raise their elbows to get into a shooting position, but with Kirk it is part of his release. Compare Kirk's J to Kyle Korver's (who is textbook) and you'll see what I mean. Kirk needs to lock his elbow before releasing.


You are partly right and partly wrong.

Yes, Korver's shooting form is definetly different from Kirk's. Peja is similar to Korver's

The thing that you missed is that the form you described as pure shooter's from is mostly true for tall player who doesn't need much of lift from elbow. Almost all shooter above 6'6" use the classic shooting from you described.

On the other hand, almost all shooter below 6'3" use shooting from similar to Kirk's. When you are short shooter, elbow has to be in the equation for the ball to have neccessary lift. Watch again with this in mind. Watch how Ben Gordon shoot. Watch how Iverson shoot. Watch how Parker shoot. Watch how Francis shoot. Remember how Steve Kerr shooted.

It wasn't some abnormality in Kirk's shooting form as you thought. Simply short shooter and tall shooter has to have different shooting form to give the ball enough lift to put the ball into the net is all.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Hinrich upped his FG% to .391 with tonight's game.
> 
> He's now averaging 8.25 APG and 15.5 PPG


He's upped is FG% to .393

He's now averaging 6.8 APG and 15.6 PPG

And for VincentVega:

He's now shooting .348 3Pt


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I think Kirk sitting 5 games translates to 5 game losing streak and we fall out of the top 8 for the playoffs. Especially when you consider that we have Gordon and Duhon at the other 2 guard spots.

But something is up with Kirk's shot. His mechanics look good from where I stand and he's and 80% FT shooter so that argument doesn't really hold water for me. This "slump" or whatever you want to call it is 100% mental. He's getting decent looks but just not converting. That, and he doesn't know how to draw a foul in the paint to save his life.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Skiles needs to establish a post presence. We do that in the first quarter with Curry and usually come out of the first with a lead, then the rest of the game squat, putting tremendous pressure on the guards and wing players. Curry can pass out of the post fine, and score fine. The reason why the Lakers and Spurs have had great success, championship success, is because they establish the post presence. When say Curry is able to establish a post presence in the game, the gameplan should be dump it to Curry until the other team decides to stop it. Then when the other team decides to stop it with double and triple teams, that is when the game opens up for the guards. The key is for them to hit the wide open shots, like when Kerr had that great finals performance where Duncan just kept dishing it out to him out of the post, and Kerr just kept hitting threes, well Ben and Piatowski seem like the types of players that can do that type of thing when wide open, and Kirk Hinrich for stretches. When the game opens up for the guards, and the guards begin shoving it down the other teams throat, that team will have to stop double teaming the post and that is where the game opens up for the post player again. It is the championship formula for 5 of the last 6 championships, and if we want to win a championship or be a real good team, we have all the pieces in place to run that type of a system.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I also think that if we sit Kirk 5 games starting now, we will win 3 or 4 of those games. Why? We play Milwaukeex2, Seattle, Portland, and LA Clips. We can beat win those games without Kirk. But until Deng comes back, sitting Kirk for those games is very risky because we would be without 2 key players.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> I also think that if we sit Kirk 5 games starting now, we will win 3 or 4 of those games. Why? We play Milwaukeex2, Seattle, Portland, and LA Clips. We can beat win those games without Kirk. But until Deng comes back, sitting Kirk for those games is very risky because we would be without 2 key players.


Sitting Kirk 5 games is just about the worst idea I've heard.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Among all the above average and better players in the league, has anybody seen a worse 4th qtr player in this league then Kirk Hinrich? I most certainly haven't. He makes bad decisions. Can't shoot, can't drive, can't penetrate.....and when he does, can't finish. Never seen him make a BIG shot in the FINAL minute of a CLOSE game as a Chicago Bull. Has routinely seen him miss one big shot after another, another and it continues on. People(fans) keep talking abt his "little things".....a "little thing" is also being able to hit WIDE OPEN 15-20 footers, and using ur brain in the final seconds of a close game. He's not even a "white JC"....JC was never this inept in crunch time. He made all the BIG plays(at least offensively) in our close wins last season....it was never Kirk. Kirk's going to be pretty darn tough to rely on as we hit the all important stretch of the season. I just hope Skiles overcomes his bias and keeps his BOY as far away from shooting the ball as possible in crunch time.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

KwaZulu said:


> Perhaps we should just let Kirk play his natural position, PG, instead of trying to make him something he isn't, a SG!


Agreed.

Or for those who think Kirk's had it too easy and is teachers pet and believe he can't shoot worth a crap and has piss poor form, what say we just bench his *** for a few games and run it with Duhon and Gordon. 

:banana:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

SPMJ said:


> Among all the above average and better players in the league, has anybody seen a worse 4th qtr player in this league then Kirk Hinrich? I most certainly haven't. He makes bad decisions. Can't shoot, can't drive, can't penetrate.....and when he does, can't finish. Never seen him make a BIG shot in the FINAL minute of a CLOSE game as a Chicago Bull. Has routinely seen him miss one big shot after another, another and it continues on. People(fans) keep talking abt his "little things".....a "little thing" is also being able to hit WIDE OPEN 15-20 footers, and using ur brain in the final seconds of a close game. He's not even a "white JC"....JC was never this inept in crunch time. He made all the BIG plays(at least offensively) in our close wins last season....it was never Kirk. Kirk's going to be pretty darn tough to rely on as we hit the all important stretch of the season. I just hope Skiles overcomes his bias and keeps his BOY as far away from shooting the ball as possible in crunch time.


Sort of like saying has anyone seen a more inept, incapable, uncoordinated looking guy for the first three quarters of a game than Ben Gordon?

So now you're playing a race card. Such a priceless and classy post.


----------



## Charles Davis is Nuts (Mar 5, 2005)

Mr. T said:


> Sort of like saying has anyone seen a more inept, incapable, uncoordinated looking guy for the first three quarters of a game than Ben Gordon?
> 
> So now you're playing a race card. Such a priceless and classy post.


Ben Gordon is a better basketball player than Kirk Hinrich. I really don't know how you could argue that? Does he have his flaws...yes. Does Eddy Curry? Yes. Does Tyson Chandler? Yes.

But....since you've brought the word "race" out......it's appropriate to talk about how they are all approached with different presumptions.

The presumption with Gordon is (from the Kirk fanboy club) is..... "yeah we like him a lot, as long as he doesn't become a threat to Kirk. He may be a scoring machine and it may be a given at this point that if he loses ROY it will be in a close contest to Emeka Okafor.....but Kirk is the better player cause he does "things"...like fall asleep as Devin Brown runs behind him after a free throw, take terrible shots with the game on the line when Ben is red hot (shots he has proven time and time again he has no chance of making), and basically let Tony Parker make a pinada out of him. Kirk's stats outside of scoring (last time I checked the team with more points than the other, NOT more rebounds or assists....wins the game) are superior to Ben's, and therefore he is superior. Forget about what Ben could EASILY be if he were given the unquestioned reigns to this team, Kirk is Kirk and that's the end of it. I am a blue collar, white, republican. Kirk is the guy on the team who most reminds me of me. Does that make me a klansman for admitting that I will subconsciously rationalize away the bad about Kirk and accentuate the good, to a greater degree than an unbiased observer? No. Am I a fraud if I do not admit that that is probably what goes on inside my head? YES. Do people identify with those who have more in common with them than not? Yes, PERIOD. Is this about racism? No."

Take any Kirk fan boy in here and I will guarantee you this. If Eddie Robinson was their best friend, grew up in their house as an adopted brother, played on the same high school team, went to the same high school and was in 3 of the same clubs with them and they were quote "best friends forever"....then that same person would be rationalized the bad and accentuating the good beyond the norm rate....for Eddie Robinson! PERIOD. Show me a white guy from Park Forest who talks openly about how all his favorite basketball players are white and white guys have better fundamentals (they are out there whether people want to fantasize or not) and I'm willing to bet you that two of his favorite black players are Kendall Gill and Craig Hodges.....who went to Rich East High School in Park Forest.

Take a Kirk fan boy from Oak Lawn and I bet you that same guy was talking about how good Dwayne Wade was gonna be when Dwayne was in junior college getting his act together. Why? Same home town. People like people with similarities to them. The more similarities the more they like them. 

Just like where I went to college the fourth highest rated recruit got more love than any recruit we got. And our #1 recruit was called the "number one high school football player in the midwest"......but the fourth highest rated recruit (per rivals, superprep and insiders) in our class was white, middle class, from a blue collar town IN STATE, and his parents and siblings all went to the school....making him a legacy. And guess what....? He gets 10 times more love than 3 players who CLEARLY have more to offer the football team than he does. Why? Because the people who post on the school's site for rivals, superprep and insiders are mostly white, middle class, from in state and they are all alumni.....IS it any great coincidence that the 4th ranked recruit gets 10 times more love than the whole rest of the class? No! You know what's even funnier. He gets slightly more love and "props" than a kid from last year who had all the same attributes except his parents DIDNT go to the school. One less thing in common....

Don't get mad at me for explaining to you how your subconscious mind works. As soon as you recognize it you can begin to like players for legitimate reasons, and thus make your defenses of them legitimate instead of "he reminds me more of well ME than anyone else on the team." Think I'm wrong.....why did fans in NJ cheer louder for Scalabrine than they did for anyone else? Because as the Houston announcers put it once "the 12th guy reminds that fan more of himself than anyone else on the team." 

THESE ARE PROVEN FACTS....

Is Kirk a good basketball player? Yes. Is he (and I almost threw up when I read this) "Very good at everything"....? NO! Kobe Bryant is very good at everything....Kevin Garnett is at least very good at everything. Kirk is very good at some things.....but he shoots 39%.....that eliminates "EVERYTHING."

Does a portion of the defense of Kirk come from legitimate arguments that even the unbiased Bucks fan from Kalamazoo, Michigan would make? Yes. But there is another side to Kirk.....because he reminds many posters more of themselves than say Tyson Chandler or Ben Gordon or Eddy Curry or David Terrell or Sammy Sosa.....he get's a "presumption."

Everything Kirk does is approached in the light of.... unless he is morally culpable...unless you have documented proof like a video tape or a recording that Kirk isn't trying his hardest, then he's the best player on the team." Forget that everyone on this team.....even scapegoats....are trying their hardest. It's like.....it doesn't matter what Kirk does....he could shoot 25%, and his fan boys wouldn't be hearing a word of it unless you could show that he's not trying his hardest. That he's dogging it. 

I'm all for that presumption....the presumption Kirk gets that "if he's doing anything wrong it's not his fault but because of some outside force. And as long as he's trying hard it doesn't matter......he's the best player on the team." The presumption of....if there is one positive thing that you can grab onto about Kirk, even one, in a bad game, bad week or bad month....it's ok....we'll take that one positive thing and ride it to the sunset as long as Kirk gives us 100%.

I guess I'm just wondering when everyone else who busts their butt on this team is going to start getting the same treatment from the fanboy club.


----------



## Charles Davis is Nuts (Mar 5, 2005)

*In common chart*

Here's an illustration....say you are a white, blue collar, straight and narrow, Mike Northish, no nonsense guy who believes in apple pie, church on sundays, and that people should have all the right values (of course they should be right as YOU SEE right).....here is a chart that illustrates those who share the most-least attributes with you:

John Paxson -- White, blue collar, no tattoos, no nonsense, heck....even went to Notre Dame....if you're a Domer there is another reason to like him. Paxson also did play for the Bulls, and you are a Bulls fan.....so he's pretty much hitting the jackpot. Heck he hit a game winner to bring home a TITLE for the Bulls. This guy gets a 10 in terms of sociological commonality and resulting subconscious willing to accentuate the good and rationalize away the bad.

Scott Skiles -- White, blue collar, no tattoos, no nonsense. Are you a Big Ten fan? Skiles played in the Big Ten! Did you know Skiles did Cocaine and was busted twice for it?? Probably not. But you 1. Don't care, 2. Don't really wanna know. Skiles is "Your Guy!" Keep that garbage about him doing cocaine elsewhere right? Isn't it funny that cocaine use doesn't seem to disappear into a fuzzy background for Shawn Kemp or Michael Irvin? George Bush though used cocaine.....but if you're a republican he's got about as much as common with you as John Paxson.....funny how it will fade into the background with him as well

Kirk Hinrich -- White, blue collar, no nonsense. Kansas fan? Kirk went to Kansas. Any wonder that his biggest fan boy on realgm is not from Illinois....but from Kansas?? 

Luol Deng -- Luol Deng is black, and yet you still like him a lot, but not as much as Kirk. Doesn't this disprove Charles Davis' theory. Well wait a minute. This is about "most shared common attributes" not "Same race"....sure you guys don't have race in common, but Luol is no nonsense, plays the game the right way. He's from Duke and blue collar. He has your fundamentals. Heck if you were that tall and athletic YOU WOULD BE LUOL DENG! That's how "similar your games are." All Kirk fan boys like Deng...but none of them as much as Kirk....but close. I count one different attribute between Kirk and Deng amongst those listed.....race. Other than that they share all the attributes above. 

Tyson Chandler -- Is black, has tattoos, but is SO blue collar. Seems to work so hard....harder than anyone. While you don't like him as much as Kirk, and you don't lay praise at his doorstep even 50% as much as you do Kirk...he's quietly doing pretty well in your world. Very no nonsense. Most Kirk fans like Tyson, but will point out his bad jumper (which is really no worse for a center/pf than Kirk's is for a PG). Most Kirk fans like Luol Deng more than Tyson. They post more on him, more defenses of him and more praise of him.

Eddy Curry -- Wow! This guy is black, has tattoos, comes from the no collar LOWER CLASS town of Calumet City. He's "street"....he's worn CORN ROWS, something I couldn't even do if I tried. He may have worked hard this summer, but he's been openly criticized for not being a hard worker.....I, the guy described at the top of this page, can't find ONE THING in common between me and Eddy Curry. 

Isn't it funny that if you go to any Chicago Bulls message board....as this page of "commonalities" scrolls downward....the criticism increases?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Can I get a "Whassup, Matrix / Dean Keaton / Duhon Mania / Gipper / Greatest Possible Vitamins?"


----------



## Charles Davis is Nuts (Mar 5, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Can I get a "Whassup, Matrix / Dean Keaton / Duhon Mania / Gipper / Greatest Possible Vitamins?"


Yes you can and what's cool is that I've made some more screen names to use after you guys "crack the case." Hi. I'm LBmatrix. I admit...I'll be back tomorrow...hello Scott....you "figured it out." Einstein had nothing on you man


----------



## Charles Davis is Nuts (Mar 5, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Can I get a "Whassup, Matrix / Dean Keaton / Duhon Mania / Gipper / Greatest Possible Vitamins?"


Just out of curiousity Scott....since you "found me out".....do you disagree with my prognosis of Kirk Fanboydom and the sociological analysis I presented?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Charles Davis is Nuts said:


> Just out of curiousity Scott....since you "found me out".....do you disagree with my prognosis of Kirk Fanboydom and the sociological analysis I presented?


I think if you do have a legitimate argument here, it has more to do with psychology than sociology. You're losing me with the "blue-collar" stuff -- the modern-day blue-collar white Chicagoan probably has no interest whatsoever in the Bulls.


----------



## Charles Davis is Nuts (Mar 5, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I think if you do have a legitimate argument here, it has more to do with psychology than sociology. You're losing me with the "blue-collar" stuff -- the modern-day blue-collar white Chicagoan probably has no interest whatsoever in the Bulls.


Well of course you have to assume that we're talking "Bulls Fans" here....as like you said...a non Bulls wouldn't care. Yes its psychological. I always think of sociology because of ingroups and shared ingroups and stuff like that. But you're right....if it's traits its psych, it it's "dude went to my high school, so im a big fan" then its soc.

Guess I just like equal accountability


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Kirk has not been playing well (for Kirk). However before you start throwing out accusations of racism, you should check out the efficiency ratings. While Kirk is playing poorly (for Kirk), he is also the most efficient player on the Bull. For a guy who is shooting as poorly as he is, that's a pretty tough feat. Last I checked, "white boy" didn't earn any efficiency points.

Let's argue the merits of our players and not the racial make-up.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

What's wrong with being discriminating towards players who play the right way and players that are lazy.


----------



## Charles Davis is Nuts (Mar 5, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> What's wrong with being discriminating towards players who play the right way and players that are lazy.


I'm not saying anything is wrong with anything...I'm just saying that "this is the way people are evaluating guys" and they should admit it. Who on the current team is being accused of being lazy? Did I miss something?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

This racism nonsense must be the new "I've got no other basketball analysis to offer" angle. When all else fails (stats don't back up your claim, visual analysis doesn't back up your claim, everybody else says you're wrong) claim racism.

Has the screen name Johnny Cochran been taken yet? I think we have a few contenders here.

While almost 80% of the leagues players are black, about 85% of the attendees at a game are white. I think its a real stretch to claim whites are such blatant racists based on the numbers. If that were the case, wouldn't whites be demanding a more white product with the power of their pocketbooks? 

Does racism exist? Hell yes - everywhere in life. Do whites relate to whites better and blacks to blacks, etc. In general, hell yes. Does any of this relate to the absurdity that Hinrich is only beloved because he is white? Puleeeez.

If some of the race baiters here had even one iota of common sense they'd see the general trend on this board is one of increasing frustration that Kirk hasn't snapped out of his slump. In my post in another thread, I suggested its possible our misuse of him at the shooting guard may be having a serious adverse affect on his play as the season wears on. To now try to capitalize on his recent struggles and claim fans only love him because he's white is beyond contemptable. Hinrich was the only guy on this team who showed up for every game last year. The guy puts it all out there on the court. He was rewarded by becoming a fan favorite. Trying to redefine that now into something else is intellectually dishonest.

Why was Junkyard dog a fan favorite in Toronto and an early favorite in Chicago? He's black right? How about Rodman? Black right? Jordan? Pippen? Hell, Gordon? I'd say fans get excited every time Gordon gets into the game. They wait for the "explosion". They wait for the game winning run he'll deliver in the fourth quarter. He's black right? Fans are looking for the guy who gives them everything he's got. They're looking for the winners. They aren't looking for the "white boy" to become their hero. Ask yourself, when Detroit fans cheer on Darko, is that because they want him to become a star or are they in an innocent sort of what - mocking him? I'd say its the latter.

Just out of curiosity, who was the "white boy" in the great Jamal vs. JWill debate? 

Last check we don't have any threads wanting Jared Ranier to start over Curry, right? Why not? He's white right?

Lets not be stupid. 

Was there anybody who wasn't disappointed AD and Kirk took our last two meaningful shots? I mean, I'm with everybody else in that I'd have liked to see Gordon get those shots. We pay a price in almost every other aspect of the game to have him in there so to not be able to capitalize on what he does exceptional is a missed opportunity. He's our closer. Unfortunately, you can't always get the ball to the guy you want - especially when you're playing the likely NBA champs and best team in the NBA this year on their home floor where they're now 26-2. Duh.

Lets get a reality check here. 

All of this has nothing to do with race. Skiles isn't a racist and Hinrich isn't beloved because he's a "white boy". Its about who is the best player, who gives us the overall better chance to win. 

To quote the late and not so great John Kerry, it looks like some of you have taken your eye off the ball.


----------



## Charles Davis is Nuts (Mar 5, 2005)

Mr. T said:


> This racism nonsense must be the new "I've got no other basketball analysis to offer" angle. When all else fails (stats don't back up your claim, visual analysis doesn't back up your claim, everybody else says you're wrong) claim racism.
> 
> Has the screen name Johnny Cochran been taken yet? I think we have a few contenders here.
> 
> ...


My posts really explain everything you say because I anticipated the weak arguments you present.

It's not about race. You think it is. It's about people identifying with those who share more traits with them to a greater degree than those who share less traits with them. Race is A trait. 

Do racists happen to be some of the worst at letting common traits i.e. race determine who they think is better/more desireable? Yes. Are KKK members the only one's who do it? No?

I address your ingenious attempt at rebuttal.... "what about Dennis Rodman and Jerome Williams."

Luol Deng -- *Luol Deng is black, and yet you still like him a lot*, but not as much as Kirk. Doesn't this disprove Charles Davis' theory. Well wait a minute. This is about "most shared common attributes" not "Same race"....sure you guys don't have race in common, but Luol is no nonsense, plays the game the right way. He's from Duke and blue collar. He has your fundamentals. Heck if you were that tall and athletic YOU WOULD BE LUOL DENG! That's how "similar your games are." All Kirk fan boys like Deng...but none of them as much as Kirk....but close. I count one different attribute between Kirk and Deng amongst those listed.....race. Other than that they share all the attributes above.

It's about who has more in common with you. I fully expect a Kirk fan boy to like Luol Deng more than Jason "White Chocolate" Williams. That's what you're not getting. Because while Deng is black and Williams is white.....being black is about the only thing Luol Deng has LESS IN COMMON with a Kirk fan boy than Jason Williams. 

The theory works in reverse. Babyblueslugga or ec02 or "Blazer fan/dynasty the columnist" on realgm are more likely to be fans of Jamal Crawford or Eddy Curry because they share more common attributes with those two. 

Race is one trait. Like I said...take the biggest Kirk fanboy and if Eddie Robinson was his adopted brother and best friend....he'd be defending Eddie Robinson even more than Kirk. They'd share the in group of being in the same family and the same group of friends.

So yes if a player is black but has everything else in the world in common with you, I expect you the fan I described to like him more than the white player who has nothing in common with you. Can you see that it's not just about race but similarities in general?

Does this analysis change the stats? No. Does it change the way the stats, games, etc. are analyzed and the presumption that is given to certain players (poster inner-monologue "Oh they're talking about Kirk, I have a lot in common with Kirk, let me see if I can find something positive about Kirk to grasp onto" or "Oh they're talking about Eddy, I have nothing in common with Eddy, let me see if I can twist the argument negatively toward Eddy")? Yes. Those are exactly the kinds of thought processes that go on in poster's subconscious minds....

Most posters are here trying to push agendas supporting players that remind them most or MORE of themselves....period. Take the old school bull fan. he was a fan of Norm Van Lier or Jerry Sloan or both and now is a fan of Kirk Hinrich..... 

If anything this crystalizes the Jordan era. Now you have posters fighting....is it toughness and grit or is it talent. That argument didn't have to be had during Jordan's era. He was both. He was the best of Eddy Curry and the best of Kirk Hinrich slapped together with all the fat cut out, but to the 10th power. He was the guy that everyone identified with. And it wasn't about strongly identifying with him. More people found ENOUGH in common with MJ to drop 140$ on sneaks than ever before....that was his gift off the court. 

How many more illustrations do you need?

*It is NOT about race.* Race is one of the things it is about. It is about similarities. It is about "he reminds me of me!"


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

No offense Gipper, but I didn't even bother reading your reply. If you can't stick with the same name what's the point?


----------



## Charles Davis is Nuts (Mar 5, 2005)

Mr. T said:


> No offense Gipper, but I didn't even bother reading your reply. If you can't stick with the same name what's the point?


I'd love to. Ask them to give it back to me. LOL. Mr. T you should not be blinded by your hate for me and read it....it outlines the phenomenon that's taking place here....nothing more. It's the median point, whether you like or not, of you and your arguing counterpart.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

When asked about Kirk's recent slump, he responded "I have to play better."

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...gamer,1,2647048.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

btw, this thread makes my head hurt.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Charles Davis is Nuts said:


> I'd love to. Ask them to give it back to me. LOL. Mr. T you should not be blinded by your hate for me and read it....it outlines *the phenomenon that's taking place here*....nothing more. It's the median point, whether you like or not, of you and your arguing counterpart.



there is no "phenomenon" taking place here.

listen gipdavis - like *wynn!* said, let's just stick to basketball. the other stuff is just hot air, white noise. it doesn't solve the problem of kirk's slump. like any of us clowns could even remotely influence that. 

it's just a bunch of guys - on a message board - who are disappointed that the bulls were unable to deliver what would have been an amazing come from 17 points down to beat the eventual nba champs in stunning victory. sportscenter highlights galore. more adulation from the bandwagon folks and media types. we live in a society that looks for scapegoats... last night it was kirk. oh well. could have been AD too, but let's pick on the one guy who, regardless, at least TRIES. i know that remark will bring on snickers, i don't really care. 

mr. t. is right. 



> If some of the race baiters here had even one iota of common sense they'd see the general trend on this board is one of increasing frustration that Kirk hasn't snapped out of his slump. In my post in another thread, I suggested its possible our *misuse of him at the shooting guard* may be having a serious adverse affect on his play as the season wears on. To now try to capitalize on his recent struggles and claim fans only love him because he's white is beyond contemptable. Hinrich was the only guy on this team who showed up for every game last year. The guy puts it all out there on the court. He was rewarded by becoming a fan favorite. Trying to redefine that now into something else is intellectually dishonest.


so to bring it bac to basketball for a sec - i think kirk is the kind of player that the old cliche "take one for the team" very much applies. do you think he volunteered to play shooting guard? of course not. skiles says he is struggling. skiles is the one who has put him in the position to struggle. skiles is the one who needs to move him back to point, bench duhon and start ben at the two. but he won't listen to miz. 

i often wonder what exactly it was pax saw the day that ben came to the berto to workout before the draft that made him so seemingly convinced that _this_, the backcourt of ben and kirk, could work. we have seen glimpses of it. in the recent wizards game it looked pretty good. is it the long term solution. maybe. maybe not. 

i appreciate the time and thought you have put into the posts in this thread gipdavis (kinda has a ring, right?) but if we stick to BASKETBALL stuff we could all come away a little smarter, but if people continue to perpetuate the race/socio/psycho/ analysis thing with kirk/skiles et al. continually over and over, blah, blah, just to hear themselves, then we all come away, uh, stupider. see? is it really about that? for me this board is about basketball. this thread was going along pretty well until...well now it's not even about what it was about anymore. 

sorry if that rambled a bit. 



:wink:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> there is no "phenomenon" taking place here.
> i often wonder what exactly it was pax saw the day that ben came to the berto to workout before the draft that made him so seemingly convinced that _this_, the backcourt of ben and kirk, could work. we have seen glimpses of it. in the recent wizards game it looked pretty good. is it the long term solution. maybe. maybe not.


Good post.

IMO, I think Paxson fell in love with Ben Gordon and was going to take him hell or high water. Its clear that Hinrich/Gordon is not ideal, but he wanted Gordon so badly that he just took him anyway.

If we could merge Hinrich and Gordon into one player we would have an MVP candidate. Sadly... we have what we have and its gonna cause problems down the road.

Who's more of a difference maker?

Hinrich or Gordon?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Good post.
> 
> If we could merge Hinrich and Gordon into one player we would have an MVP candidate. Sadly... we have what we have and its gonna cause problems down the road.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's that cut-and-dried. The problem of Kirk & Ben co-existing is just exacerbated by the lack of any other credible guards on the roster. Both guys are being asked to do too much. I like Duhon, but not as many minutes as he is playing, not as the "third" guard. Our "third" guard needs to be more of a big, defensive, shooting guard (something we've recognized since day one after drafting Ben). There's no reason that Kirk (32 minutes), Ben (32 minutes), and [fantasy tall defensive SG] (32 minutes) can't be our eventual guard rotation, with Duhon and Pike kept on for emergency/spot/situational responsibilities.

We may be able to get this guard with the MLE. If not, we need to make a trade this summer. Who we're willing to trade depends on how big of a stud we bring back in return. I'm not convinced that Kirk or Ben need to be the trade bait. While I'm liking what Othella brings to the table, maybe an S&T including him brings back the player we need? Think anyone would bite on an AD expiring? Maybe we don't re-sign Duhon in order to use the full MLE on our "new" guard? I doubt Reiner, Williams, Pike, Griffin, or Pargo bring back much as trade bait.

I consider our core group to be:

Eddy
Tyson
Kirk
Ben
Luol
Andres

Guys I like but am happy to trade:

Duhon
AD
Othella

Guys I could care less about:

Pargo
Pike
Griffin
Williams
Reiner

There seem to be plenty of options out there for Pax to explore before deciding he's got to get rid of Kirk (floor leader) or Ben (go to scorer). If we HAVE to move one of the core members, its probably a better idea to move Curry or Andres, both of whom seem to have value around the league, but don't seem to have reached the expectations we have of them so far.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> I don't think it's that cut-and-dried. The problem of Kirk & Ben co-existing is just exacerbated by the lack of any other credible guards on the roster. Both guys are being asked to do too much. I like Duhon, but not as many minutes as he is playing, not as the "third" guard. Our "third" guard needs to be more of a big, defensive, shooting guard (something we've recognized since day one after drafting Ben). There's no reason that Kirk (32 minutes), Ben (32 minutes), and [fantasy tall defensive SG] (32 minutes) can't be our eventual guard rotation, with Duhon and Pike kept on for emergency/spot/situational responsibilities.
> 
> We may be able to get this guard with the MLE. If not, we need to make a trade this summer. Who we're willing to trade depends on how big of a stud we bring back in return. I'm not convinced that Kirk or Ben need to be the trade bait. While I'm liking what Othella brings to the table, maybe an S&T including him brings back the player we need? Think anyone would bite on an AD expiring? Maybe we don't re-sign Duhon in order to use the full MLE on our "new" guard? I doubt Reiner, Williams, Pike, Griffin, or Pargo bring back much as trade bait.
> 
> ...



Good post.

1.) 32 minutes is not enough, IMO. Look at the minutes played per game for the top guards in the league. I want Gordon out there 40 minutes a game. Hinrich for 32-35 sounds about right.

2.) The problem I have is at the end of games. I can foresee big-guarded teams just punishing us down the stretch. Clearly Gordon needs to be out there @ the end. Perhaps the solution would be to have our new big guard and Gordon close out the games. The problem with this is that this new big guard better game some PG skills... 'cause Gordon sure as hell does not @ this point.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> 1.) 32 minutes is not enough, IMO. Look at the minutes played per game for the top guards in the league. I want Gordon out there 40 minutes a game. Hinrich for 32-35 sounds about right.


Those numbers were just thrown out to show that even if we swapped one of our guards for a new one, we've still got minutes that need to be covered by someone. That doesn't even count inevitable injuries, foul trouble, etc. I'd like to see Ben for 40, too, but I'm thinking that's unrealistic for next season. Let's get him up to 24 mpg first. After next season, we should have plenty of money to spend in the summer, plus another first round draft pick (though hopefully VERY late first round).



kukoc4ever said:


> 2.) The problem I have is at the end of games. I can foresee big-guarded teams just punishing us down the stretch. Clearly Gordon needs to be out there @ the end. Perhaps the solution would be to have our new big guard and Gordon close out the games. The problem with this is that this new big guard better game some PG skills... 'cause Gordon sure as hell does not @ this point.


Lately it seems like we've had three guards out there to end games. Rather Kirk, Ben, and "new guy" than Kirk, Ben, and Duhon. I think that having a third guard who is a more viable option than Duhon would lead to us make situational decisions based on how the game has gone to that point. Still don't think we have to be in a rush to trade either guy, as both have shown themselves to be hard working guys with good team attitudes who really don't like to lose.


----------



## Charles Davis is Nuts (Mar 5, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> there is no "phenomenon" taking place here.
> 
> listen gipdavis - like *wynn!* said, let's just stick to basketball. the other stuff is just hot air, white noise. it doesn't solve the problem of kirk's slump. like any of us clowns could even remotely influence that.
> 
> ...


So who isn't trying? I've seen certain groups with agendas (Kirk's fanboy club being the biggest) rip almost every key player on the team more than they should have been ripped. And every guy tries.....does Eddy Curry not try? Does Tyson Chandler not try? Does Luol Deng not try? I've seen certain people go off more than they should have on all of them. 

There is a phenomenon here. "Let's just stick to basketball" isn't a magical catch-all. We are talking basketball....I provided a framework for how people here are analyzing Bulls basketball (working backwards...starting with "I like Kirk, because he reminds me more of well...me...than anyone else on the team," and then saying "how can I figure out a way to make him look like god's gift to the Bulls" -- if nothing else subconsciously with most Kirk fan boys, but not all of them.....I'm sure if you pulled some of them aside off the record they'd admit that they had a "stronger" agenda).

The whole point is.....Kirk has done everything recently that anyone else has done to deserve scapegoat treatment and his fanboys still resist it. He has virtual free reign to make any mistake he wants without fear of knee jerk benching from Scott Cartwright...errr Skiles, and he's still been blowing goat. Our first quarter lineup when Kirk went to the bench of Curry, Chandler, Nocioni, Gordon and Duhon was the best one we had all night.....too bad Scott Cartwrong couldn't stick with it.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Charles Davis is Nuts said:


> So who isn't trying? I've seen certain groups with agendas (Kirk's fanboy club being the biggest) rip almost every key player on the team more than they should have been ripped. And every guy tries.....does Eddy Curry not try? Does Tyson Chandler not try? Does Luol Deng not try? I've seen certain people go off more than they should have on all of them.
> 
> There is a phenomenon here. "Let's just stick to basketball" isn't a magical catch-all. We are talking basketball....I provided a framework for how people here are analyzing Bulls basketball (working backwards...starting with "I like Kirk, because he reminds me more of well...me...than anyone else on the team," and then saying "how can I figure out a way to make him look like god's gift to the Bulls" -- if nothing else subconsciously with most Kirk fan boys, but not all of them.....I'm sure if you pulled some of them aside off the record they'd admit that they had a "stronger" agenda).
> 
> The whole point is.....Kirk has done everything recently that anyone else has done to deserve scapegoat treatment and his fanboys still resist it. He has virtual free reign to make any mistake he wants without fear of knee jerk benching from Scott Cartwright...errr Skiles, and he's still been blowing goat. Our first quarter lineup when Kirk went to the bench of Curry, Chandler, Nocioni, Gordon and Duhon was the best one we had all night.....too bad Scott Cartwrong couldn't stick with it.


i was just saying we could use a little less of the pyschoanalysis/sociological crap, that's all. 

and i am a fan GIRL. :biggrin: 

your schtick is getting really worn out, like your user names, chuck. 

this thread started out in the purpose I THINK of BEING CRITICAL of kirk.

he does deserve criticism. 

he has played terrible lately. _he told KC to print that in the tribune and he did._ i am pretty sure he is harsher on himself and his play than anyone of us, fan person or not, could EVER be. 

you think you have provided us a "framework" on how people are evaluating bulls' basketball - how gracious of you - but you are not evaluating basketball - you are evaluating some non-existant imaginary racial preference - and frankly it is really old and not relevant to most of what i read here.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i was just saying we could use a little less of the pyschoanalysis/sociological crap, that's all.
> 
> and i am a fan GIRL. :biggrin:
> 
> ...


actually its a proven socialogical fact people do exactly what charles davis is nuts says ....dont kill the messenger.

i for one happen to agree with alot that he says , but its no great stretch to agree with a proven fact though. Larry bird caused alittle stir a while go by saying the same thing , so its not new either.

i find it humorous we heard all this stuff about players on the bulls most of the _kirk fanpeople _ were distributing as a backround on why certain players were either not as likeable, or not as good while apparently kirk's backround (apparently he share something with most of his fans by how hard they fight to defend it) appaently like a certain sect of his fans is somehow beyond inspection.

its not really i critique on kirk as much as of _other people_ .

so who is defending who?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

happygrinch said:


> actually its a proven socialogical fact people do exactly what charles davis is nuts says ....dont kill the messenger.
> 
> i for one happen to agree with alot that he says , but its no great stretch to agree with a proven fact though. Larry bird caused alittle stir a while go by saying the same thing , so its not new either.
> 
> ...


so shoot me instead grinch. sheeesh. i was just growing a little weary of all the pyscho babble. 

who cares?

meanwhile, check out the latest issue of _ESPN the Magazine_ for a GLOWING article about Kirk titled "RED BULL". nice article. the fanpeople will be LOVING it, and maybe, just maybe, everyone can appreciate for a second what kirk has done and brought to this franchise since he was drafted. it even tries to explain his "cult status" among fans.

if you are an ESPN Insider - you can access it online in a groovy animated PDF format. just go to the Insider Home Page and click on the link (3/14 issue w/ Carlos Beltran on the cover)

there are some great photos too - i swiped one for my avatar! and in a delicious bit of irony - there is a big photo of kirk juxtaposed to an advertisement featuring jamal crawford. kirk's is bigger. but i digress.

:wink:

*on "respect"*

_ "Some guys get respect based on their reputation." Hinrich says. "I have to earn mine every time I walk on the court. It's always been that way for me. It'll always be that way for me."_


tell me about it, kirk!


there is also a nice article about the bulls' resurgence, and even a "got milk" ad featuring ben gordon, complete with the iconic milk mustache!

the bulls getting some espn loving! it's a good thing.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)




----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Man, look at those arms. I wonder if the same people who did Martha Stewart's body did Kirk's arms! :biggrin:


----------



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

mizenkay said:


> there is no "phenomenon" taking place here.
> 
> 
> so shoot me instead grinch. sheeesh. i was just growing a little weary of all the pyscho babble.
> ...


It's real interesting how Gipper's never-really-emphasized-before-sociological points would be dismissed by you as "psycho babble" but then Cey/Basghetti/Kismet attacks (which are basically recycled tired arguments only with a new thread) on certain other players and those critical of Kirk are "intelligent."


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

I hope Gipper's new name is banned. Can the higher ups ban his IP address?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

remlover said:


> I hope Gipper's new name is banned. Can the higher ups ban his IP address?


I dunno about the IP stuff, but I'd imagine they're taking some steps to get rid of him. In the meantime, banning a user name isn't all that tough- just a couple of clicks.


----------



## Charles Davis is Nuts (Mar 5, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> i was just saying we could use a little less of the pyschoanalysis/sociological crap, that's all.
> 
> and i am a fan GIRL. :biggrin:
> 
> ...


LOL but you're just wrong that's what you don't get. I said race was A FACTOR...amongst many. I even provided reasoning as to why Luol Deng, black, will also receive better treatment than Eddy Curry, also black. Here is what I'm always talking to Tom about. VincentVega could take your argument and advocate it and I'd take him seriously.....but you're not smart enough. Are you aware of the fact that my theory is the prevailing theory in both fields? Whether you're talking about basketball, school or the workplace? 

Please show me someone of any merit who will deny that similar traits and/or ingroups do NOT lead to more favorable evaluation of someone/thing than less similar traits and/or ingroups. 

You don't like that TRUTH. That's your problem here. I got you to flinch for half a second and go "maybe that's really how I am if I think about it." Don't get mad at me for telling you how you and simplistic people like you operate. For example.....I'd like your list of people that Mike North has been half as critical of as he has of a long list of non-whites/non-blue collar types that I can provide for you. Mike North is the classic case of someone whose opinions about every person and thing are ruled by the preferences he has going IN to any given situation. 

As for user names.....this one is gone, there will be a new one tomorrow lol. If what I said didn't have some degree of truth to it you wouldn't bother responding....that's a fact.

So...Kirk himself is saying he's playing like crap...and yet half his fanboy club won't admit that. Or can you not read the ardent defenses of his play, defenses going so far as to suggest that you are wrong if you say Kirk is playing like crap, on this board?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> so shoot me instead grinch. sheeesh. i was just growing a little weary of all the pyscho babble.
> 
> who cares?
> 
> ...


if you dont care then dont cry about it , just ignore it and move on especially if you have nothing really to add to the discussion , whining about something you dont like just because and say you dont care about is childish, and in some parts around here is known as "hating".

btw its always good when the bulls get good pub i'll check it out.


----------



## Charles Davis is Nuts (Mar 5, 2005)

happygrinch said:


> if you dont care then dont cry about it , just ignore it and move on especially if you have nothing really to add to the discussion , whining about something you dont like just because and say you dont care about is childish, and in some parts around here is known as "hating".
> 
> btw its always good when the bulls get good pub i'll check it out.


ding, ding, ding


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

chuck - 

read post #71 in the thread

i said he is playing like crap and is not above criticism.

please refrain from telling me i am not "smart enough" in the future.

thanks,

miz

PS. to the MODS: i feel i have been "hated on" in this thread by chuck, the grinch, and 6 foot, but i take it with a grain of salt and realize that this is a message board. 

a message board that will have to do without me in the future, cause i am sick of this stuff. being called names and being told i am childish and stupid. thanks alot. 

it's been fun guys, and i love contributing stuff here, like the espn mag story and photo - but i am going to go hang out with *kramer!* now. bye.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> PS. to the MODS: i feel i have been "hated on" in this thread by chuck, the grinch, and 6 foot, but i take it with a grain of salt and realize that this is a message board.
> 
> a message board that will have to do without me in the future, cause i am sick of this stuff. being called names and being told i am childish and stupid. thanks alot.
> 
> it's been fun guys, and i love contributing stuff here, like the espn mag story and photo - but i am going to go hang out with *kramer!* now. bye.


Point taken.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> chuck -
> 
> read post #71 in the thread
> 
> ...


to clear something up I was talking about your actions not you personally Mzenkay, i have no ill will whatsoever towards you.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> It's real interesting how Gipper's never-really-emphasized-before-sociological points would be dismissed by you as "psycho babble" but then Cey/Basghetti/Kismet attacks (which are basically recycled tired arguments only with a new thread) on certain other players and those critical of Kirk are "intelligent."


 There's no comparison. Don't let criticisms of your favorite player cloud your judgement. The "recycled tired argument" applies to gipper's rants as well but you don't see it as such, but rather gospel truth that sound good to your ears.


----------



## Misses Esterhouse (Mar 5, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> There's no comparison. Don't let criticisms of your favorite player cloud your judgement. The "recycled tired argument" applies to gipper's rants as well but you don't see it as such, but rather gospel truth that sound good to your ears.


That's because it is the truth. Accepted as pretty much fact in both fields.....and not a rant on Eddy Curry.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I wonder if Matrix can set a record for most usernames used in one thread?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Misses Esterhouse said:


> That's because it is the truth. Accepted as pretty much fact in both fields.....and not a rant on Eddy Curry.


Somebody . . . anybody . . . please . . . stop . . . the . . . madness.


----------



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

spongyfungy said:


> There's no comparison. Don't let criticisms of your favorite player cloud your judgement. The "recycled tired argument" applies to gipper's rants as well but you don't see it as such, but rather gospel truth that sound good to your ears.


All I said that Gipper's built up quite a reputation to the point where even his good points are just lost to ad hominem attacks. I didn't say he didn't repeat himself.


----------

