# OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

He's AMAZING...

I love Jason Kidd, but the Spurs should be more than happy they didn't ship this kid off this past summer.

I hate to say it but on the other board a few of us fellow fans seem to think our future PG is better than Parker, and that's just beyond laughable.


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

Its hard to believe he's only 21. He is playing crazy good right now.

Tony Parker was selected 28th overall by the Spurs in 2001 . . .

I don't remember what the deal was exactly with Ginobli, but I don't think they got him in the draft. He was signed as a free agent or something right?

Point here is

1) Who the hell do the Spurs have scouting foreign talent?
2) Can we trade Tyson Chandler for them?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>7thwatch</b>!
> Its hard to believe he's only 21. He is playing crazy good right now.
> 
> Tony Parker was selected 28th overall by the Spurs in 2001 . . .
> ...


Right now?

He didn't just wake up, this is the same guy who bent the Lakers over in the playoffs last year and everyone else in the league....

The great RC Buford has put together a championship team and he's not paying them Yankees type dollars...

This is the same great RC Buford that WANTED the Bulls GM job...

To answer your other question, that trade wouldn't even go through on Live or ESPN 2K4 with trade override turned on....


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Answer 1) RC Buford- who is on record as saying the Bulls GM job last summer was "appealing" to him. Was he interviewed? Nope
Answer 2) No


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> The great RC Buford has put together a championship team and he's not paying them Yankees type dollars...
> 
> This is the same great RC Buford that WANTED the Bulls GM job...


:dead: 

Not what I wanted to hear. This just gets worse and worse.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>7thwatch</b>!
> 
> I don't remember what the deal was exactly with Ginobli, but I don't think they got him in the draft. He was signed as a free agent or something right?


57th overall pick by the Spurs in '99.  = Spurs,  = rest of NBA on that one.


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

he is making gary payton look bad


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mr.ankle20</b>!
> he is making gary payton look bad


Stick a fork in Payton...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Payton...


... he's done. Sorry I had to do it.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Payton...


Payton looked awful, and I don't thing it's the triangle or Phil Jackson's fault. Payton is making Derek Fisher look good.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MJG</b>!
> 
> 57th overall pick by the Spurs in '99.  = Spurs,  = rest of NBA on that one.


and he was drafted as a projected pf:laugh:


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> He's AMAZING...
> 
> I love Jason Kidd, but the Spurs should be more than happy they didn't ship this kid off this past summer.



Believe it or not, I didn't want Jason Kidd to sign with us over the summer. Parker has always had amazing talent, but he's just put it all together right now. Un-freakin-believable.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Arenas you somehow turned a thread about Tony Parker into.. what else.. a jab at Kirk Hinrich and the Bulls organization

I don't remember you harking on Parker before tonight. Guess the bandwagon was warm eh?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Arenas you somehow turned a thread about Tony Parker into.. what else.. a jab at Kirk Hinrich and the Bulls organization
> 
> I don't remember you harking on Parker before tonight. Guess the bandwagon was warm eh?


I've liked Parker a long time....

I chat with some people who post on the boards and they would say that, so just because I hadn't made a thread until the night really means nothing.

Yes there is a huge thread on the other board that is laughable IMO and I did point that out, nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Yes there is a huge thread on the other board that is laughable IMO and I did point that out, nothing wrong with that.


Arenas enjoys twisting the knife once we're already gutted.

Tony Parker is just about everything we were hoping Jay Williams would turn into, minus the explosive vertical and a little American attitude. Tim and Tony really appear to be superior to Shaq and Kobe by themselves right now, and I didn't think that was going to be the case quite yet. Good for Tony, and I'm glad Sportscenter and the basketball world is buzzing about him.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> Tony Parker is just about everything we were hoping Jay Williams would turn into, minus the explosive vertical and a little American attitude.


EXACTLY. In fact, in these two games and the playoffs in general, he's been even better than I thought Jay would be, at least in the first year or two.

This guy is 21. Good lord. Spurs = dynasty? Looks probable.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Yup , Spurs managment is just doing a great job picking the right people and making all the right moves.

I thought TP is great before the Lakers games , and I have to admit this KID is even better than I thought , and keeps getting better.

His defense is also surprising.

and on offense he does'nt stop coming at u.catch and coast to coast - with great success!

28th pick - ouch!

and to think they got even a bigger steal at 57th....

Bulls pick top 3 picks not as good as their 57th.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> He's AMAZING...
> 
> I love Jason Kidd, but the Spurs should be more than happy they didn't ship this kid off this past summer.
> ...


I don't know who will be a better player overall in the end. Parker is younger, yet is in his third year. Parker is not out of Kirks range. KIdd is out of Kirks range, but not Tony Parker. Parker may have better individual offense, but thats as far as i would go. Kirk may be better overall soon, Its very possible...as a PG, and is already a much better defender. Its a fair debate


the only thing thats laughable is the way you unwittingly go out of your way to show that you were wrong about Hinrich all the time


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I like Hinrich a lot but Parker is now and will be a better player than him.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Parker's having a great postseason so far. But he hasn't exactly competed against the cream of the PG crop. Jason Williams and Gary "The Slipper" Payton don't exactly strike fear in anyone's hearts. Lets see how well he does against Bibby or Cassel in the next round. Actually, from a statistical standpoint, Parker tailed off a bit in nearly every regular season category from the '02/'03 season. Is he really improving? Or has he leveled off? At 21 its probably too soon to tell. And you can't argue with the fact that his team is beating the crap out of everyone they play and Parker's been a big reason for their success.

Watching him run circles around his opponents during the playoffs does make me wonder how good Jay Williams would have been this year and what we we could have looked forward to out of him next year in his third NBA season. Williams and Parker played and play with very similar styles. Make no mistake about it. Williams was going to be the Bulls PG this season and Crawford was part of a draft day trade. What you're seeing out of Parker right now I think we'd have gotten out of Williams as well. That motorcycle accident set this franchise back more than anyone will ever know. But it did happen and the organization has to overcome it and move forward.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Parker's having a great postseason so far. But he hasn't exactly competed against the cream of the PG crop. Jason Williams and Gary "The Slipper" Payton don't exactly strike fear in anyone's hearts. Lets see how well he does against Bibby or Cassel in the next round. Actually, from a statistical standpoint, Parker tailed off a bit in nearly every regular season category from the '02/'03 season. Is he really improving? Or has he leveled off? At 21 its probably too soon to tell. And you can't argue with the fact that his team is beating the crap out of everyone they play and Parker's been a big reason for their success.
> 
> Watching him run circles around his opponents during the playoffs does make me wonder how good Jay Williams would have been this year and what we we could have looked forward to out of him next year in his third NBA season. Williams and Parker played and play with very similar styles. Make no mistake about it. Williams was going to be the Bulls PG this season and Crawford was part of a draft day trade. What you're seeing out of Parker right now I think we'd have gotten out of Williams as well. That motorcycle accident set this franchise back more than anyone will ever know. But it did happen and the organization has to overcome it and move forward.


This is also two years in a row that Parker is turning his game up in the playoffs. He outplayed Fisher, Nash and Kidd last year. This year Jason Williams and Gary Payton (although Bibby and Cassell are going to be tough for him because of their proficiency at the offensive end like you mentioned). 

If the Spurs beat the Kings, Parker will be on his way to stardom. I don't think it is a foregone conclusion the Spurs beat the Kings at all.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Heck, I don't think beating the Lakers is a foregone conclusion either. There's still a lot of basketball to be played in this series and now we head to LA. To be honest, I'm still nervous. 

But as far as Parker goes, I've always been a big fan of his, but let's not forget his regular season. He was wildly inconsistent for a stretch of time and I believe Pop benched him a handful of times in favor of Ward. Glad to see him get his head out of his arse in time for the playoffs, but to declare hands down that he will enjoy a better career than Kirk is a little presumptuous. He's having a great postseason for the second consectutive year and he's really peaking now. Congrats to him. IMHO I think Parker and Kirk are not in "different leagues". Two years down the road one might make a bolder statement, but to do so now would be a bit assumptive.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

We'll see next year. Parker is playing for a contract and he still has much more room to improve his game, from where he is now. 

We are entitled to our opinions. If you feel Hinrich will be comparable or better then have at it.  I just beg to differ.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> IMHO I think Parker and Kirk are not in "different leagues". Two years down the road one might make a bolder statement, but to do so now would be a bit assumptive.


Agreed. I don't like comparing rookies to players who have already been in the league a few years only because it's premature to draw conclusions about any rookie in terms of how much upside he really has. Also, you have to look at the talent surrounding each individual player. Parker stepped right into a championship environment. I wonder how well Hinrich would have fared under similar circumstances. Actually, if you look back at TP's rookie numbers, it seems Hinrich performed slightly better even though he spent his first pro season playing for the second worst team in the league.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I hate to say it but on the other board a few of us fellow fans seem to think our future PG is better than Parker, and that's just beyond laughable.


What's beyond laughable is your complete and utter inability to quit bashing Hinrich and inject some form of perspective in your rants. Here are some numbers you might find useful:

Kirk Hinrich: 12.0 ppg, 6.8 apg, 3.4 rpg, 1.3 spg, 39% FG, 39% 3PT, 80% FT, +14.09 EFF, +5.6 +/-

Tony Parker: 14.7 ppg, 5.5 apg, 3.2 rpg, 0.81 spg, 45% FG, 31% 3PT, 70% FT, +13.76 EFF, +0.4 +/-

Hinrich #68, Parker #97 (courtesy of Dan Rosenbaum):
http://www.uncg.edu/bae/people/rosenbaum/NBA/st1t1.txt

P.S. I do think it's very entertaining when you go to other boards and diss Hinrich so you can feel better about yourself.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> He's AMAZING...
> 
> I love Jason Kidd, but the Spurs should be more than happy they didn't ship this kid off this past summer.
> ...


I agree ..

No Way is Crawford better than Tony Parker


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree ..
> ...


Ouch.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Arenas you somehow turned a thread about Tony Parker into.. what else.. a jab at Kirk Hinrich and the Bulls organization
> 
> I don't remember you harking on Parker before tonight. Guess the bandwagon was warm eh?


No kidding... totally lame.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Its funny. Parker abused Gary Payton 2 years ago in a first round series when GP was having arguably his best season ever with the Sonics. No one noticed.

Last year Parker took offense to the rumblings about Kidd replacing him on the Spurs and he went on to outplay the best PG in the game. Some people noticed.

This year Parker plays great once again and everyone noticed. Hmmmm.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> What's beyond laughable is your complete and utter inability to quit bashing Hinrich and inject some form of perspective in your rants. Here are some numbers you might find useful:
> ...


I think its interesting that Kirk and Tony put up such similar numbers, considering that Hinrich was a rookie and played on a team that was otherwise floundering. Plus Kirk's per game numbers were lowered somewhat by less playing time in the first part of his rookie season. I wonder what the numbers would have looked like if they had swapped teams.

Of course, numbers don't tell the whole story. I'm not denying that Parker is right now a much better point than Kirk. But for what its worth, I do find the numbers interesting. How things will shape up for their careers, only time will tell.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> What's beyond laughable is your complete and utter inability to quit bashing Hinrich and inject some form of perspective in your rants. Here are some numbers you might find useful:
> ...


No offense, but you could find some stat that says Kirk is better then MJ. And I am sure that you have tried. Stats are nice. But the difference is Parker is abusing legit front line PGs when it matters, in the playoffs. And doing at 21 years of age. Kirk was putting up stats often during garbage time, which is about what 85% of this year was for the Bulls. Its not to say Kirk cant get to Parkers level. But right now, Kirk is not in the upper half of the top PGs in the game. This kid is probably #2 and along with Bibby, pushing Kidd for the top spot. Its not particularly close, regardless of what the stats say.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> No offense, but you could find some stat that says Kirk is better then MJ.


rlucas, these are basic, general, bottom-line numbers. I'm not twisting them, I'm not manipulating them, they're not some percolated stat that fits my (supposed) motive most appropriately...hell, they're numbers that go on the back of friggin' basketball cards for crying out loud. I'm not saying Kirk is better than Parker right now (he's not), but I do find the numbers interesting. And straight, basic numbers like these don't lie.



> And I am sure that you have tried.


What's this supposed to mean?



> This kid is probably #2 and along with Bibby, pushing Kidd for the top spot. Its not particularly close, regardless of what the stats say.


Agreed, although until this series, Parker's production had been tepid and inconsistent at best this year. His production is actually slightly down from last year. Kind of goes against that whole "21 years old" thing, but then again, maybe I'm manipulating Parker's age as a stat, too.


----------



## Justice (Nov 22, 2003)

This thread is the same as the trade "for the last player who lit us up".

Parker is having an amazing series against Lakers, but who doesn't? His 15ppg-5apg-3rpg overall performance doesn't sound too hot to me.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I hate to say it but on the other board a few of us fellow fans seem to think our future PG is better than Parker, and that's just beyond laughable.


You wouldn't use "laughable" if your man, JC, were our PG, would you?

You can't miss the opportunity to put Kirk down, can you?

This is getting really old.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> He's AMAZING...
> 
> I love Jason Kidd, but the Spurs should be more than happy they didn't ship this kid off this past summer.
> ...


Not laughable!

I love Parker and I'd take Kirk over him!(I guess I'm laughable)

How do u think Parker would look out of the SA system and not next to Tim D's attention vacum - lets say in the Bulls , while Kirk would be playing next to Tim and Manu - U'd probably be saying people that think Parker is better than Kirk r not only laughable - but also ugly!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Not laughable!
> ...


Not to nitpick but when Duncan went down for 10-15 games earlier in the year, SA didnt miss a beat. And that was predominately because of Tony Parker. People cant hide behind the Parker is only good because of duncan argument because of this. There is a reason why we are the chicago bulls, worst team in the NBA, and they are the san antonio spurs, world champs, because they laugh at debates like this and pick up stud players in spots that we could only dream of picking up a good player


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Not to nitpick but when Duncan went down for 10-15 games earlier in the year, SA didnt miss a beat. And that was predominately because of Tony Parker.


...and Manu. Manu looked like Kobe Bryant early in the season, then his play tailed off later after "Timmah" returned. "TIMMAH!"

Anyhow, I think Tony Parker is the superior player right now to Kirk, and I see it being that way going forward, but I do think Kirk has the potential to be the better defensive player long term. 

Kirk is very fast, but not quick like Parker. I also don't see Kirk developing that Jordanlike "I'm going to take over a game and there's nothing you can do to stop me" skill that Parker already has a handle on.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Not to nitpick but when Duncan went down for 10-15 games earlier in the year, SA didnt miss a beat. And that was predominately because of Tony Parker. People cant hide behind the Parker is only good because of duncan argument because of this. There is a reason why we are the chicago bulls, worst team in the NBA, and they are the san antonio spurs, world champs, because they laugh at debates like this and pick up stud players in spots that we could only dream of picking up a good player


OK!

Parker is great - and it's not only Tim , it's the hole Spurs system that is way better than ours these days.

no doubt there picks r better than ours when u think of the position they pick!

I still prefer Kirk - and I don't think it's laughable.

And I think playing in a winning system would do wonders for Kirk.I don't think TP would be doing any better in a loosing system as ours.had he been picked by the Bulls - who knows - he might have found himself back in Europe  

and yes - this debate is totally stupid , I just don't think it's in place saying other opinions r laughable.

Not hiding behind He's good cause of Tim(I think he's good anyway) - Just saying we should consider Kirk might have been doing even better in SA system... even when Tim is out it's still a team playing to win - and winning.No ERobs , JC's and Chris Jefferies in the Locker rooms over there.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> OK!
> ...


Kirk's going to have to get his shooting percentage up to 44-45 percent in his peak years, then he can be a great player. He's got such a fundamentally good shot that he should improve greatly in that area. And we should give Kirk a few years to improve without putting a ceiling on how good he could become. Still, if I could have Tony right now in place of Kirk, I take him.


----------



## JohnPaxson (Apr 21, 2004)

Bottomline for me is both guys are studs and will have several all star appearances before they hange up the laces. As for Kirk and his shooting percentage I would be willing to bet that it is up to 44% or so next season. Too good of a shooter for it not to be.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> Anyhow, I think Tony Parker is the superior player right now to Kirk, and I see it being that way going forward, but I do think Kirk has the potential to be the better defensive player long term.
> 
> Kirk is very fast, but not quick like Parker. I also don't see Kirk developing that Jordanlike "I'm going to take over a game and there's nothing you can do to stop me" skill that Parker already has a handle on.


That "I'm going to take over the game" skill is VERY important...

That's why when people say Kirk is a "floor general" I don't agree with that, first off our offense is so bad we have to watch Kirk and JC dribble 40 ft from the basket for hours without doing anything until they get a screen and pull up a long 2 or a 3...

Second, Kirk isn't controlling the tempo of the game or setting the tone for the game so "floor general" does not apply to him but does to Tony Parker, Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, Sam Cassell, etc.

I also think that Kirk's defense is overrated. I think technically he does everything right, but how are you a defensive stopper when you don't stop anyone?

For every game someone can tell me he stopped someone, I can say these 2 games he got lit up...

Some people also give credence to quotes from coaches around the league on how great a defensive player Kirk is, yet these same coaches didn't give the kid 1 vote for all defensive team?

Pietrus got a vote..

Earl Watson...

Trenton Hassell....

Where's your explanation for that?

I hate to be labeled a Kirk basher, especially when I'm considered here a big JC fan and that really has nothing to do with it (I think JC took a step back this year)...but in regards to Kirk, I'm not convinced that you couldn't have thrown Ridnour into his role, or given Barbosa his kind of minutes, and not gotten similar production.

Again I hate to be considered a basher, I think Kirk had a great year and is probably the best trade asset we have and if you really want some of these deals you guys propose to go through, you'd have to put him in the package.

If I'm a basher because I'm not going to jump onto the Kirk is an all-star bandwagon then I guess that title does apply to me.

Decent at best stats on a terrible team doesn't mean we should start throwing his name into the pack of the elite players in this league and on this board and others it's done way too much.

For the record, I didn't start the thread on the other board, I wouldn't do that and then come back here and report because that would be lame, I just wrote what I saw there and made a general comment here, I didn't go into a breakdown or analysis or anything...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> OK!
> ...


Bingo

This is why Parker is much better then Kirk. Parker has something to play for and teams take games against the Spurs very seriously. And yet, he still comes out as one of the top 3 or 4 players on the floor in all of those games. And its only the top 3 or 4 cause he has duncan. When Duncan missed games, he dominated and San Antonio was over 500. And that is with the likes of Rasho and Hedo, who arent much better then Jamal or Curry (i doubt you find too many GMs who wouldnt swap Hedo and Rasho for Curry and Crawford). 

When teams played the Bulls, you can sense it wasnt that big a deal for them. I watched every game this year and was at 2 games live. I was also fortunate enough to catch some games of those same teams the night before or after they played us. They simply showed up at 60% against us. Maybe 70% for a lesser team. In games against San Antonio, believe me, they are bringing it. 

No Bullet, your opinion isnt laughable and Arenas shouldnt have used that term. But frankly the Kool Aid is flowing if anyone truly thinks Parker is not as good Kirk. I doubt you would find one front office guy in the league (pax included) who would even have the gall to say Kirk is better then Parker, or that he has a brighter future. We are talking about a kid here who has basically won big games for San Antonio vs a kid whose team was down an average of 6.6 with him in the game. There is a big difference.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

general babbling:

I don't think Kirk's defense is overrated at all, personally. It gets talked up a lot, because frankly the Bulls don't have many positives to point to right now. When he's not picking up tickytack fouls, Kirk is able to play defense similar to Artest and Bowen, ie. in the guy's jersey, always right in front of him, hand in the face. Granted, he's not close to being as good as those guys, but he's pretty good and only a rookie. anyway, I also think Parker's defense is underrated. He's scrappy. He doesn't have the size to be a great defender, but he moves well and tries to disrupt the passing lanes without gambling too much. He also isn't afraid to tangle with bigger players when necessary. Popovich REALLY knows how to get guys to play defense. Rasho was mediocre before coming to SA. Now he's a very credible defender. Turkoglu never got any compliments on his d, but now he can check Kobe for brief stretches and not get torched. Parker is another example - he's come a loooong way defensively the last couple years.

end babbling


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> No Bullet, your opinion isnt laughable and Arenas shouldnt have used that term. But frankly the Kool Aid is flowing if anyone truly thinks Parker is not as good Kirk.


No one's opinion is laughable, I shouldn't have used that term....tbe thread over there had gotten ridiculous.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> And I think playing in a winning system would do wonders for Kirk.I don't think TP would be doing any better in a loosing system as ours.had he been picked by the Bulls - who knows - he might have found himself back in Europe
> ...


This is more or less the gist of what I was trying to get at in my first post, when I wondered what kind of numbers each guy would have put up if they had swapped teams.


----------



## JohnPaxson (Apr 21, 2004)

> I also think that Kirk's defense is overrated.



This is a joke, right? Well the coaches and players in this league realize his defense is very legit. He has respect league wide already. He certainly does from me.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JohnPaxson</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> This is a joke, right? Well the coaches and players in this league realize his defense is very legit. He has respect league wide already. He certainly does from me.


then explain why NOT ONE COACH in the league gave him a vote for the all defensive team? I mean, EARL WATSON got one vote, why didnt Kirk?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> then explain why NOT ONE COACH in the league gave him a vote for the all defensive team? I mean, EARL WATSON got one vote, why didnt Kirk?


We've gone through this, I think. Rookies don't get props for things like defense, ever. Even Artest was on the 2nd team all defensive last year! The coaches even are slow to catch up. Pietrus got his one vote, but if that's the rookies got, it's not really an insult to Kirk.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> then explain why NOT ONE COACH in the league gave him a vote for the all defensive team? I mean, EARL WATSON got one vote, why didnt Kirk?


It is rare for rookies to get votes for all defensive first team.

Plus, Kirk was called for so many ticky tacky touch fouls throughout the season. That probably hurt his chances. But most of us seem to agree that more often than not those were "rookie" calls as opposed to Kirk defending poorly.


----------



## JohnPaxson (Apr 21, 2004)

Being a rookie played a factor(was not aware Pietrus got a vote that says something for how good he is, I have not had the pleasure but have heard some great things), also our record played a factor. Trust me though they know about him.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> That "I'm going to take over the game" skill is VERY important...


This coming from a guy who thinks KG is better than Duncan.



> I also think that Kirk's defense is overrated. I think technically he does everything right, but how are you a defensive stopper when you don't stop anyone?


:crickets chirping:



> I hate to be labeled a Kirk basher,


Too late. Yet again, you turned a good thread idea into something about Kirk or Skiles or Paxson. Nice MO there buddy.



> I'm not convinced that you couldn't have thrown Ridnour into his role, or given Barbosa his kind of minutes, and not gotten similar production.


Just like KG would have won a championship w/ the Spurs last year, right?! Yeah. Right.



> Decent at best stats on a terrible team doesn't mean we should start throwing his name into the pack of the elite players in this league and on this board and others it's done way too much.


I guess that discounts your Crawford-for-all star predictions.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>JohnPaxson</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> This is a joke, right? Well the coaches and players in this league realize his defense is very legit. He has respect league wide already. He certainly does from me.


No, Arenas isn't joking. That's where he just doesn't get it. Preferring one player is one thing, but this coninuous twisting of fact or pure denial of leagure-wise provedn fact on Kirk is near obsession IMO. 

But what can I say? Nothing will convince him the other way.


----------



## JohnPaxson (Apr 21, 2004)

> I'm not convinced that you couldn't have thrown Ridnour into his role, or given Barbosa his kind of minutes, and not gotten similar production.


I completely missed this quote from earlier. Is this guy for real? Did he even watch Kirk this season? This is sad that a Bulls fan of all people can not have respect for a PG the caliber of Hinrich. The Bulls have a gem here guys.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Forget Parker vs. Hinrich...

I want to trade Pax and Skiles for Pop and Buford.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

is everyone having a bad day today? arenas's little quips don't always generate such a rush of responses. It's just what he does, guys! :rbanana:


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

Forget Parker vs. Kirk.

I will trade Arenas for any San Antonio poster. 

  

No no no. Not nice. TB#1


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Forget Parker vs. Hinrich...
> 
> I want to trade Pax and Skiles for Pop and Buford.


I'll throw in one of Kirk and Curry, and some draft picks, to get that done. Those two guys are just running circles around most of the league...much like their late 1st round French blur of a point guard.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

No, sorry the jury's still out as whether Kirk can become a "Gem"; he has the abilities, attitude and work ethic to do bigger and greater things.

But when a player shoots thirty-frickin' percent from the floor, he is still far being classified as a "gem". Maybe some day, but not right now.

If I appear venting, I just got sick and tired of both Kirk and Jamal and their 2 for 11, 4 for 18 shooting nights...

Until they get their shooting percentages up on a consistent basis (particularly when they have open looks!!!), the jury's still out on them as "Star"/"Special" players!!!:upset:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> It is rare for rookies to get votes for all defensive first team.


Pietrus did, and he basically played what, the last 20 games of the season?

To JP, Kirk had a great season, Ridnour IMO could have put up similar #s if you threw him into the same kind of role, and Barbosa...

Well I think he's going to be special, he would have put up similar #s as well, and if you remember the first start of his career it was against us and he had 27 points.

JP, look man, you are more than free to disagree with me, but I know my ball, I'm not stupid, and I know guys and their games and base my evaluations/opinions off actual knowledge so please don't come at me like I'm an idiot that's just pulling stuff out of his ***.

I'm not like some posters here who will call a Euro kid they've never even see a bust or compare a Chiriaev to a Lampe which is a huge siren for not knowing what you're talking about, or think that everyone from overseas is "raw".

If you don't think Ridnour can play you need to find a tape of our game up in Seattle back in February.

I'm labeled a Kirk basher here, fine, I can live with that, we know who the JC bashers are, and we know they've done much worse.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)




----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> This coming from a guy who thinks KG is better than Duncan.
> ...


You act like someone who does think KG is better than Duncan is stupid...

If you think I'm the only one who thinks that then maybe you should read about basketball a little more often...

If KG had the team he had the past few years he would have more than 1 MVP trophy you can bet on that...

The other flawed comment, I never said JC was an all-star, he might be one day, but he took a step back this year IMO.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

JSong, are you still on a hunt to find something relavant to say?

Anyone on this board could go to your recent topics and I bet they would find that at least 80% of your most recent responses are just attacks to something I've posted as opposed to your opinion on the thread....


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Forget Parker vs. Hinrich...
> 
> I want to trade Pax and Skiles for Pop and Buford.




Not that I think Pax or Skiles had enough time to do good or Bad , it's just that Pop and Buford r doing the best job in the league.

I couldn't agree more - It's like trading our top scorer for theirs


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> You act like someone who does think KG is better than Duncan is stupid...


Well , Arenas , Thats exactly what u said about whoever thought Kirk is better than Parker.

No , It's not stupid at all to think that , although I'd take Tim D over KG any day - But thats only my opinion.

I gotta take my hat of for u and bow - U made an OT thread about a young player from a different team that is not Lebron 5 pages and growing just by a little comment about the only good thing we have on our team - and thats from a Clips Fan.

I'm starting to think u r on the payroll of TBF or Tomboer#1 just to keep the 2nd worst teams board(the biggest board) alive and u r worth every penny!!! 

This thread is about Tony Parker - Yes , he's been doing great!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Pietrus did, and he basically played what, the last 20 games of the season?
> ...


This is a great point that should be highlighted. Its not like you have an uneducated opinion on the player. You havent said anything that isnt true. Yet you get ripped on. In the other breath, we have guys who call players they have never seen one second in their life a bust and their posts get stickied. Hmmm, sounds like a double standard to me

Bulls Bulls Bulls makes a great point. You cant call a player, rookie or not, who shoots as piss poorly as Kirk a "gem". The point is, the jury is still out on him, and everyone else on this team. On most teams, Kirk is a backup. That is just a simple fact. Yet, people here and on realgm will grab at anything for hope. So lets say Kirk is better then parker! Well, put Kirk on San Antonio and he plays about 12 minutes a night. How does that make him a better player?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Folks, Tony Parker Is Only 21 Years Old...*



> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Well , Arenas , Thats exactly what u said about whoever thought Kirk is better than Parker.
> ...


In defense of Arenas, he mistitled this. There is a thread on realgm titled, Kirk better then Parker. Arenas is debating that point here.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Well, put Kirk on San Antonio and he plays about 12 minutes a night. How does that make him a better player?


that depends. people aren't saying, "put Kirk on the Spurs and he'll start over Parker and play better too". They're saying, "if Kirk and Parker switch spots, Kirk might be running the Spurs show as well as Parker does, and Parker might struggle to shoot 40% like Kirk did here." that's a tough argument to make either way because it's purely speculative, but oh well. I think Parker's much better, but there's no need to tear Kirk down to make that point. It is possible for both players to be good, right?

people are piling up on arenas because he rarely misses a chance to try to take Kirk down a couple pegs. After a while, people have heard it enough, you know? Kirk was one of the bright spots of the season, so just let people enjoy it, I'd say, even if he does get somewhat overrated in the process. I don't think the Kirk lovefest has any chance of equaling last summer's 3Cs lovefest, so who cares?

And I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say guys are getting posts about draft prospects they haven't seen stickied. Where are those threads?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> that depends. people aren't saying, "put Kirk on the Spurs and he'll start over Parker and play better too". They're saying, "if Kirk and Parker switch spots, Kirk might be running the Spurs show as well as Parker does, and Parker might struggle to shoot 40% like Kirk did here." that's a tough argument to make either way because it's purely speculative, but oh well.


Actually VF...

The quote made was Parker would be mediocre on the Bulls and Hinrich and Duncan would be Stockton and Malone Part II....


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> people are piling up on arenas because he rarely misses a chance to try to take Kirk down a couple pegs. After a while, people have heard it enough, you know? Kirk was one of the bright spots of the season, so just let people enjoy it, I'd say, even if he does get somewhat overrated in the process.


He was our bright spot I don't think I've argued against that, but to daily see posts that sometimes put him equal to or above him to first ballot hall-of-famers, a younger guy who has won a championships, equally talented rookies, etc. is just ridiculous.

It's bad enough our coach has to constantly go to the media and praise Kirk while making every once else look like dog crap, it's just become prevalent on the boards as well.

I'm not going to stop calling it as I see it, if I was just saying this stuff to say it and get a rise out of people, that would be wrong, I made a minor comment in my original post and then others decided to blow this into a Hinrich v Parker thread...

In the end put any evidence you'd like on the table, Parker is a better player right now, and from the looks of it right now will always be a better player...

In the end who knows, maybe Parker will eventually be #1 and Kirk #2, I don't know, but right now they are universes apart.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually VF...
> ...


was that on realgm? because i'm only talking about the conversation here.

even so, that's somewhat the point I was making. Parker, playing here, might have trouble doing what he does in SA. Kirk would likely be more successful with a TD to pass to and run the pick and roll with.

Saying Parker would be mediocre is a colossal exaggeration, just like saying Kirk and TD would be Stockton and Malone 2 is a huge exaggeration. 

that's what they do over there, though.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> He was our bright spot I don't think I've argued against that, but to daily see posts that sometimes put him equal to or above him to first ballot hall-of-famers, a younger guy who has won a championships, equally talented rookies, etc. is just ridiculous.


I haven't seen that being done so much that I'd call it ridiculous, but that's JMO. It's only your opinion that Ridnour and Barbosa are equally talented. It's other boarders' opinions that Kirk has a chance to become as good as some of the best PGs in the league. I don't think many are saying he's already there, but to say the possibility doesn't exist seems a little hasty to me.



> It's bad enough our coach has to constantly go to the media and praise Kirk while making every once else look like dog crap, it's just become prevalent on the boards as well.


eh, yeah. can't really argue with that.



> I'm not going to stop calling it as I see it, if I was just saying this stuff to say it and get a rise out of people, that would be wrong, I made a minor comment in my original post and then others decided to blow this into a Hinrich v Parker thread...


I want you to keep calling it how you see it, and I'll be right here to crack wise about it when appropriate,  but the fact is that you inject little comments about Hinrich and/or Pax/Skiles into threads that aren't related to him on a somewhat regular basis. you may not be trying to get a rise, but by now you should realize that you probably will. Doesn't mean you have to stop, I'm just pointing it out.


> In the end put any evidence you'd like on the table, Parker is a better player right now, and from the looks of it right now will always be a better player...


no argument here. Parker is younger, faster, more confident, and right now a better shooter. but there's no need to tear down Kirk to make this point, is there? Drexler didn't suck just because MJ was better. Leave the realgm argument on realgm since no one here is really going to the wall for it. 


> In the end who knows, maybe Parker will eventually be #1 and Kirk #2, I don't know, but right now they are universes apart.


that's kind of exaggerating IMO, but Parker is certainly playing some amazing ball at the moment.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> Leave the realgm argument on realgm since no one here is really going to the wall for it.


Agreed, that wasn't my intention, I was actually talking with another poster about Parker, happened to see that thread and then I was posting here, again I made a general comment about it, I didn't make an argument for it in my original post so this thread was not supposed to be a Hinrich v Parker thread...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

VF, this is why your a first class guy. Good debate

One point on if Parker and Kirk were to switch places is what has Parker done without duncan? Well this year, Parker played great when Duncan went down and they played over 500 with Duncan out of the lineup. Some will say that San Antonio still has great players. Id say that you wouldnt find too many GMs who would take Rasho and Hedo over Jamal and Eddy. Its a small sample of games. But Parker has shown that he can be very successful and his team be very successful, when he becomes option 1


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

While I am a big fan of Tony Parker's and am especially enjoying watching him run over, around and through the Lakers, to try and say whether he is way better than Kirk Hinrich is really rather silly. For although Parker is younger (he turns 22 in a couple of days), he has been a pro since he was 15 years old!! So he has played pro ball for 7 years, the last 3 of those in the NBA. Wouldn't you think that a player with that much pro experience would naturally show more progress than a rookie? 

As a rookie with the Spurs, Parker started 72 games, averaging 9.2 PPG and 4.3 APG while averaging 29.4 MPG. Taken at face value, Hinrich had a better rookie season. I would also point out that Hinrich had more double-doubles as a rookie (14) than Parker did in his first 3 NBA seasons combined (13)!

Parker is very quick, one of the quickest guards and the league, and he knows how to finish over bigger players in the lane. But he is NOT a good outside shooter (career 32.5% from 3-point land), and despite the fact that he plays on one of the best shooting teams in the league, he doesn't pick up a ton of assists (5.5 APG this season -- 5.0 in his career). He also is considered a good defender, not a great one.

Hinrich is not as quick, and needs to learn how to finish at the rim. But he is already a much better 3-point shooter than Parker and despite playing on a team that can't shoot nearly as well and plays at a slower tempo than San Antonio, averaged more than one assist per game more than Parker (6.8) this season. He is also probably already as good a defender as Parker, even if he is slightly overrated in this area by Skiles.

Where Parker outshines Hinrich right now is in controlling the tempo of the game. He understands when to attack, push the tempo and when to hold back. But this is something that he has only been consistent in doing this season. His first two years in the league, he got in trouble with Popovich A LOT for making bad decisions, forcing shots, etc. I believe Hinrich will do a much better job in this area as his career progresses than he did this season -- in part because he showed a real ability to play an uptempo style in college. Maybe Skiles should let his team loose more, let them run, rather than continually force them into the halfcourt sets where they struggle so badly?? 

In the end, it would make a lot more sense to revisit this argument after the 2005-06 season, which would be Hinrich's 3rd and Parker's 5th in the NBA. And even then it would make sense primarily if the Bulls are able to return to the playoffs. For that is where Parker has really started to make his mark -- much more so than in the regular season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>girlygirl</b>!
> While I am a big fan of Tony Parker's and am especially enjoying watching him run over, around and through the Lakers, to try and say whether he is way better than Kirk Hinrich is really rather silly. For although Parker is younger (he turns 22 in a couple of days), he has been a pro since he was 15 years old!! So he has played pro ball for 7 years, the last 3 of those in the NBA. Wouldn't you think that a player with that much pro experience would naturally show more progress than a rookie?
> 
> As a rookie with the Spurs, Parker started 72 games, averaging 9.2 PPG and 4.3 APG while averaging 29.4 MPG. Taken at face value, Hinrich had a better rookie season. I would also point out that Hinrich had more double-doubles as a rookie (14) than Parker did in his first 3 NBA seasons combined (13)!
> ...


GirlyGirl, met Shirley. His name is almost as good as yours ;-) 

Welcome aboard!


----------



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> JSong, are you still on a hunt to find something relavant to say?
> 
> Anyone on this board could go to your recent topics and I bet they would find that at least 80% of your most recent responses are just attacks to something I've posted as opposed to your opinion on the thread....


Man, I have got to learn how to turn on the ignore feature (for Arenas that is)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> VF, this is why your a first class guy. Good debate
> 
> One point on if Parker and Kirk were to switch places is what has Parker done without duncan? Well this year, Parker played great when Duncan went down and they played over 500 with Duncan out of the lineup. Some will say that San Antonio still has great players. Id say that you wouldnt find too many GMs who would take Rasho and Hedo over Jamal and Eddy. Its a small sample of games. But Parker has shown that he can be very successful and his team be very successful, when he becomes option 1


Rasho and Hedo? There's also that Manu guy... he gets a little bit of run down there


----------



## jamalcrawford01 (Feb 25, 2004)

i think that everyone needs to lighten up on Arenas. I dont really post that much, i mainly like to read what you guys have to say, but what i have noticed is that just as much as he bashes kirk you bash him, it isnt really necessary. you guys kind of take it personally when he says something bad about kirk. Just think if he didnt make these comments though, from what i observe it makes the board a lot more interesting. I do think that Kirk is bashed be Arenas but thats his opinion and you could have the same opinions about someone he likes, thing is he speaks his mind. Come on lets stop making these things personal and have fun debating these things. Just what I observe.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bolts</b>!
> 
> 
> Man, I have got to learn how to turn on the ignore feature (for Arenas that is)


Click on my name then look for the text that says add Arenas809 to buddy list, add Arenas809 to ignore list...

Make sure you click add Arenas809 to ignore list....


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> In the other breath, we have guys who call players they have never seen one second in their life a bust and their posts get stickied. Hmmm, sounds like a double standard to me


No offense, but isn't this more or less what a lot of guys, yourself included, did to Hinrich around this time last year?



> Well, put Kirk on San Antonio and he plays about 12 minutes a night.


Riiiiiiiiight.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I'm glad that Hinrich can be realistically compared to Parker who has been called the best PG in the league by some. 

They are two very different players, and Parker will most likely always be the better player but I think Hinrich will end up right at that level competing for the best point guard in the league, it'll just come down to team needs and preference. Like a poor mans Kevin Johnson vs. a poor mans John Stockton.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Parker is better than Hinrich now.

However, people have stated that Parker is a better scorer, and has an ability to 'take over games.' For any other position, this matters, except maybe for PG. I mean, would you say Marbury is better than Stocktan? I wouldn't.

There is more to playing PG than scoring.


----------



## hoops (Jan 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls_Bulls_Bulls!</b>!
> No, sorry the jury's still out as whether Kirk can become a "Gem"; he has the abilities, attitude and work ethic to do bigger and greater things.
> 
> But when a player shoots thirty-frickin' percent from the floor, he is still far being classified as a "gem". Maybe some day, but not right now.
> ...


right on! i couldn't have said it any better myself.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

If Hinrich did play for Popovich, that defense would be even nastier. Having Bowen and Hinrich on the perimeter would hardly seem fair.


----------



## Killuminati (Jul 30, 2002)

I'm sure this had been re-hashed a few times (I didn't read every single post) but look who is defending Parker: Payton and Fisher. Payton has definitely lost a step or two and Fishers defense is the reason the Lakers upgraded in the summer and got the Glove in the first place.

If LA puts Kobe on Parker and he continues to make big shots and torches the Lakers, I'll give him full props.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

> I'm sure this had been re-hashed a few times (I didn't read every single post) but look who is defending Parker: Payton and Fisher. Payton has definitely lost a step or two and Fishers defense is the reason the Lakers upgraded in the summer and got the Glove in the first place.
> 
> If LA puts Kobe on Parker and he continues to make big shots and torches the Lakers, I'll give him full props.


They have put Kobe on him at times. He goes right by Kobe too.

I don't think you can just look at matchups and dismiss what the guy's doing... he's doing it to everybody. What about when he crossed Devean George over and then finished with the floater over Shaq? That wasn't Payton or Fisher making him look good.

You think people can't tell the difference between an average guy taking advantage of a poor defender and a guy who's playing great basketball? I don't know, give people some credit.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>! Like a poor mans Kevin Johnson vs. a poor mans John Stockton.


By the time it's done, it's looking like Kevin Johnson will be a poor man's Tony Parker.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Nevus</b>!
> 
> 
> They have put Kobe on him at times. He goes right by Kobe too.


seriously. Kobe can only "lock down" the smaller, speedy PGs who can shoot by holding them and getting away with it. That's what he did vs. Bibby in 02 and that's what he has to do whenever he's on AI. He'd try it on Parker too, but Parker is even faster than Bibby and just as fast as AI, plus he has the All-World PF to play pick-and-roll with, which AI doesn't have. Kobe's not in peak condition right now. He'd be exhausted chasing Parker around the court and running into Duncan screens every other possession. Just watch him shoot 10-35 from the floor in a sound loss if he has to guard Parker.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Another problem with Kobe guarding Parker, is even if he was successful chasing him around, he'd be so tired by the time he got to the offensive end. Even a fresh Kobe has trouble going at Bowen, a tired Kobe going at Bowen equals bad news for Kobe.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> By the time it's done, it's looking like Kevin Johnson will be a poor man's Tony Parker.


We'll see about that, Kevin Johnson averaged around 21 points and 12 assists for 4 years between 88 and 92. Those are nothing to take lightly. 

I actually think Parker can reach KJs level though, but I doubt that KJ will ever be a poor mans Parker (even though I'm thinking that you were joking  )


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> We'll see about that, Kevin Johnson averaged around 21 points and 12 assists for 4 years between 88 and 92. Those are nothing to take lightly.
> ...


I agree.KJ was great and TP has to develope a more consistent J to reach his level.but TP sure looks heading in the right direction.
KJ was mark Price's backup at the beginning of his career while TP is already starting in a championship and still younger than the age KJ entered the league - so he's starting point is better - still a way to go though...


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> JSong, are you still on a hunt to find something relavant to say?
> 
> Anyone on this board could go to your recent topics and I bet they would find that at least 80% of your most recent responses are just attacks to something I've posted as opposed to your opinion on the thread....


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Casell, Parker, and Bibby are all having great playoffs.

We'll say the same about KH one day.


I'm stunned this thread wasn't locked like the similar one last week. Guess it's who starts it or something.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Casell, Parker, and Bibby are all having great playoffs.
> 
> We'll say the same about KH one day.
> ...


the interesting thing is their scoring is opening up the offense. they're getting their assists, but all three are avg over 20 pts in the playoffs. some see KH as a 'traditional point guard' but he's also a capable scorer. if he adjusts to finishing in the paint he'll be quite dangerous.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> No offense, but isn't this more or less what a lot of guys, yourself included, did to Hinrich around this time last year?
> ...


Most people saw Hinrich, myself included, before they had an opinion.

Lets remember, your the same guy, who happens to be a mate of mine regardless, who said Kirk would have as good a career as Gary Payton or Baron Davis. So its very hard to get a realistic opinion from you regarding this subject.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Bolts</b>!
> 
> 
> Man, I have got to learn how to turn on the ignore feature (for Arenas that is)


then you will miss the amazing progression of IQ points onto his score. It seems that these days he acknowledges that there is "some" hope for Kirk after a long year of insinuating Kirk could barely walk and talk. Growth is in BbB.net house! 

........watch, next year he will claim that he was on Kirks jock all along :laugh:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Lets remember, your the same guy, who happens to be a mate of mine regardless, who said Kirk would have as good a career as Gary Payton or Baron Davis.


I never said Kirk would have as good a career as Gary Payton or Gary Davis. If you can find a post in which I did, please link it and I'll gladly retract. I have said on numerous occarions that Kirk's game is similar to Gary Payton's and that Payton is Kirk's favorite player and the guy he tries to mold his game around. I have also said that Kirk has the distinct _potential_ to put up Payton-like numbers (I've backed this up with objective comparisons of athleticism and stats). I don't think I've ever compared Kirk to Baron Davis. Their games are very dissimilar, and I'm not a huge fan of Baron's anyway.



> So its very hard to get a realistic opinion from you regarding this subject.


Well, let's see here. I was one of the *very* few people on this board around this time last year trying to tell people that Kirk would be a quality player, that he wasn't unathletic, that he wasn't overrated, that he could defend, that he had a pretty good chance at coming in and contributing or starting right away, etc. This was my objective opinion -- my "realistic" opinion -- and it was contrary to the overwhelming majority here and other places. Naturally, my comments were met with shrugs, uninformed sneers and rude statements. Well, we all know how that one turned out.

So, if that's what you call not getting a realistic opinion from me, so be it. I don't know what else I can do to get any more "real".


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Parker's having a great postseason so far. But he hasn't exactly competed against the cream of the PG crop. Jason Williams and Gary "The Slipper" Payton don't exactly strike fear in anyone's hearts. Lets see how well he does against Bibby or Cassel in the next round. Actually, from a statistical standpoint, Parker tailed off a bit in nearly every regular season category from the '02/'03 season. Is he really improving? Or has he leveled off? At 21 its probably too soon to tell. And you can't argue with the fact that his team is beating the crap out of everyone they play and Parker's been a big reason for their success.
> 
> Watching him run circles around his opponents during the playoffs does make me wonder how good Jay Williams would have been this year and what we we could have looked forward to out of him next year in his third NBA season. Williams and Parker played and play with very similar styles. Make no mistake about it. Williams was going to be the Bulls PG this season and Crawford was part of a draft day trade. What you're seeing out of Parker right now I think we'd have gotten out of Williams as well. That motorcycle accident set this franchise back more than anyone will ever know. But it did happen and the organization has to overcome it and move forward.



i like Jay as much as the next guy but this post had to be flagged , the bulls were not going to give Jay the pg reins only moments after he had it and lost it and had as of the end of the season (the 02-03 season) failed to regain it , thats like the rams sitting down bulger to start warner (of course warner is a former mvp which jay was merely a rookie who got put in a position to fail by bulls management by giving him a position he didn't yet if it was going to be ever deserved, he was many things and he could have been a great player but it was clearly not his time yet , unlike parker who is killing people right now and is something the bulls haven't had in a bout a decade , a real 100% pg .


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> i like Jay as much as the next guy but this post had to be flagged , the bulls were not going to give Jay the pg reins only moments after he had it and lost it and had as of the end of the season (the 02-03 season) failed to regain it ,.


Actually, it's pretty clear that Pax did not think that Craw was a point. So it's not a big stretch to think that Pax was ready to start Williams at PG to start the year if there had not been an accident.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, it's pretty clear that Pax did not think that Craw was a point. So it's not a big stretch to think that Pax was ready to start Williams at PG to start the year if there had not been an accident.



Luckily for crawford paxson isn't the coach.crawford won his spot on the court. giving jay a spot 2 years in a row he did not win would have only led to a repeat of his rookie year.People for get Jay only began to play well when he was no longer the starting pg, when he was the back-up pg and starting off guard, he may have in time been ready and it may have been a very short while before he was ready but to assume he just was good enough to unseat crawford again when its obvious he never was would have made the past season more of a trainwreck than it was.

Its always been my theory cartwright started crawford in the 1st place because he knew he had nothing to lose by doing it and only good things to gain , Krause was being forced out (i'm sure he knew about it before us and the media) and Jay's outburst just gave him the excuse to remove him with as little fanfare as possible and go out the way he wanted because almost no coach survives a year once the GM's change because of the GM's need to put his stamp on a franchise and that usually means a coaching change. The only way Jay would have started the next season was to trade JC and that wasn't happening not for anything close to what JC's value is now , he was only a starter for 6 weeks no one was offering a boatload for that plus that player is and RFA the following year so the GM gets the scrutiny Pax is getting now over it. I think what happens instead is Pax plays small ball for a year in the backcourt or he trades Jay because it makes the most sense in trade value terms.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!The only way Jay would have started the next season was to trade JC and that wasn't happening not for anything close to what JC's value is now , he was only a starter for 6 weeks no one was offering a boatload for that plus that player is and RFA the following year so the GM gets the scrutiny Pax is getting now over it. I think what happens instead is Pax plays small ball for a year in the backcourt or he trades Jay because it makes the most sense in trade value terms.


The leaks were pretty clear that Pax was going to send out one of these two guys. The way that I am reading the tea leaves is that it was Craw. Can't prove it. But the fact that Pax drafted Hinrich is a big hint. 

Craw did have some value last summer. I am sure that one of Pax's big regrets is not pulling the trigger at the time.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Anyone find any posts where I said Hinrich would have just as good a career as Gary Payton and Baron Davis?

Sorry, I just get a little irked when someone thinks I'm being illogical when I know that's not the case. No big deal. A little irritating, though.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Anyone find any posts where I said Hinrich would have just as good a career as Gary Payton and Baron Davis?
> 
> Sorry, I just get a little irked when someone thinks I'm being illogical when I know that's not the case. No big deal. A little irritating, though.


I dont have the time to find the post VV. But I can summarize for you what happened. Someone, probably yourself, said Kirk could be a top 5 pg in the game and that he patterned himself after Payton. Then I said, he wont be as good as Payton ever, that he would never have the first/second team All NBA selections, points, assists or defensive team nominations. Your exact response, as is normally the case, was to pull up Hinrichs stats from his rookie year vs Paytons numbers and your response was that "Why couldnt Kirk be as good". Then you went on your typical pro kirk schpiel disregarding all the accomplishments of GP. That was the conversation. I am sorry if it irks you but thats how it went. and I have yet to hear you be critical of one aspect of Kirks game yet. So why would anyone take your opinion on this seriously?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I can see why you wouldn't have the time to find the post, rlucas (it took me about 10 seconds to find it after searching for "hinrich" and "payton" in the Bulls forum). It doesn't exactly corroborate what you're saying in this thread.



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I dont have the time to find the post VV. But I can summarize for you what happened. Someone, probably yourself, said Kirk could be a top 5 pg in the game and that he patterned himself after Payton. Then I said, he wont be as good as Payton ever, that he would never have the first/second team All NBA selections, points, assists or defensive team nominations. Your exact response, as is normally the case, was to pull up Hinrichs stats from his rookie year vs Paytons numbers and your response was that "Why couldnt Kirk be as good". Then you went on your typical pro kirk schpiel disregarding all the accomplishments of GP. That was the conversation. I am sorry if it irks you but thats how it went. and I have yet to hear you be critical of one aspect of Kirks game yet. So why would anyone take your opinion on this seriously?


Revisionist history is so much fun.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1071620#post1071620

P.S. If you don't think I've been critical of Kirk's game, you're just hearing what you want to hear. Just like with the Hinrich-Payton stuff.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I can see why you wouldn't have the time to find the post, rlucas (it took me about 10 seconds to find it after searching for "hinrich" and "payton" in the Bulls forum). It doesn't exactly corroborate what you're saying in this thread.
> 
> 
> ...


I am reading this thread and it sure sounds to me that you think he will be as good as Payton. You did exactly what I said you do, you point out some stat to make Hinrich look better then he is, then when challenged, all you can say is why cant a Hinrich, who has exceeded expectations his entire life (i dont believe Kirk is the underdog you make him out to be) be as good as Payton? It sure sounds to me like your arguing he will be. But then again, Kirk averaged nearly as many points his last year at KU as Jordan did at UNC, made it to the NCAA finals, unlike Jordan, so maybe Kirk is better then Jordan? Why not?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I should add that I don't mean to sound rude, but I can't lie and say I'm happy when somone distorts facts to suit their argument, directly or indirectly (through ignorance).

You're a helluva poster, rlucas, and you know I think highly of you. I just don't particularly like it when s*** gets made up and twisted around and puts me in a bad light.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I should add that I don't mean to sound rude, but I can't lie and say I'm happy when somone distorts facts to suit their argument, directly or indirectly (through ignorance).
> 
> You're a helluva poster, rlucas, and you know I think highly of you. I just don't particularly like it when s*** gets made up and twisted around and puts me in a bad light.


VV we are mates, this doesnt change it. But read this thread carefully, your explicitily saying that Kirk and Payton are in the same league. I just dont think your being rational. if Kirk went to Arkansas, I have a feeling you wouldnt feel so strongly about it.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

they would have poured salt all over John Stockton's potential too if he was in his rookie year. NOt that KIrk is Stockton at all. Yet when i watch Kirk and his management of the game and command, he is not nearly as limited as whatever ceilings people want to place on him. Why all the ceiling crap? Kirk will get the job done with high achievment ....How high? Nobody knows enough to say how high, despite all the self assuredness of the doubters


I'm going to start the Kirk Hinrich=No limits fan club soon. Prepare to join me! :yes:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> they would have poured salt all over John Stockton's potential too if he was in his rookie year. NOt that KIrk is Stockton at all. Yet when i watch Kirk and his management of the game and command, he is not nearly as limited as whatever ceilings people want to place on him. Why all the ceiling crap? Kirk will get the job done with high achievment ....How high? Nobody knows enough to say how high, despite all the self assuredness of the doubters
> 
> 
> I'm going to start the Kirk Hinrich=No limits fan club soon. Prepare to join me! :yes:


Fleet, believe it or not, Ill join that club. I like Kirk alot. But sometimes we are so irrational about him now. I think he can be a top 10 PG, but I dont see Hall of Fame and I dont see Tony Parker level at all. But then again, I have been wrong a ton, and unlike others, will step up and admit it when its been proven. Remember, I said Chandler would be an allstar in 03 and that Mason would beat out Kirk this year, so I am clearly not right as much as I have been wrong


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I am reading this thread and it sure sounds to me that you think he will be as good as Payton.


Please explain to me how "it sure sounds to me that..." means the same thing as "you *said* that Hinrich *would* be as good as Payton". Good luck.



> You did exactly what I said you do, you point out some stat to make Hinrich look better then he is,


Where exactly did I do this? What stats did I manipulate? What stats did I state that are in fact untrue? Good luck on this one, too.



> then when challenged, all you can say is why cant a Hinrich, who has exceeded expectations his entire life (i dont believe Kirk is the underdog you make him out to be) be as good as Payton? It sure sounds to me like your arguing he will be. But then again, Kirk averaged nearly as many points his last year at KU as Jordan did at UNC, made it to the NCAA finals, unlike Jordan, so maybe Kirk is better then Jordan? Why not?


Now you're just reaching.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Fleet, believe it or not, Ill join that club. I like Kirk alot. But sometimes we are so irrational about him now. I think he can be a top 10 PG, but I dont see Hall of Fame and I dont see Tony Parker level at all.


You're so playing both sides of the fence so that no matter what happens...you can say you were right.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Please explain to me how "it sure sounds to me that..." means the same thing as "you *said* that Hinrich *would* be as good as Payton". Good luck.
> ...


mate I am reaching? maybe you ought to read the thread. I said this is what happened, and basically it went down the way I did. I said Kirk wouldnt be as good as Payton, you said why not and pulled out some stat to support your argument which is basically just pulling a random number out of your hat. According to your logic, Kirk is a better player then Dirk because he put better stats in his rookie year. is that rational? The Jordan comment was clearly meant as a joke and you should have recognized it. I know your smarter then that


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> I'm going to start the Kirk Hinrich=No limits fan club soon. Prepare to join me! :yes:


I got dibs on the number one spot in that club


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> You're so playing both sides of the fence so that no matter what happens...you can say you were right.


No, your spinning this. i said i HAVE BEEN WRONG about him so far. So how is this saying I HAVE BEEN RIGHT. Good try on spinning it though


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> mate I am reaching? maybe you ought to read the thread.


I already did, twice in the last twenty minutes. Remember, I was the one who resurrected it.



> I said this is what happened, and basically it went down the way I did. I said Kirk wouldnt be as good as Payton, you said why not and pulled out some stat to support your argument which is basically just pulling a random number out of your hat.


rlucas, rookie stats and 3PT% are not "some stats" or "random numbers".



> According to your logic, Kirk is a better player then Dirk because he put better stats in his rookie year.


Not really, but nice non-sequitur.



> is that rational? The Jordan comment was clearly meant as a joke and you should have recognized it. I know your smarter then that


I know it was a joke. But my "you're reaching" statement is directed at the entire paragraph, not just the MJ comment.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> I already did, twice in the last twenty minutes. Remember, I was the one who resurrected it.
> ...


So correct me if I am wrong, because Kirk had a better stats, on a terrible team no less, he COULD BE AS GOOD AS GARY PAYTON? Come on mate, I am reaching?


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Fleet, believe it or not, Ill join that club. I like Kirk alot. But sometimes we are so irrational about him now. I think he can be a top 10 PG, but I dont see Hall of Fame and I dont see Tony Parker level at all. But then again, I have been wrong a ton, and unlike others, will step up and admit it when its been proven. Remember, I said Chandler would be an allstar in 03 and that Mason would beat out Kirk this year, so I am clearly not right as much as I have been wrong


thats the thing thats changing about the Bulls r. At least I hope so. Guys with high floors are the ticket, and maybe those kinds of players sometimes have the biggest upsides collectively as a team. Sometimes these high floor guys boom more than the boom or bust guys

Pietrus was a guy who you IDed as a high floor guy, and he may have more boom potential that they gave him credit for. Josh Smith is a nice idea as an upside player, but Deng has a higher floor if you will. Maybe thats the best way to get the Bulls better.
.....believe me it will be exiting if we somehow skipped Deng and ended up with Smith, yet thats like a busted Gambler putting the house on the line after a losing streak.

r, You are the first member of the Kirk Hinrich=No Limits club :grinning:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Perhaps someone could give some explanation as to why they think Hinrich isn't going to get much better?

He's had only 1 year in the league, is young, and in the upper crust when it comes to athletic talents. He appears to be a gym rat who loves to play the game.

I think it's pretty much impossible to set an upper bound given the lack of obvious reasons (in the factors I mention above) to do so. 

From a pure probability perspective, there's really no reason to expect ANY player, no matter how good his numbers are as a rookie or what talent he shows, will end up as an all-time great.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> thats the thing thats changing about the Bulls r. At least I hope so. Guys with high floors are the ticket, and maybe those kinds of players sometimes have the biggest upsides collectively as a team. Sometimes these high floor guys boom more than the boom or bust guys
> 
> ...


after my picking on Kirk for a year, he deserves some respect from me. thanks Fleet


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

My $.02 is that Kirk has proved very little so far. He's been only an OK garbage time player - Bulls games are 48 minutes of garbage time.

A Payton vs. Hinrich comparison might become valid IF Hinrich becomes the primary player on the team, and puts up numbers close to 20/10 on near 50% shooting over a decade (and winning some all-nba awards in the process) on a team he's clearly leading to the playoffs and finals appearances.

It's not even clear he's better than 4th best player on the Bulls.

If the stats are that meaningful, then Pargo better than Payton, Hinrich, and Crawford.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I got dibs on the number one spot in that club


whoops i put rlucas the double agent in the top slot. Maybe i should put him as 1B and you 1A because he could be a mole :uhoh:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I can see why you wouldn't have the time to find the post, rlucas (it took me about 10 seconds to find it after searching for "hinrich" and "payton" in the Bulls forum). It doesn't exactly corroborate what you're saying in this thread.
> 
> 
> ...


Hey what a surprise, I posted in that thread...

You're right revisionist history is fun, and looking back at the thread you did exactly what RL said you did....

It's kind of a formula...

1. Kirk will not be as good X
2. Why not? He could be...
3. Compare Kirk's rookie stats to X's 
4. Your point is "proven"

The reason I have a problem with comparing Kirk's rookie stats with another great player like GP is while you do point out PPG, APG, you completely ignore MPG.

GP his rookie year played 8-9 minutes less per game than Kirk and put up better assists #'s...

I look at guys like Barbosa and Ridnour who I believe if you threw in the same role as we threw Kirk in could put up just as good of stats...

Right now Kirk is somewhere between 15-20 of the best PGs in the league..

IMO there are a few guys who are much lower right now but if given somewhat of the same role as Kirk would be on the same level...

There's a lot of guys like Shinky, Blizzy, etc. who are ready to give Kirk all-nba status, he's a future all-star PG, well if future is 10 years, then maybe, because right now who does he surpass in the East?

I have yet to see you VV be critical of Kirk's game, so you might have to enlighten me on that one...

As I said before, I think this season was so bad and with Kirk being one of the lone bright spots, some guys want to ride that until the wheels fall off, unfortunately, they're riding past the fact the kid put up decent stats on the worst team in the league and yes we needed him on the floor practically every minute of the game, but did it really make a difference?

If I'm a basher because I'm not on that train, fine, but you know there are a lot of guys here that aren't either, find any of Happygrinch's post in regards to Kirk and he's right on the money.

Good player, but some of you overrate him way too much.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> So correct me if I am wrong, because Kirk had a better stats, on a terrible team no less, he COULD BE AS GOOD AS GARY PAYTON? Come on mate, I am reaching?


Yes. But this is an oversimplified argument. There are many more variables to consider -- athletic ability, willpower, work ethic, realistic areas of potential improvement, whether or not Kirk will develop a moxie similar to GP's (I think he will in time), etc.

BTW, if Kirk were on a faster-paced and/or a team with more overall talent, he'd likely have better stats. That's just how his game translates.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I'm not going to seach for threads, but I distinctly remember VV ripping into Kirk on some game threads.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes. But this is an oversimplified argument. There are many more variables to consider -- athletic ability, willpower, work ethic, realistic areas of potential improvement, whether or not Kirk will develop a moxie similar to GP's (I think he will in time), etc.
> ...


I think you're reaching on GP, it's almost as if you're looking for something so that you can put him in GP's category...

The second part of your argument you use often. If Kirk's a player no need to put an asterisk next to his stats, you could use the "if blah was on another team then..." argument with almost any player in the league...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey what a surprise, I posted in that thread...
> ...


arenas, I enjoy watching your loyalty in threads such as this, but remind me: did I state that Kirk *would* be as good as Payton anywhere in that thread? That's the type of revisionist history I'm talking about.



> It's kind of a formula...
> 
> 1. Kirk will not be as good X
> 2. Why not? He could be...
> ...


You combine something like this with the ever-important factor of considered opinion and you have something logical.



> The reason I have a problem with comparing Kirk's rookie stats with another great player like GP is while you do point out PPG, APG, you completely ignore MPG.
> 
> GP his rookie year played 8-9 minutes less per game than Kirk and put up better assists #'s...


...and fewer points and a whopping 7.7% from downtown. The following year, GP played 32 mpg and put up fewer points and fewer assists than Kirk had this year and shot 13% from three.



> I look at guys like Barbosa and Ridnour who I believe if you threw in the same role as we threw Kirk in could put up just as good of stats...


Of course you do.



> Right now Kirk is somewhere between 15-20 of the best PGs in the league..


As was GP his first year in the league. In fact, he was probably lower.



> I have yet to see you VV be critical of Kirk's game, so you might have to enlighten me on that one...


Of course you haven't. You hear what you want to hear. Simple as that.



> If I'm a basher because I'm not on that train, fine, but you know there are a lot of guys here that aren't either, find any of Happygrinch's post in regards to Kirk and he's right on the money.


Dude, I stopped paying attention to Happygrinch after he deliberately made up stats in an attempt to tear down Hinrich. He hasn't been around much since then.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> I'm not going to seach for threads, but I distinctly remember VV ripping into Kirk on some game threads.


Thanks for backing me up on what is painfully obvious to anyone with a dose of common sense. How come some people can see this but others can't?

I swear, some people must only have good memories because they maniupulate history so much.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you're reaching on GP, it's almost as if you're looking for something so that you can put him in GP's category...


Once again, you're hearing what you want to hear.



> The second part of your argument you use often. If Kirk's a player no need to put an asterisk next to his stats, you could use the "if blah was on another team then..." argument with almost any player in the league...


Do you realize how silly this sounds considering you just spent several sentences in above posts degrading Hinrich's value because he played on a bad team? Come on man, have some perspective.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Once again, you're hearing what you want to hear.
> ...


I asked you to show me something because I have never actually seen it...

That doesn't mean you haven't actually done it...

Ya he's on a bad team, but saying if he was on a X team he would doesn't really do anything for your argument when you could use that argument for a lot of players in the league...

In fact you could do that with guys on our team...

If Erob..

If JC...

If Tyson...

If Eddy...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Ya he's on a bad team, but saying if he was on a X team he would doesn't really do anything for your argument when you could use that argument for a lot of players in the league...


You're shooting yourself in the foot, and it's cracking me up. I suggest you go over your above posts in which you stated that Ridnour or Barbosa would have produced just as well as Kirk did this year if they were in Chicago.

Perspective: have some.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> You're shooting yourself in the foot, and it's cracking me up. I suggest you go over your above posts in which you stated that Ridnour or Barbosa would have produced just as well as Kirk did this year if they were in Chicago.
> ...


I'm saying if you put Ridnour in a similar role, it doesn't have to be in Chicago, they could put up similar stats...

You're saying if you put Kirk around better players his stats would likely be better...

I also say if Kirk is a great player, why the need to put the asterisk next to hs stats?

*6.whatever apg

(* denotes stat would have been higher with better players)

Do you see the difference yet?

BTW if you put Kirk on a team with better players, which is most teams in this league, his stats likely would NOT be better because he wouldn't see the floor near as much or have a similar role as he does on the Bulls.

Keep cracking up, I'll keep making my beyond valid points.

BTW VV, I notice you were real quick to find the thread that RL was talking about to prove your point, yet you haven't shown 1 quote that shows any criticism towards Hinrich.

Which RL and myself have challenged...

I await your response


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm saying if you put Ridnour in a similar role, it doesn't have to be in Chicago, they could put up similar stats...
> ...


Seriously, I can't believe you just typed that.



> BTW VV, I notice you were real quick to find the thread that RL was talking about to prove your point, yet you haven't shown 1 quote that shows any criticism towards Hinrich.
> 
> Which RL and myself have challenged...
> 
> I await your response


If you honestly do not believe I've criticized KH in the past, then that's all that needs to be said in terms of your ability to analyze a topic objectively.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> BTW VV, I notice you were real quick to find the thread that RL was talking about to prove your point, yet you haven't shown 1 quote that shows any criticism towards Hinrich.
> 
> ...


I just took a quick look. Hard to find things like this, but...

http://www.basketballboards.net/for...3&perpage=15&highlight=official&pagenumber=12

...here's some VV criticism of Hinrich.

As you can see, I'm very board at work.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Seriously, I can't believe you just typed that.


IMO it was a valid response, you have no more to say than that?

I'll break it down again, it's one thing to say take a guy who averages a few points and assists less than Kirk in about 10-12 less MPG, and I believe he would put up better stats.

It's another thing to say put Kirk on a better team and his #'s would likely be better, I don't see that when right now if you put him on a better team he wouldn't play enough to get those #s.



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> If you honestly do not believe I've criticized KH in the past, then that's all that needs to be said in terms of your ability to analyze a topic objectively.


Is it in your opinion you can discuss Kirk objectively?

My opinion is that you can't....

Everything else, of course...

(Regardless you're a great poster and we've had our bouts for a while, don't take any of this personal).


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> they would have poured salt all over John Stockton's potential too if he was in his rookie year. NOt that KIrk is Stockton at all. Yet when i watch Kirk and his management of the game and command, he is not nearly as limited as whatever ceilings people want to place on him. Why all the ceiling crap? Kirk will get the job done with high achievment ....How high? Nobody knows enough to say how high, despite all the self assuredness of the doubters
> 
> 
> I'm going to start the Kirk Hinrich=No limits fan club soon. Prepare to join me! :yes:


Great post, excellent points. Put me in that fan club soon as you get it going.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> Yet when i watch Kirk and his management of the game and command, he is not nearly as limited as whatever ceilings people want to place on him.


First off, pretty good post, but I don't see what command Kirk has over the game when we're -6.6 when he's in...

I'm sure the # isn't any better when he's not and basically all year long we needed Kirk and JC in the game to even be competetive, but you know what, the #s tell the story and the guys who's #s come out right are the difference makers.

You're not a difference maker if when you're in the game we're losing and when you're out of the game you're losing...

As far as his "ceiling" goes, let's just compare Kirk to Barbosa for a second...

Barbosa's ceiling IMO is higher, he already has the skills and work ethic to get better and this is a guy who played in the Brazilian league which is not exactly the same as 4 years at Kansas.

Kirk will get better, my question remains who does he pass that's already in front of him and who's to say what guards come in this league and couldn't be on his level immediately?

The Stockton comparisons are silly, if there's anyone he's similar to it's Hornacek, I'm not going to agree right now with the floor general, true PG labels because he's neither of those.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

It basically comes down to what you see in the player. Payton and Stockton both didnt just come into the league and dominate, they worked their way in and became great players after a couple seasons. 

If you think Hinrich will be as good as those two, thats you, you're basing that on what you see in him. Just understand thats a pretty elite class considering those are probably two of the top five point guards of all time. 

I think Hinrich will be a top 3 point guard in this league, nothing you can build around though, since its virtually impossible to build around a point guard unless were dealing with Magic Johnson, which we're not. 

The only point guards in the league right now that I think will be better than Hinrich in 3-5 years is Tony Parker. Everyone else takes a backseat by that time. I think Hinrich will be a top 3 point guard in this league in a few years, and thats based on what I see in him. 

To me, all the comparisons are silly. Hinrich is his own player and will decide his own fate, and it all comes down to what you see in him as a basketball player. Its not accurate to say "Payton did this, so Hinrich will too" or try to provide reasons why he wont become a great player.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> I think Hinrich will be a top 3 point guard in this league


Comments like this just make me go hmm...

Ok, that's fine if you think that but here are my 2 questions...

1. When? 10 years?

2. Who does he surpass?

As it is right now he's not even a top 5 PG in the Eastern Conference...

The only way he gets to top 3 status in the whole league is to become better than the guys in front of him...

I don't see that happening.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 1. When? 10 years?


By the time hes 26. 



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 2. Who does he surpass?


Everyone except Parker from what I've seen to this point.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> By the time hes 26.
> ...


Ok so in 3 years he's going to be better than...

Stephon Marbury who will be 30
Mike Bibby will be 29
Baron Davis will be 28

I can stop right there, no need to even look at everyone else...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok so in 3 years he's going to be better than...
> ...


Instead of being a smartalck, why don't you tell us why it's _so_ impossible for that to happen?

I don't see many rings on any of those players hands...and none of them have shown any HOF ability. To be completely honest, they're what I call situational all-stars. They're not year in and year out locks. Depending on the season in the conference they're in...it's conceivable that they could find themselves left off of a team...unlike, say...Tim Duncan.

Tell us why he can't play at their level. Don't take the easy way out.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok so in 3 years he's going to be better than...
> ...


Instead of being a smartaleck, why don't you tell us why it's _so_ impossible for that to happen?

I don't see many rings on any of those players hands...and none of them have shown any HOF ability. To be completely honest, they're what I call situational all-stars. They're not year in and year out locks. Depending on the season in the conference they're in...it's conceivable that they could find themselves left off of a team...unlike, say...Tim Duncan.

Tell us why he can't play at their level. Don't take the easy way out.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

saying kirk will be a top 3 pg and 3rd team all-nba is basically saying he will be at least the equal of baron davis(3rd team all nba) and better than players stephon marbury steve francis and steve nash and countless other all stars . that is hard for me to see.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> saying kirk will be a top 3 pg and 3rd team all-nba is basically saying he will be at least the equal of baron davis(3rd team all nba) and better than players stephon marbury steve francis and steve nash and countless other all stars . that is hard for me to see.


WHY?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Instead of being a smartaleck, why don't you tell us why it's _so_ impossible for that to happen?
> ...


Tell me why he can?

Has Hinrich won a ring or shown HOF ability?

What's your point there?

I'm supposed to look at this year and compare him to perenial all-stars, starting PGs on championship caliber teams, etc. and based off that say he can be on their level?

I'll pass...

I wasn't being a smart aleck, I simply looked up 3 players bdays and stopped because I found 3 that are better now and more likely than not will still be better in 3 years.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I'm supposed to look at this year and compare him to perenial all-stars, starting PGs on championship caliber teams, etc. and based off that say he can be on their level?


Potential. Like I said, its what you see in the player. Of course Hinrich isnt that accomplished, hes a rookie. Thats like saying we shouldnt believe that Lebron James will be better than Kobe Bryant in 3 seasons because Lebron has never played in the playoffs and never made an all star team while Kobe is very accomplished. 



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I wasn't being a smart aleck, I simply looked up 3 players bdays and stopped because I found 3 that are better now and more likely than not will still be better in 3 years.


They are better now, but its not fair to assume they will be in 3 years. Baron Davis is dangerously close to becoming a Steve Francis type point guard. Marbury controls the ball too much, and I dont see him ever being a part of a winning team because of that, he doesnt make his teammates better. Bibby is good and all, but hes not the athlete than Hinrich is, and not the defender or even passer. Hes just more polished in his game, but thats expected since Kirk is a rookie and will continue to develop.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Tell me why he can?


Say it all.

Theres no substance to your objection.

You throw dirt, but don't back it up.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Potential. Like I said, its what you see in the player. Of course Hinrich isnt that accomplished, hes a rookie. Thats like saying we shouldnt believe that Lebron James will be better than Kobe Bryant in 3 seasons because Lebron has never played in the playoffs and never made an all star team while Kobe is very accomplished.


Nice try with Lebron and Kobe, but you could see this year Lebron could very well be the #1 player in the league...

Hinrich didn't even show he was a top 5 PG in his conference, so there's a little bit of a difference there.



> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> They are better now, but its not fair to assume they will be in 3 years. Baron Davis is dangerously close to becoming a Steve Francis type point guard.


Both guys are all-stars, both guys are better than Kirk...so if you thought you were saying something to help your argument there, you didn't...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Say it all.
> ...


I've answered your ? in many of my posts GB...and I backup everything I say.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> WHY?


all them can create shot for themselves and create for others better than kirk and its not like its by a small margin like the difference between kirk and and lets say derek fisher we are talking a major difference in talent and ability , also the nba doesn't stand still there will be players who are not even in the nba who will pass kirk because thats just how life is. 

now you tell me why will kirk be a top 3 pg ?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Nice try with Lebron and Kobe, but *you could see* this year Lebron could very well be the #1 player in the league...


Oh so you see something in him? Well there it is. Hes not nearly as accomplished as Kobe, but you see something in him. Thats what I've been saying. Theres something that a lot of people see in Kirk that you're not seeing, which makes it hard for you to understand. 



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Both guys are all-stars, both guys are better than Kirk...so if you thought you were saying something to help your argument there, you didn't...


Currently, yes those guys are better than Kirk. Kobe bryant is also better than Lebron James. Whats your point? I thought we were talking about the future. Talk about not helping your argument.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Oh so you see something in him? Well there it is. Hes not nearly as accomplished as Kobe, but you see something in him. Thats what I've been saying. Theres something that a lot of people see in Kirk that you're not seeing, which makes it hard for you to understand.


You're doing everything you can to help your argument and it's just not working.

Many people will say right now Lebron James will be a hall of famer in this league, and there really isn't any reason to believe otherwise right now.

You're trying to use the same frame of thinking in regards to Lebron and Kirk, and well there's no comparison so it doesn't work.

My question to you in regards to guys like Francis, Davis, Marbury, etc. who are by no means old, what makes you think Hinrich will surpass them?

That's what I'm wondering, because I don't see that happening anytime soon, especially in 3 years when these guys will still be in their primes.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> You're doing everything you can to help your argument and it's just not working.


Why do you keep saying this? Do you think that by repeating it that you *are* saying something? 



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Many people will say right now Lebron James will be a hall of famer in this league, and there really isn't any reason to believe otherwise right now.


So based what people see in him, they think he could be a hall of fame player in the future. Hes certainly not a hall of fame talent right now, and is obviously inferior to Kobe right now (who isnt old by any means). So if hes not better now, and Kobe will still be in his prime in 3 years, than Lebron cant be better in 3 years according to the logic you're using. 



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> You're trying to use the same frame of thinking in regards to Lebron and Kirk, and well there's no comparison so it doesn't work.


The same frame, yes, but in no way am I comparing them to each other. Why doesnt it work? If people can think Lebron will be better than Kobe in three years based on the potential they've seen, then people should also be allowed to think Kirk Hinrich can be a top 3 PG in this league based on potential they've seen. You dont have to think that yourself, but atleast be consistent. 



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> My question to you in regards to guys like Francis, Davis, Marbury, etc. who are by no means old, what makes you think Hinrich will surpass them?


Hinrich will be a better defender, passer, rebounder and team player and is a more intelligent player than all of them. He also has a better work ethic than all of them. He is inferior in scoring to all of them, but thats not enough to make up for Hinrichs advantages in everything else. 



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> That's what I'm wondering, because I don't see that happening anytime soon, especially in 3 years when these guys will still be in their primes.


You dont see it happening, thats fine. Just understand that others do, and just because they'll still be in their prime, doesnt mean their curve of development will be the same in the next 3 years.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Just an FYI, I posted a Kirk vs Parker thread in the NBA general forum to get a nonbiased opinion on the topic. I gave 4 options. They were

Parker is better now and will always be better
Kirk is better now and will always be better
Parker is better now but Kirk will be better in 3 years
Kirk is better now but Parker will be better in 3 years. 

The results are these
Option 1 35
Option 2 1
Option 3 6
Option 4 2

I dont know but it looks like the average joe fan with no allegiance to a team or a player (there just isnt that many San Antonio fans on these boards) seem to think it isnt close


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Just an FYI, I posted a Kirk vs Parker thread in the NBA general forum to get a nonbiased opinion on the topic. I gave 4 options. They were
> 
> Parker is better now and will always be better
> ...


Well, in defense of accurate polling, it's not the best time to be doing this, since Parker just had his best game ever and Hinrich hasn't played in a month. I think if you posted this during the regular season at some random point, you would still see Tony ahead, but not by quite that much. Tony is the man.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Just an FYI, I posted a Kirk vs Parker thread in the NBA general forum to get a nonbiased opinion on the topic. I gave 4 options. They were
> 
> Parker is better now and will always be better
> ...


I wonder how many of those people have actually seen the Bulls play though? They arent on TV much, and arent really interesting to watch and arent in the playoffs. 

Meanwhile, Parker is playing the best basketball of his career for a team that hasnt lost in over a month. 

Its all about timing. If you had made the poll just before the all star break when Hinrich had just put 23 points, 14 assists and Parker was really struggling, the results would have been much different. 

You could find KG vs. Duncan threads where KG won by atleast 20%+, then theres one in the forum now where Duncans winning by 20%+ and theres probably not 2 months between the two threads. I really doubt either player has improved or declined much at all during that stretch. Its just the timing.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> I wonder how many of those people have actually seen the Bulls play though? They arent on TV much, and arent really interesting to watch and arent in the playoffs.
> ...


this one is a landslide mate. It isnt close. You cant get a realistic opinion on this board, or the Spurs board, so let the average joe basketball fan decide it. And the type of guy who is on bbb.net on a saturday night is probably a basketball junkie who knows his crap.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> this one is a landslide mate. It isnt close. You cant get a realistic opinion on this board, or the Spurs board, so let the average joe basketball fan decide it. And the type of guy who is on bbb.net on a saturday night is probably a basketball junkie who knows his crap.


How do you explain the difference in the KG/Duncan threads though? Its all timing. Boozer was beating out Amare Stoudemire in a landslide when Boozer was playing well, and they know their crap right? 

My feeling is that most people voting in that poll are probably judging Hinrich by box scores, since Bulls arent really watchable.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

Parker's been getting exposure now for 3 years on a high profile team. Its not surprising, especially watching Parker get hot playing the Lakers in the playoffs. Yet Parker hasn't put up regular season numbers that are even slightly out of Kirks reach. In fact, Parker is only better in scoring by ........how many points? Kirk has him in the other main categories

not exactly out of reach. If Kirk ever gets a chance to play in the playoffs, IMO he will represent, and win a lot of new fans like Parker is. Personally, I think that poll is totally unapplicable to anything resembling worthwhile reality evaluation. Not fair at all.

It still goes back to the fact that those guys, and all of us, have no idea how good Kirk will be. Its all speculation 
Give Kirk a chance to play at least beyond a rookie season that was better than most currentlycelebrated PGs. How fair is that?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

This kind of goes along with what I was saying, and I think this is one of the best posts regarding Kirk that I've read on this board...



> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> Maybe it's about time Kirky looked in the mirror.
> 
> This season is a disgrace, and he is not without major fault. TJ Ford has taken worse players and put them in the playoffs. So have Wade and Bron Bron (ok, close. closer then us)
> ...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> How do you explain the difference in the KG/Duncan threads though? Its all timing. Boozer was beating out Amare Stoudemire in a landslide when Boozer was playing well, and they know their crap right?
> ...


well JTCK, in the pursuit of an honest poll, lets put one out around January of next year and see what people say. I am willing to do that. I dont think youll see much difference but who knows. if they stopped the playoffs right this second, Parker might win the MVP of the playoffs


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Does anyone think that Kirk was a dominant player in the rookie all-star game?

My impression is that he was the least athletic and the least hungry looking of the bunch.

I'm not trying to cut Hinrich down, but rather put things in a realistic perspective.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Does anyone think that Kirk was a dominant player in the rookie all-star game?
> 
> My impression is that he was the least athletic and the least hungry looking of the bunch.
> ...


Kirk's just not flashy, so he knows this type of game is not his place to show off. He just kind of quietly did his thing on the court for a few minutes.

But jesus, it's not like even Kirk fans would say he was one of the two or three best players on the court, would they (we)? I wouldn't.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Kirk's just not flashy, so he knows this type of game is not his place to show off. He just kind of quietly did his thing on the court for a few minutes.
> ...


I am not sure about that DMD. With some of these people, not only would they say Kirk is among the best two or 3 players on the floor, but some would say he is the best player on the floor, ALL THE TIME. Jim Ians post is one that I agree with. I think Kirk is a damn good player who can definetely get better over the next 3 or 4 years. But jeez, the kool aid is really flowing in regards to how good he is. He is a nice player and will finish off around a top 8ish PG in the NBA. And that isnt bad.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Does anyone think that Kirk was a dominant player in the rookie all-star game?
> 
> My impression is that he was the least athletic and the least hungry looking of the bunch.
> ...


sure, basing an evaluation on a rookie all star game is so realistic.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> well JTCK, in the pursuit of an honest poll, lets put one out around January of next year and see what people say. I am willing to do that. I dont think youll see much difference but who knows. if they stopped the playoffs right this second, Parker might win the MVP of the playoffs


Fair enough. I agree Parker might be the best player in the playoffs right now. Theres threads in the forum right now asking if Parker is a top 10 player in the league, so Hinrich really stands no chance in a poll against him right now. Parker is just too hot right now. 

I also think Parker will always be better, but that gap between him and Hinrich in the poll doesnt speak well at all for how good Hinrich will be.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Fair enough. I agree Parker might be the best player in the playoffs right now. Theres threads in the forum right now asking if Parker is a top 10 player in the league, so Hinrich really stands no chance in a poll against him right now. Parker is just too hot right now.
> ...


agreed mate


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I am not sure about that DMD. With some of these people, not only would they say Kirk is among the best two or 3 players on the floor, but some would say he is the best player on the floor, ALL THE TIME. Jim Ians post is one that I agree with. I think Kirk is a damn good player who can definetely get better over the next 3 or 4 years. But jeez, the kool aid is really flowing in regards to how good he is. He is a nice player and will finish off around a top 8ish PG in the NBA. And that isnt bad.


you're gettin dangerously close to getting kicked out of the Kirk=No limits club:no:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I am not sure about that DMD. With some of these people, not only would they say Kirk is among the best two or 3 players on the floor, but some would say he is the best player on the floor, ALL THE TIME. Jim Ians post is one that I agree with. I think Kirk is a damn good player who can definetely get better over the next 3 or 4 years. But jeez, the kool aid is really flowing in regards to how good he is. He is a nice player and will finish off around a top 8ish PG in the NBA. And that isnt bad.


Not with Wade, Yao, Amare, Melo, and LeBron on the court. No way. Not now anyway.

Hey, I hope Kirk becomes better than our expectations, which are pretty high as it is. He's a Bull.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> you're gettin dangerously close to getting kicked out of the Kirk=No limits club:no:


haha, I just gave Kirk some props.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

This type of thread could have easily been about Ron Artest 4 seasons ago. He put up about 12, 4, and 3 and showed he could play great defense, but was overlooked heavily because it was for the Bulls. I always saw great potential in him but would have been laughed at if I said he would be a top 3 SF in the league in his 5th season as a 24 year old. Now the guy is a top 3 SF in my book, and yes hes only 24. 

I put Hinrich in the same boat as Artest.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> This type of thread could have easily been about Ron Artest 4 seasons ago. He put up about 12, 4, and 3 and showed he could play great defense, but was overlooked heavily because it was for the Bulls. I always saw great potential in him but would have been laughed at if I said he would be a top 3 SF in the league in his 5th season as a 24 year old. Now the guy is a top 3 SF in my book, and yes hes only 24.
> 
> I put Hinrich in the same boat as Artest.


or Magglio Ordonez. How many guys have been better than Ordonez over the last 5 years? Most big names don't stack up to his numbers. But if you asked people 4-5 years ago in a Poll (or today even) how good he was compared to the big names.............well you get the point. What would happen if he played on the Yankees?

No limits!


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Rlucas, I dug up these threads for you just to back up my thoughts that its all about timing (even though I assume you agreed). 

KG vs. Duncan made on February 22nd, 2004
http://basketballboards.net/forum/s...page=15&highlight=Garnett Duncan&pagenumber=1

KG wins 62% to 38%. 

KG vs. Duncan made on May 3rd, 2004
http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92498&forumid=2

Duncan winning 65% to 25% (about 10% consider them equal)

Theres a little over 2 months difference, but the results are drastically different.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I'm also an active part of both those Duncan/KG threads.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Rlucas, I dug up these threads for you just to back up my thoughts that its all about timing (even though I assume you agreed).
> 
> KG vs. Duncan made on February 22nd, 2004
> ...


But that gap is less then 80 vs 2%, dont you think. i believe that gap is statistically valid. However, like I said, lets re run this poll in January. I dont think itll be much different. Again, that might not be a so much of a dig at Kirk (it isnt) rather, how good Tony Parker is. And Parker and Bibby will surpass Davis and Kidd as the 2 best PGs in the NBA next year IMO


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> But that gap is less then 80 vs 2%, dont you think. i believe that gap is statistically valid. However, like I said, lets re run this poll in January. I dont think itll be much different. Again, that might not be a so much of a dig at Kirk (it isnt) rather, how good Tony Parker is. And Parker and Bibby will surpass Davis and Kidd as the 2 best PGs in the NBA next year IMO


Yea, in January things will be much more clear. We'll have a better read on Hinrich, and we'll see if Parker can continue his unbelievable play and do it consistently. 

The swing in the Duncan/KG threads is pretty large though, its like a 60% swing basically. Its not like the first one was close, and its not like the recent one is close either, they are both pretty distinct with their results and each time the results were drastically different, and only two months seperate the threads.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

tell me, will Kirk still have to play on the Bulls for this comparo?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> tell me, will Kirk still have to play on the Bulls for this comparo?


ultimately, I think Kirk will either have to play for someone else, or the Bulls to get much better, to have a real opinion on how good he is. Right now, its hard to tell. Alot of teams played 75% against us so I think stats and production are just hard to tell. Thats why I like the playoffs. There are no excuses during these times. And itll take the Bulls some time for Kirk to get into the dance, cause we are so bad


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Just as teams may not play all out against us, our system may be holding back our players from showing all their ability. Ron Artest and Brad Miller are great examples of this.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> this one is a landslide mate. It isnt close. You cant get a realistic opinion on this board, or the Spurs board, so let the average joe basketball fan decide it. And the type of guy who is on bbb.net on a saturday night is probably a basketball junkie who knows his crap.


rlucas, I'd be willing to bet a significant amount of Saturday night posters are kids who are still living at home and who haven't watched a terrible amount of ball. I don't mean to sound rude or anything, but that's the way I see it. Just look at the mock drafts and player predictions from last year and you'll see that the a lot of people really don't know ****.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Just as teams may not play all out against us, our system may be holding back our players from showing all their ability. Ron Artest and Brad Miller are great examples of this.


Possibly True, Possibly untrue. We had such a PG dominated offense. Often times Jamal or Kirk would just dribble around for 20 seconds and try to create something against the clock. The offense was so uncreative. But with each player dominating the ball so much, it shouldnt be a surprise that Kirk averaged so many assists or that Jamal averaged that many points. Someone had to get those stats. The flip side ofcourse is that they were working against the clock so much that alot of their shots were bad. In a creative set, which I hope Skiles puts in, where the Bulls are aggressively offensively, I actually expect Kirks assists to go down as the ball movement is better. And I also expect that his points and FG% to improve as the ball movement gets better. So i think his FG% is underrated, but his assists are overrated. In fact, I dont like it when one guy gets all the assists. I would prefer a team like Sacramento with a half dozen (it seems) guys who can get you 6 assists on any given nights. makes the attack more versatile and flexible.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Does anyone think that Kirk was a dominant player in the rookie all-star game?


When he had the ball, he was effective. But he barely ever touched the ball. Anyone with a pulse realized it was the LeBron & Carmelo show. Kirk did have arguably the best play of the entire game when he threw that 40' underhand lob to LeBron on the fly, though. Even futuristxen can agree on that (he was the first one to mention it as the play of the game on this board).



> My impression is that he was the least athletic and the least hungry looking of the bunch.


Wow. I watched the game twice and I completely disagree. KH looked plenty athletic and was one of very few guys actually hustling and playing defense. Flip got pissed at him for playing D, actually.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> rlucas, I'd be willing to bet a significant amount of Saturday night posters are kids who are still living at home and who haven't watched a terrible amount of ball. I don't mean to sound rude or anything, but that's the way I see it. Just look at the mock drafts and player predictions from last year and you'll see that the a lot of people really don't know ****.


You and I are here on a saturday night with Fleet and JTCK, and I dont think any of us are dumbies. I think your opinion would be different if Kirk were winning the poll.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> You and I are here on a saturday night with Fleet and JTCK, and I dont think any of us are dumbies.


I realize this. But generally speaking, the Bulls board is, IMO, a bit older and more knowledgeable than the NBA board. Besides, I'm drinking Coronas right now and am heading to the club in a couple of hours. Lifeguard chicks, Malik Hairston, Wayne Simien and JR Giddens await...they're a fun crew.



> I think your opinion would be different if Kirk were winning the poll.


No, it wouldn't. Again, I don't mean to sound rude or snotty, but from my experience on this board I wouldn't give much credence to opinions on the NBA board. Sentiment there changes about as often as the Bush Administration's bull**** reasons for going to war.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> ultimately, I think Kirk will either have to play for someone else, or the Bulls to get much better, to have a real opinion on how good he is. Right now, its hard to tell. Alot of teams played 75% against us so I think stats and production are just hard to tell. Thats why I like the playoffs. There are no excuses during these times. And itll take the Bulls some time for Kirk to get into the dance, cause we are so bad


Bingo.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Rlucas, I dug up these threads for you just to back up my thoughts that its all about timing (even though I assume you agreed).
> 
> KG vs. Duncan made on February 22nd, 2004
> ...


This is a strong and compelling use of statistical evidence. Accurate, objective, and tells the story by itself. Good job. :yes:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> all them can create shot for themselves and create for others better than kirk and its not like its by a small margin like the difference between kirk and and lets say derek fisher we are talking a major difference in talent and ability , also the nba doesn't stand still there will be players who are not even in the nba who will pass kirk because thats just how life is.
> ...


Not that I agree or disagree...but arenas...this is how you answer a question.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Just an FYI, I posted a Kirk vs Parker thread in the NBA general forum to get a nonbiased opinion on the topic. I gave 4 options. They were
> 
> Parker is better now and will always be better
> ...


Sorry mate, but this is a dumb poll.

Parker is having his best series ever, and most of these guys haven't seen more that 2 games that KH has played in.

You knew what the answer would be going into it...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry mate, but this is a dumb poll.
> ...


yawn

its 38-2 right now. 

I will repost this poll after Parker has a bad game and see how close it is. I told JTCK I would. But not even you could spin that spread


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> I will repost this poll after Parker has a bad game


How about after KH has had some more exposure...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> yawn
> ...


I can attest he's never spun a thread before. He has spun a yarn tho.


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

parker has had a crappy game today


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Parker did have a crappy game today, even crappier than the stats indicate. Strange what happens when a defense focuses on him.

Or not so strange.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Parker did have a crappy game today, even crappier than the stats indicate. Strange what happens when a defense focuses on him.
> 
> Or not so strange.


lets see, Hubie Brown and Phil Jackson, 2 of the greatest coaches of alltime took 7 games to find away to slow him down. Damn, he is really terrible


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

just for the record, the non partisan fans have Parker up 64-4 over Kirk. And that is after a "crappy" game today.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> just for the record, the non partisan fans have Parker up 64-4 over Kirk. And that is after a "crappy" game today.


Yeah, I know what the popular vote is, but who won in the electoral college?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know what the popular vote is, but who won in the electoral college?


the electoral college, damn, why do I think kerry will be done in again?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> the electoral college, damn, why do I think kerry will be done in again?


FWIW,

The electoral college vote, if the election were held today, would be Bush 310, Kerry 220. I forget the exact numbers, but these are based upon recent polls in each state.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> FWIW,
> ...


That's why Nader needs to get his *** in Congress so he can instigate change from the inside. Alas, it's not as profitable as what he's doing now. Go figure.

rlucas, how come all sorts of coaches figured out how to hold Parker (who had lesser numbers and a more inconsistent this year as compared to last) all throughout the regular season? I'm not saying he's terrible...that would be stupid. He's a great talent. I just don't think he's as great as what the Saturday Night Hoops Board Crowd thinks he is (and it's not like anybody who gives enough of a damn to vote in that poll can vote twice...the damage was done yesterday, NOT today).


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> That's why Nader needs to get his *** in Congress so he can instigate change from the inside. Alas, it's not as profitable as what he's doing now. Go figure.
> ...


It didnt get much better with the Sunday afternoon crowd either. As for regular season, has it occured to you that San Antonio might not need him to put up huge numbers to be successful? Take a look at what they did when Duncan went down and they needed him. That alone should tell the story. Or what he has done against 2 of the best teams in the NBA with it all on the line in the playoffs against 2 of the great tactical coaches in the history of the league. One bad game out of 7. Then again, Duncan was terrible today too and no one mentions that.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I thought an impact player made his team win no matter what.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I thought an impact player made his team win no matter what.


Yes. And we were a minus 7.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

for the record, I asked the same Parker vs Hinrich thread on Realgm, after Parker had a terrible game and I am being ridiculed for even asking it. So can we just acknowledge that this one isnt particularly close yet?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> for the record, I asked the same Parker vs Hinrich thread on Realgm, after Parker had a terrible game and I am being ridiculed for even asking it. So can we just acknowledge that this one isnt particularly close yet?


First of all, I dont think anyone is saying Hinrich is better now, its 3-4 years down the line that people are talking about. 

2nd, Its hardly an even playing field at this point in the season. Great teams flourish at this time and horrible teams are fishing. 

Its still my thinking that most general NBA fans base their thoughts on Hinrich on box scores, since Bulls games are not high priority when it comes to entertainment. 

Those Duncan/KG results really made me lose a lot of respect for the results of those polls. Theres not a whole lot you can do to change my mind about this, because I base my opinions off what I see in both players...not polls, not stats, not anything other than their play.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> First of all, I dont think anyone is saying Hinrich is better now, its 3-4 years down the line that people are talking about.
> ...


Chicago is a media center. Everyone knows whats happening in Chicago. Heck, I get WGN in LONDON. Exposure isnt the issue. The issue is one guy is doing great against the best thats out there. The other guy did well against what might not have been teams best effort. I dont doubt Kirk will do well. But its not close right now. And even on realgm, I am being ridiculed for even bringing it up.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Chicago is a media center. Everyone knows whats happening in Chicago. Heck, I get WGN in LONDON. Exposure isnt the issue. The issue is one guy is doing great against the best thats out there. The other guy did well against what might not have been teams best effort. I dont doubt Kirk will do well. But its not close right now. And even on realgm, I am being ridiculed for even bringing it up.


That doesnt change the fact that most people wont watch the Bulls even when its on. A lot of die hard Bulls fans this season didnt even watch some of the WGN games, so I doubt that the general NBA fan really cares about the Bulls considering how boring they were this season. 

and once again, you keep saying right now. I'm not talking about right now.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> That doesnt change the fact that most people wont watch the Bulls even when its on. A lot of die hard Bulls fans this season didnt even watch some of the WGN games, so I doubt that the general NBA fan really cares about the Bulls considering how boring they were this season.
> ...


the gap right now is pretty big. Parker is younger and plays on under a great coach. Explain to me, outside of Kirk being traded to a legit NBA team, how is he going to close the gap? 

Cant we just admit that we are being a little too supportive of him due to our allegiance to the Bulls or in VVs case KU? if he was playing for Indiana, would we even be saying that he is better then parker or ever will be? If he went to Arkansas, would Vega support him so strongly? I think its safe to say that the answers would be no


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> the gap right now is pretty big. Parker is younger and plays on under a great coach. Explain to me, outside of Kirk being traded to a legit NBA team, how is he going to close the gap?
> 
> Cant we just admit that we are being a little too supportive of him due to our allegiance to the Bulls or in VVs case KU? if he was playing for Indiana, would we even be saying that he is better then parker or ever will be? If he went to Arkansas, would Vega support him so strongly? I think its safe to say that the answers would be no


Alright, you can think we're being too supportive but I'm thinking you just dont see the potential in him that I see. I dont care if you dont feel the same way, just dont assume that its not legitimate and that we're only doing it out of support. Maybe the truth is we see something in him that you dont?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Alright, you can think we're being too supportive but I'm thinking you just dont see the potential in him that I see. I dont care if you dont feel the same way, just dont assume that its not legitimate and that we're only doing it out of support. Maybe the truth is we see something in him that you dont?


quite possibly. but the same hysteria was in full effect last year at this time for Curry and Crawford and they didnt exactly pan out, inspite having better "stats" to end the year then Kirk had this year. But we are all entitled to our opinions. but the neutrals dont think its close. And its easy to just call them dumb because they dont side with your train of thought


----------



## Jim Stack (Sep 4, 2003)

in 3-4 years kirk will be even further down the depth chart as duhon nelson ... ... etc etc are in the nba granted perhapes kidd and payton will be gone but kirk will remain in the lower half of nba starting pgs.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> quite possibly. but the same hysteria was in full effect last year at this time for Curry and Crawford and they didnt exactly pan out, inspite having better "stats" to end the year then Kirk had this year. But we are all entitled to our opinions. but the neutrals dont think its close. And its easy to just call them dumb because they dont side with your train of thought


You cant apply the same logic with every player. So just because Bulls fans thought Curry would break out this year, and he didnt, that means that any fanbase who thinks a completely different player will be good and/or break out is out of line? Hinrich and Curry are completely different players. What about fanbases who have hyped up players and they *did* end up being that good? It goes both ways. 

I never called anyone dumb. Its just very very likely that most general fans dont watch the Bulls much, just like I dont watch the Hawks much. As a general NBA fan, I dont find them fun to watch at all and I'm not a fan of their team. So if I was to see a poll in the general forum comparing a player I've seen a lot who is playing the best ball of his career compared to someone I've seen very little of and has only played one season where his stats are about equal, I would vote for the first guy.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

All year we had to hear excuses from the organization...

We have to hear them on the board too?

Fans aren't voting for Hinrich because they haven't seen the kid play?

Please.


----------



## Jim Stack (Sep 4, 2003)

wow You think kirk is better then Tony. That is laughable. In fact i dont think kirk was the best pg selected in this draft as ford turned less in to more.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Stack</b>!
> wow You think kirk is better then Tony. That is laughable. In fact i dont think kirk was the best pg selected in this draft as ford turned less in to more.


Wait, who said Kirk is better than Parker?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> All year we had to hear excuses from the organization...
> 
> We have to hear them on the board too?
> 
> ...


I guess the fans voting is the bottom line, you're right. The consistency in these two polls proves just that, unbelievable. 

KG vs. Duncan made on February 22nd, 2004
http://basketballboards.net/forum/s...page=15&highlight=Garnett Duncan&pagenumber=1 

KG vs. Duncan made on May 3rd, 2004
http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92498&forumid=2


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

This will be my last post in this thread, I just want to say if you would have made a poll 4 years ago asking who would be the better SF in 4 years between Artest and Vince Carter, the results would have been just as lobsided in Carters favor. Things change and players develop. Dont hate the players or fans just because you dont see the same potential.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Cant we just admit that we are being a little too supportive of him due to our allegiance to the Bulls or in VVs case KU?


Okay, that's it. I'm officially pissed off. If you think I'm being unobjective, you haven't been reading (and remembering) my posts.

Ad hominem....gotta love it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Okay, that's it. I'm officially pissed off. If you think I'm being unobjective, you haven't been reading (and remembering) my posts.
> ...


pissed off, did i say something that wasnt true? the question is, if Kirk went to UK, instead of KU, would you even be arguing about this? My gut, knowing you like I do, is that you wouldnt be. I applaud your loyalty. but to say that Parker vs Hinrich is close, or that Kirk COULD BE as good as Payton isnt showing the unobjective side that you claim to have. Like i said, I am being ridiculed for even asking if Kirk is as good as Parker. maybe I ought to start a new thread asking if Kirk as a snowball in Hedoublehockeysticks chance of being as good as Payton to see what that response would be?


----------



## Jim Stack (Sep 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Okay, that's it. I'm officially pissed off. If you think I'm being unobjective, you haven't been reading (and remembering) my posts.
> ...


your pissed because you cant win an intulectuall argument man dont go there this is a fun place just argue and maybe you will get better.. however its sad but kirk is not the great player you make him out to be.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> pissed off, did i say something that wasnt true? the question is, if Kirk went to UK, instead of KU, would you even be arguing about this? My gut, knowing you like I do, is that you wouldnt be. I applaud your loyalty. but to say that Parker vs Hinrich is close, or that Kirk COULD BE as good as Payton isnt showing the unobjective side that you claim to have. Like i said, I am being ridiculed for even asking if Kirk is as good as Parker. maybe I ought to start a new thread asking if Kirk as a snowball in Hedoublehockeysticks chance of being as good as Payton to see what that response would be?


rlucas, you're openly questioning my ability to objectively analyze and contribute logically to a discussion. And because of that, I'm pissed. Go rip on someone else who DOESN'T EXPLAIN THEMSELVES, WHO DOESN'T USE STATS AND FIGURES TO BACK THEIR POSITIONS UP, OR WHO RELIES ON INSUBSTANTIAL TACTICS (AD HOMINEM, ELUDING THE POINT) IN EFFORTS OF AVOIDING THE POINT. Don't rip me. Don't rip what you presume my motives are. You've been wrong about presumptions with me before. And that frustrates me.

Another thing that pisses me off is how you've twisted history in order to suit your needs (ie, how I supposedly said Kirk was as good as Payton when that was NOT the case, how I supposedly never criticized Kirk, etc.). I've had enough.

F*** it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> rlucas, you're openly questioning my ability to objectively analyze and contribute logically to a discussion. And because of that, I'm pissed. Go rip on someone else who DOESN'T EXPLAIN THEMSELVES, WHO DOESN'T USE STATS AND FIGURES TO BACK THEIR POSITIONS UP, OR WHO RELIES ON INSUBSTANTIAL TACTICS (AD HOMINEM, ELUDING THE POINT) IN EFFORTS OF AVOIDING THE POINT. Don't rip me. Don't rip what you presume my motives are. You've been wrong about presumptions with me before. And that frustrates me.
> ...


jesus mate. Maybe if you would check your PM you would calm down. Take the time to read my posts to you carefully. I have carefully worded everything based on what you say your position is. So calm down. I never ripped on you. I just think you love your school, as you should, and to even think that Kirk is as good as some of the players that you think he is shows some issues with objectivity. I think that is fair. Didnt I acknowledge that you said some critical things of Kirk? yes I did. disregarded by you. Even in your criticism however, the next sentence you blame someone else for why Kirk struggled in such and such a game. Read the Gary Payton thread. Please tell me that your not strongly insinuating that Kirk has a legit-good chance to be as good as Payton. Read every post I have written over the last 2 hours. I have been very careful to say, POTENTIALLY as good as Payton in reference to you.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

as for ripping on someone, isnt it you who actually called me "inconsistent and naive"?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

When you openly and hastily dismiss thoroughly-researched (and highly correlative) analysis like Dan Rosenbaum's as merely "stats, stats, stats" in an obviously agitated manner aimed at downplaying their worth, then yes, I think that's a bit naive. I think others would agree with me here.

I'm just calling them as I see them.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> When you openly and hastily dismiss thoroughly-reserched (and highly correlative) analysis like Dan Rosenbaum's as merely "stats, stats, stats" in an obviously agitated manner aimed at downplaying their worth, then yes, I think that's a bit naive. I think others would agree with me here.
> 
> I'm just calling them as I see them.


how about this stat. 

kirk in the game, minus 4.4

parker in the game, Spurs +7.1

Naive, liar, dishonest, and I am ripping on you? by the way, it wasnt agitated, it was exasperated more like it


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Context.

Teammates.

NBDL and starters/key players missing 95% of the season vs. arguably the best player in the game and 6th men who'd start on most teams in the league.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

So let's be honest here, rcluas. Do you concede that you give close to zero credence to Rosenbaum's analysis?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Context.
> 
> Teammates.
> ...


and you accuse me of forgetting key facts. Look at what Parker did and how his team did with no Duncan? Sure they have some other players, but to play that well in the west, and Parker led it, is very impressive. Naive, dishonest, lets add opportunistic to the list as well


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> So let's be honest here, rcluas. Do you concede that you give close to zero credence to Rosenbaum's analysis?


I look at it, but i look at +/- numbers much more closely.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Arenas brings up a great point. If we were to just look at stats, then I guess SAR should be headed to the hall of fame sometime soon?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I look at it, but i look at +/- numbers much more closely.


Hinrich: +5.6 +/-

Parker: + 0.4 +/-


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Arenas brings up a great point. If we were to just look at stats, then I guess SAR should be headed to the hall of fame sometime soon?


In a simple, one-dimensional argument, you'd be right, and this would hold water. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Some players perform better on teams with relatively little surrounding talent, while others perform better with teams with greater surrounding talent. Hinrich performs best with consistent, talented teammates around him. He's a team player. Just like Parker and Payton. I'm not sure SAR can say the same.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich: +5.6 +/-
> ...


Chicago: 23-59

San Antonio: 57-25


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Arenas brings up a great point. If we were to just look at stats, then I guess SAR should be headed to the hall of fame sometime soon?


IMO i belive SAR should be considered a future HOF, SAR has had some pretty solid years, the guy was extreamly consistent for most of his career untill the injury. THe guy has a career 20 ppg 8rbs 46% shooting average, not bad at all if you ask me. You can say all you want about stats and all, but this league is all about the stats. Tmac great stats team is the worst in the league.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

...and that brings us back to teammates.

San Antonio: arguably the best player in the game + solid vets + TWO top 10 3PT% shooters + the best defender in the game (and the leading 3PT% last year) + a 6th man who'd start on almost any other team in the league

Chicago: 2 NBDL-caliber guys as starters + 2 post starters past their prime who wouldn't start on almost any other team in the league + a shooting guard who was horribly inconsistent and shot 32% from three + a starting PF and key veteran SF who each played in less than 10% of the games + 2 coaches (neither of which generate much praise here or elsewhere) + and a decent big man who wasn't in shape until after the All-Star break and who ultimately underachieved

Like I said, context.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Straight from the mouth of KokoTheMonkey, Spurs moderator:



> People who have seen Parker play for a longer period of time than these playoffs aren't surprised with what Parker did in the playoffs before this last game, and they aren't surprised that Parker went from day to night. He put together an amazing stretch of games, *but he always follows up greatness with awfulness. That alone is why he can't be considered a top 3 PG.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised at all if Parker didn't have another good game in this series.*


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I found this interesting in yesterdays Tribune:



> "Athleticism," Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said. "We can get the ball up the court quicker. For a couple of years there, we weren't able to do that. It was [Tim] Duncan and the guys spotting up for three-point shots. We didn't really have that penetration."
> 
> That Tony Parker has *emerged* as a second star to Duncan is the difference. *Not even the Spurs expected that. Remember, they tried to sign Jason Kidd last summer and lamented the loss of Speedy Claxton*. But Parker has outscored Payton 50-11 in the first two games.


I think it's wildly dangerous to set a cap on the limits of any young PG who excels solidly in his rookie season right after that rookie season ends.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Well, Tony hasn't exactly been lighting it up as of late.

Color me (not) surprised.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

15 pts, 6 assists, 2 stls and 4 rebounds in a tough game. And this isnt good enough for you?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> In a simple, one-dimensional argument, you'd be right, and this would hold water. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Some players perform better on teams with relatively little surrounding talent, while others perform better with teams with greater surrounding talent. Hinrich performs best with consistent, talented teammates around him. He's a team player. Just like Parker and Payton. I'm not sure SAR can say the same.


Time will tell now wont it? It could be argued that Kirk put up stats because he was the only good player on the floor, like SAR has over his career. Considering he had the ball in his hands 75% of the time, I would expect at a minimum the numbers he put up. Anywhere else, he wouldnt touch the ball nearly that much.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Well, Tony hasn't exactly been lighting it up as of late.
> 
> Color me (not) surprised.


Well at the end of the day, one guy is still playing, and the other is at home watching him.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

And at the end of the day, one guy plays with Tim Duncan while the other guy doesn't.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> And at the end of the day, one guy plays with Tim Duncan while the other guy doesn't.


You're never going to let it go are you?

Parker is a player, plain and simple, he's not a product of Duncan.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

at the end of the day VV it doesn't matter if its tim duncan or tim thomas who they are playing with when its a simple comparison between 2 players .

Tony parker's play in the 1st 2 games made the lakers change how they have played since, i doubt kirk if he were in parker's place could made a similar impact, and that doesn't mean kirk would be doing anything wrong its just an indication of how good parker is.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 15 pts, 6 assists, 2 stls and 4 rebounds in a tough game. And this isnt good enough for you?


Well, he did shoot 7-23 from the field, 1-5 from three and shot 0 freethrows. Since his game on May 5 after which more than a few knee-jerk posters were proclaiming him the best PG in the game, he has shot 34% from the field, 23% from three and 50% FT (4 total free throws), during which his team has lost three in a row and is on the verge of squandering a huge initial series lead.

I'm just trying to be objective here.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> Tony parker's play in the 1st 2 games made the lakers change how they have played since,


Yeah. What a difference-maker. The Lakers have won every single game since then and are about ready to come back from the dead and claim the series.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah. What a difference-maker. The Lakers have won every single game since then and are about ready to come back from the dead and claim the series.


yeah game 5 was parker's fault, how many games you think the spurs would have won if it were kirk in there instead of tony?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Time will tell now wont it? It could be argued that Kirk put up stats because he was the only good player on the floor,


This train of thought sure would contradict the vast majority of opinions on this board, as well as mine. I think Curry and Crawford might be perceived as pretty good (albeit underdeveloped) players.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, he did shoot 7-23 from the field, 1-5 from three and shot 0 freethrows. Since his game on May 5 after which more than a few knee-jerk posters were proclaiming him the best PG in the game, he has shot 34% from the field, 23% from three and 50% FT (4 total free throws), during which his team has lost three in a row and is on the verge of squandering a huge initial series lead.
> ...


I guess it's better that Kirk had those kind of performances in meaningless games instead of the playoffs...

Did you see the game?

Parker had a big part in how they came back from 16...

Obviously he was torching the Lakers and they've made adjustments...

Keep trying to discredit the kid's game, but it really doesn't change my opinion about him or the facts on how big of a role he's played in this series, and he can hardly be blamed for the reason they've lost 3 straight. 

How many times did TD turn the ball over last night, 8, 9?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> yeah game 5 was parker's fault,


I thought top PG's like Parker always made their team win, no matter what? I thought top PG's who have the luxury of playing with Tim Duncan (arguably the best player in basketball), Manu Ginobili (arguably the best 6th man in basketball), Bruce Bowen (arguably the best defender in basketball) and Robert Horry (who has more playoff experience than a few entire _teams_) still found ways to win?



> how many games you think the spurs would have won if it were kirk in there instead of tony?


I don't know. Pick an answer.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> yeah game 5 was parker's fault, how many games you think the spurs would have won if it were kirk in there instead of tony?


Parker destroyed Memphis...

He averaged 21.0 ppg and 8.2 apg...

Without his performances Memphis probably wins 2 of those games...

So my reponse to your question is forget the Lakers for a second, they probably have a little bit of tougher series with Memphis with Hinrich in place of Parker.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Keep in mind I'm not necessarily taking a side here. I'm just trying to fan the flames of objectivity on this whole "Parker is/will be the best PG in the game" hype that was all the rage last week.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> I thought top PG's like Parker always made their team win, no matter what?


I guess that eliminates Hinrich as a top PG...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess that eliminates Hinrich as a top PG...


Well, that's the point (or counterpoint) a lot of you are saying in this thread. So, remaining consistent with that logic, my quote above remains consistent in regards to Parker.

Don't you see where this is going? All I'm trying to do is even out the scales a bit with some basic logic.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I see the spurs as having quite few people that keep that engine humming to wins on a regular basis duncan, parker, manu, bowen, hedo and rasho ...how many do the bulls have ?

when i see a rare bulls win and think who was responsible i rarely think of certain players and usually do think it was curry and crawford for this past season , more than anything else the bulls lost this past season because there was a lack of players to step up in the 4th quarter and carry the bulls to wins , Time will tell if parker is going to be the best pg in the game i honestly doubt it but if we are going to compare chances i would say he has a better chance the hinrich of attaining that goal because he is a difference maker in his very successful teams fortunes, something i cant say on a much lower scale for kirk i feel he was one of our better players but he rarely made the difference between winning and losing.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Parker is a clutch playoff performer that can single handedly take over big games. We've seen it before and I'll reserve judgement on how Kirk <i>would</i> fare until the Bulls make the playoffs, if ever  Truth is, no one knows how he'll perform in a big time series. He could step up ala Bibby, Cassell, Parker or fade away ala Peja. Who knows.

What I do know is that Kirk had a higher efficiency rating this regular season, as a rookie, than Parker in his third year.

Hinrich 2003-04: 14.09
Parker 2003-04: 13.76

Playoff performances aside, Kirk is definitely in the same league as Mr. Parker.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Playoff performances aside, Kirk is definitely in the same league as Mr. Parker.


Nice try...

That's like saying, championships aside, Barkley is in the same league as Jordan...

It means a hell of a lot more to come up big in the playoffs, championship runs, as this kid has than it does for a guy to put up decent at best stats against teams who were giving maybe 70-75% effort against us in meaningless games.

Sorry but you can't just throw away playoff performances like they don't mean anything...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Parker is a clutch playoff performer that can single handedly take over big games. We've seen it before and I'll reserve judgement on how Kirk <i>would</i> fare until the Bulls make the playoffs, if ever  Truth is, no one knows how he'll perform in a big time series. He could step up ala Bibby, Cassell, Parker or fade away ala Peja. Who knows.
> 
> What I do know is that Kirk had a higher efficiency rating this regular season, as a rookie, than Parker in his third year.
> ...


yeah janero pargo is in that league too , the nba. But seriously that efficiency rating mean stats and stats only not impact ...for instance elton brand is 3rd in the league in efficiency and allen iverson is 36 , brad miller is ahead of kobe bryant and kenny thomas is ahead of ron artest . stats are all well and good but in this case they dont tell the whole story.

can you say you would rather have kirk in a regular season game in the 4th quarter over tony parker ?

i wouldn't even though their stats are similar their impact is not.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Nice try...
> ...


So you are comparing Jordan to Tony Parker? Barkley to Hinrich?

Barkley was actually a very clutch playoff performer he just didn't win a ring. We don't know what we have with Hinrich because he's never made the dance. That's the simple point I am trying to make.

So I guess because Kevin Garnett hasn't won anything he's a scrub too right? As always you're playing both sides of an argument and winning neither.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> yeah janero pargo is in that league too , the nba. But seriously that efficiency rating mean stats and stats only not impact ...for instance elton brand is 3rd in the league in efficiency and allen iverson is 36 , brad miller is ahead of kobe bryant and kenny thomas is ahead of ron artest . stats are all well and good but in this case they dont tell the whole story.
> ...


Did I say stats were the be-all and end-all? The efficiency rating has to do with evaluating a players overall performance. And for the regular season, Kirk's individual performance equalled that of Tony Parker.

I agree with you that Parker is a clutch player and of course I'd want him or Bibby or Cassell taking a closing shot in the 4th Q. However, I'm not closing the door on Hinrich just yet because after all he's gotten zero chances to prove that he is a closer.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Not only stats and EFF rating, superdave. This nifty little piece of analysis too:

http://www.uncg.edu/bae/people/rosenbaum/NBA/st1t1.txt


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> So you are comparing Jordan to Tony Parker? Barkley to Hinrich?
> ...


Superdave, you're going to actually make an argument, like, playoff performances aside, blah and blah are in the same league?

You're acting as if playoff performances don't mean crap.

The playoffs have defined Robert Horry's career, and so far the young career of Tayshaun Prince.

These are meaningful games...

Playoff performances and non difference making performances in meaningless games against teams giving 70% effort are not in the same league...

Just as the 2 players we're discussing are not in the same league, right now.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Did I say stats were the be-all and end-all? The efficiency rating has to do with evaluating a players overall performance. And for the regular season, Kirk's individual performance equalled that of Tony Parker.
> ...


he's gotten plenty of chances the bulls have been faultering looking for other players to step up all season long . he handles the ball the most in the 4th quarter and the offense runs through him, so in theory it should have been him more than anyone else, but it wasn't I'm not closing the door on him either but he hasn't done much to widen it on the basis of him being a clutch player.And i'm not talking just about shooting some players do it else where like with a clutch defensive play , a rebound his team just had to have or just keeping his team intense enough to pull things out , kirk has yet to do any of these things, and thats why i dont put him in parker's class


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Superdave, you're going to actually make an argument, like, playoff performances aside, blah and blah are in the same league?


Why wouldn't he? The numbers support his argument quite well.



> You're acting as if playoff performances don't mean crap.


Well, simple logic dictates that you can't definitively presume one player to be better than the other on the basis of one player having a different context (playoffs) than the other (no playoffs). To do so is not objective analysis, but rather subjective presumption which should, in light of differing contexts and for the sake of objectivity, be calculated by statistical evidence and comparisons of similar context (regular season).



> The playoffs have defined Robert Horry's career, and so far the young career of Tayshaun Prince.


Sure they have. And they can thank ESPN, TNT, ABC and NBC for a lot of that.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Sure they have. And they can thank ESPN, TNT, ABC and NBC for a lot of that.


Please, you'll do anything to discredit anyone else's accomplishments except Hinrich, I could do the same and say some of the people that are fans of his now are moreso because of his accomplishments at KU than in the NBA....

Prince and Horry are making their names off performances, as many clutch shots as Horry has hit going back to his Houston days, what the hell does that have to do with ESPN, TNT and ABC?

Prince wasn't even in the league when NBC was on, and he became a player last year in the playoffs when it matters the most after spending most of the year on the bench.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Please, you'll do anything to discredit anyone else's accomplishments except Hinrich,


Umm.............no, not really. My quote above was A.) in agreement with the comment it was referencing, and B.) commenting on the nature of player popularity/perception in relation to TV exposure. This isn't novel stuff. 



> I could do the same and say some of the people that are fans of his now are moreso because of his accomplishments at KU than in the NBA....


You could, and you'd be right in some cases. But that's the nature of fandom. It's the case with every single "favorite" player in the NBA, from short people liking Earl Boykins, to Russian people rooting for AK-47, to streetballers rooting for Skip or Crawford, to priests cheering for Battier. You like someone because of various characteristics, various contexts, various histories, whatever. You don't just like them for no reason. Regardless, this isn't related to the argument at hand. I just felt I needed to address your non sequitur appropriately.


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

As I said in an earlier post, I'm a huge fan of Tony Parker's. But he has NOT played very well in the last three games of this series. The Lakers are playing him physically, and that has obviously affected his game.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Please, you'll do anything to discredit anyone else's accomplishments except Hinrich, I could do the same and say some of the people that are fans of his now are moreso because of his accomplishments at KU than in the NBA....
> ...


Arenas, I do not discount playoff performances. In fact, I value them more than regular season. We had another disagreement a few weeks back about Duncan and KG. So following your logic, is it fair to say that KG isn't in the same league as Tim Duncan? Them both being the respective centerpieces of playoff teams with similar efficiency ratings? Duncan has two rings and KG just won his first playoff series at age 28. Heck I used that same argument about playoffs against you.

Imagine Parker running the pick and roll with Antonio Davis all season long? How many more games do the Bulls win this season? 3 or 4 perhaps. Parker would be doubled all day and we'd see more of AD's jumpers that we see already. Imagine Hinrich on the Spurs, that would make the Spurs the top defensive team in the L hands down. These type of flip flops are trivial at best but it serves to highlight a specific point. We can only judge a player based on 1) performance and 2) context of team.

So going by #1 Parker and Hinrich are the same caliber of NBA point guard. Going by #2 it is undecided because Hinrich hasn't gotten a sniff of the playoffs. Parker is an absolute stud and his game is only improved by a superstar player, great coach, and solid complimentary players. What exactly does Kirk have to work with?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> So following your logic, is it fair to say that KG isn't in the same league as Tim Duncan?


Bingo.

I'd also like to add that *each* of Garnett, Sprewell and Cassell are playing the best ball of their careers and having the most success together -- on a team with *talent.*



> We can only judge a player based on 1) performance and 2) context of team.
> 
> So going by #1 Parker and Hinrich are the same caliber of NBA point guard. Going by #2 it is undecided because Hinrich hasn't gotten a sniff of the playoffs. Parker is an absolute stud and his game is only improved by a superstar player, great coach, and solid complimentary players. What exactly does Kirk have to work with?


Exactly. Why some people can't relate the context, I have no idea. Well said.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

Guys, learn from my lesson. Don't waste your time and energy arguing with Arenas over Kirk, Skile and Paxon unless you are jumping on his fantasy world and bashing them like him.

No words and logic in the world will make him think twice. 

Give it up.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Please, you'll do anything to discredit anyone else's accomplishments except Hinrich, I could do the same and say some of the people that are fans of his now are moreso because of his accomplishments at KU than in the NBA....
> ...


On a side note what has become apparent in the current Nets Pistons series ( great game yesterday ) is that Prince is not up to the task of containing Richard Jefferson.. and DickJeff can thank Jason Kidd and his masterful control of tempo for that 

In the Nets frenetic style that they have kicked into gear post game 2 .. Tay is simply a step too slow for someone as explosive as DickJeff

I have to give big ups to the Nets for going outside the standard style of eek it out bump and grind play off ball - which seems to be all about slowing it down to cut down on unforced errors in trying to play "precision ball" ---- and just looking at themselves and recobnising who they are and what their style is which is what got them there in the first place and what it is that makes them lethal 

They have gone back to it , found it , trust it - and they'll go to the Conference finals 

O'Neal and Artest will bust them up though

I can't wait to see Artest go at Jefferson and Martin trying to contain Jermaine O'Neal 

I'll even go on record and say that I think the Pacers win it all this year - if its anyone but the Wolves

Its KG's time .. and if he misses his chance it may be Patrick and 1994.. the one ( and one only in the truism of opportunity in the moment that got away )


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Bingo.
> ...


sprewell has made the all nba team and has at times avg. in the neighborhood of 25 points a game ...and he's been to the finals before its highly debateable that _this_ is the best he has ever played or that this is the best team he has ever been on.

also cassell has won 2 titles so this is defintely not the best team he has been on or the team he has enjoyed the most success.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> On a side note what has become apparent in the current Nets Pistons series ( great game yesterday ) is that Prince is not up to the task of containing Richard Jefferson.. and DickJeff can thank Jason Kidd and his masterful control of tempo for that


It wasn't a great game, it was a lousy one. We got to see the 12th men on both teams playing way too many minutes in a game that really counted.

A great game would have had Rip, Wallace, Wallace, K-Mart, etc., playing in OT.


----------



## Chicago_Cow (Mar 5, 2003)

Folks, Tony Park is a subpar pg who's riding the coattail of Duncan. On the most important game of his life, Parker chokes from top to bottom. Instead of being a creator, Parker hogs the ball and commits four turnovers while dishing out 3 assists. In addition, he's shooting 4-18 from the field. What did Parker bring to the floor tonight?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago_Cow</b>!
> Folks, Tony Park is a subpar pg who's riding the coattail of Duncan. On the most important game of his life, Parker chokes from top to bottom. Instead of being a creator, Parker hogs the ball and commits four turnovers while dishing out 3 assists. In addition, he's shooting 4-18 from the field. What did Parker bring to the floor tonight?


Please....

Funny how someone could call a guy a subpar player after a loss...

Riding the coattail of Duncan?

Duncan lost his coattail this series, he had a 25 min stretch of not scoring a FG in this elimination game so is he a subpar player too?

Horry couldn't buy a 3, but everything else he's done in his career no longer matters?

You win as a team and lose as a team, 

The other team just stepped the hell up and that's why they won....

Take that subpar garbage elsewhere.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> It wasn't a great game, it was a lousy one. We got to see the 12th men on both teams playing way too many minutes in a game that really counted.
> ...


Fair enough 

But I still say triple overtime as a battle of attrition which even if you don't have the studs out there .. can still be entertaining 

Shoot me 

I enjoyed it


----------



## Chicago_Cow (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Please....
> ...


I didn't call Parker garbage after game 3. No, I called Parker garbage after a series lost. When you're jacking up 18 freaking shots, you better make more than 4. When you're the team pg, you're supposed to create for others. Parker has Duncan, Ginnobili, Turkoglue, and Bowen to dish to. Who did he dish to? Nobody. He was a ballhog jacking up shots and killing the team like your idol Mr. Crawford.

Finally, I'm not the one humping Parker after two good games. I knew he was garbage in the regular season and I knew he's average during the playoff. Let me know when Parker averages more than 6 assists. Don't give me the Duncan excuse and SA's offensive structure. When Kemp was in Seattle, Payton was racking up 9+ assists. No, the offense went through Kemp, not through Payton.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Chicago_Cow: EXACTLY.

Tony Parker, game 4: 39 minutes, 9 points (4-18 FG, 0-5 3PT), 1 rebound, 3 assists, *6 turnovers*

I REST MY CASE.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Chicago_Cow: EXACTLY.
> 
> Tony Parker, game 4: 39 minutes, 9 points (4-18 FG, 0-5 3PT), 1 rebound, 3 assists, *6 turnovers*
> ...


LOL...

This is the funniest post I've ever read on this board because it's beyond ridiculous...

What would you have posted if the Spurs won the series?

I forgot Parker was supposed to win by himself, why don't you post Duncan's stats last night time?

He is after all the franchise player and last year's MVP...

Hey VV...I got a better statline for you...

Kirk Hinrich - DNP - Not In Playoffs


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago_Cow</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't call Parker garbage after game 3. No, I called Parker garbage after a series lost. When you're jacking up 18 freaking shots, you better make more than 4. When you're the team pg, you're supposed to create for others. Parker has Duncan, Ginnobili, Turkoglue, and Bowen to dish to. Who did he dish to? Nobody. He was a ballhog jacking up shots and killing the team like your idol Mr. Crawford.
> ...


Yawn, what does Crawford have to do with this?

You still don't have an explanation for Duncan not getting a FG for 25 mins from the 2nd to 4th quarter?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> LOL...
> ...


Why? I stated why I think some of you have overrated Parker and underrated Hinrich in this thread. Parker's last four games backs my sentiment up. This thread was started in the midst of Parker's super-hype after Game 2, the game after which some people were calling him the best PG in the game or the future best PG in the game. I disagreed. And the last four games of the series disagreed, too.



> What would you have posted if the Spurs won the series?


What would you have posted if KH averaged a triple-double this year? Face it -- it didn't happen. The Spurs choked. Big time. Lost four in a row after having complete control of the series. And Parker was a big part of that. The top PG in the game doesn't blow a 2-0 series lead and lose 4 games in a row while shooting 31% from the field, 17% from three and barely managing to get to the line or create for the multitude of talent surrounding him.



> I forgot Parker was supposed to win by himself, why don't you post Duncan's stats last night time?


_Now_ you're getting it.....the team aspect, that is. Remember when your argument was W/L? Well, don't you think Parker's had a bit more help with those W's than did just about every other PG in the league? Like I said earlier -- Tony Parker gets to play with superior talent. Nobody on the Bulls does.



> Kirk Hinrich - DNP - Not In Playoffs


Please.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Parkers averages for the playoffs blew Kirks averages for the regular season away. 18 pts, 7-8 assists, shot 40% from 3 and 43% from the field. And he did this being the focal point of opposing defenses in games that mattered. To argue anything else would be silly. Let me say this, if your going to pick out parkers stats over the last couple of games to say that Kirk is better, then perhaps you ought to see Duncans lines as well. Duncan didnt do squat. Maybe we can trade Kirk for Duncan? Oh wait, that would be a steal for them


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Parkers averages for the playoffs blew Kirks averages for the regular season away. 18 pts, 7-8 assists, shot 40% from 3 and 43% from the field. And he did this being the focal point of opposing defenses in games that mattered. To argue anything else would be silly. Let me say this, if your going to pick out parkers stats over the last couple of games to say that Kirk is better, then perhaps you ought to see Duncans lines as well. Duncan didnt do squat. Maybe we can trade Kirk for Duncan? Oh wait, that would be a steal for them


*The end.*


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

What I really don't get it is why anybody want to bash a Bull to praise (?) Parker? Don't tell me that is not what you did when you open this thread, Arenas?

You can say whatever you want but for once when some people question your intention, please God, admit it.

You coudn't miss the chance to bash Kirk. THat was the whole point of this thread.

<b>Period.</b>


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Let me say this, if your going to pick out parkers stats over the last couple of games to say that Kirk is better,


See, that's the problem. Nowhere in this thread have I said that I think Kirk is better than Parker. I said that Parker was not as good as what many were hyping him as being after Game 2, and, subsequently, that Hinrich was better than some here were giving him credit for being.



> then perhaps you ought to see Duncans lines as well. Duncan didnt do squat. Maybe we can trade Kirk for Duncan? Oh wait, that would be a steal for them


Sarcasm. Why?


----------



## deranged40 (Jul 18, 2002)

rlucas you bring up stats, but why is it everytime Vega brings up stats in his argument he gets blasted by some certain posters.

Not picking any sides here just commenting.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>deranged40</b>!
> rlucas you bring up stats, but why is it everytime Vega brings up stats in his argument he gets blasted by some certain posters.
> 
> Not picking any sides here just commenting.


yes..why? 

rlucas membership in Kirk=No limits is FIRED!....YOU'RE FIRED! :rocket: :banana: :vbanana: :rbanana: :gbanana: :wbanana: :cbanana:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>deranged40</b>!
> rlucas you bring up stats, but why is it everytime Vega brings up stats in his argument he gets blasted by some certain posters.
> 
> Not picking any sides here just commenting.


I dont care for stats. But my mate (and we are mates) VV likes the stats. So I use them. However for me its not the end all. For instance, to me, whats more important is how the team does when your in there. In game 5, parker was in the game, and Duncan wasnt, when the Spurs came back from a 16 pt deficit to take a lead. parker didnt put up many points or assists, but his presence alone allowed guys like Devin Brown to get shots. Its quite clear Phil marked Parker has the guy to stop after game 2, and he certainly did slow him down. But to think Phil couldnt have slowed any PG down is kind of funny. Thats why the PG position, in a lot of ways, is actually a deterrent. Id much rather have 3 or 4 guys who can handle it with a diversified attack then a guy who controls the ball 80% of the time and racks up alot of assists. label me as someone who buys Miamis philosophy with odom, wade, butler and jones all good ball handlers. That was how the old Bulls were built


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I dont care for stats. But my mate (and we are mates) VV likes the stats. So I use them. However for me its not the end all.


This is true. It's also true that Parker flat-out choked four games in a row and completely squandered a 2-0 series lead. To me, this is hardly indicative of a "top" PG. Call me crazy, but that's just how I feel.



> For instance, to me, whats more important is how the team does when your in there.


*+/-*
Kirk Hinrich: +5.6
Tony Parker: +0.4



> In game 5, parker was in the game, and Duncan wasnt, when the Spurs came back from a 16 pt deficit to take a lead. parker didnt put up many points or assists,


Even without Duncan, the Spurs are still talented. And they're still certainly more talented than the Bulls.



> but his presence alone allowed guys like Devin Brown to get shots. Its quite clear Phil marked Parker has the guy to stop after game 2, and he certainly did slow him down.


Over the last four games, Parker faced what Hinich and Crawford faced all season long in terms of defensive scheming. Parker was being keyed on all game, and his points of attack were limited and taken away from him (that's why he stumbled all over himself on numerous occasions trying to get into the lane the last few games). In regards to KH and JC, defenses keyed on the perimeter because the Bulls' interior was so weak. I am 100% convinced this is a big reason both of their shooting percentages were so low.

Parker's play and the success of the team also indicates that he needs a top-of-his-game Duncan in order to be fully effective. Imagine what he would have done (or not done) with Curry and Chandler (when not on the sideline in a suit) instead of Duncan and Rasho this year.



> Thats why the PG position, in a lot of ways, is actually a deterrent. Id much rather have 3 or 4 guys who can handle it with a diversified attack then a guy who controls the ball 80% of the time and racks up alot of assists. label me as someone who buys Miamis philosophy with odom, wade, butler and jones all good ball handlers. That was how the old Bulls were built


Agreed 100%.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Over the last four games, Parker faced what Hinich and Crawford faced all season long in terms of defensive scheming. Parker was being keyed on all game, and his points of attack were limited and taken away from him (that's why he stumbled all over himself on numerous occasions trying to get into the lane the last few games). In regards to KH and JC, defenses keyed on the perimeter because the Bulls' interior was so weak. I am 100% convinced this is a big reason both of their shooting percentages were so low.


Please...

Teams playing at 70% against the Bulls doesn't compare to the Lakers gunning for Parker.

If anyone on the Bulls were keyed on it was JC, Hinrich got so many open looks it was ridiculous.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> This is true. It's also true that Parker flat-out choked four games in a row and completely squandered a 2-0 series lead. To me, this is hardly indicative of a "top" PG. Call me crazy, but that's just how I feel.
> ...


This is where we disagree mate. This is the playoffs, a totally different beast then the regular season. Teams didnt come in and play the Bulls with any intensity or much of a game plan, they didnt have too. 

Phil however sicked the dogs on parker over the last 4 games. Phil did this because he saw HOW GOOD THIS KID WAS. If that doesnt say what Phil thinks, I dont know what else to say. But to compare the schemes Parker faced to what Kirk and Jamal faced is a reach IMO. Phil had a week to prepare for this kid, and he still put up better numbers over 10 games then basically either of our guards, and that was against teams that prepared plans in games that mattered to stop him

Where we do agree is that a diversified attack is better. And this is why I hate all this crap about PG this and PG that. Id rather have Parker over Kirk. But id rahter have Miamis handling of the PG situation over either. Multiple guys who can make the pass and handle are always better then one guy who does it all. This is where Skiles and Paxson are plain wrong. They want to put the ball in one guys hands and let him do it all. It doesnt work. Jackson said one time the easiest team to prepare for is one with a PG. He said this when they were blowing NJ out. Thats why its imperative that the Bulls find a SF who can shoot the ball and handle it this summer. Thats why they ought to give some of the ball handling duties back to Jamal. Doing these 2 things makes it harder to prepare against the Bulls, and will make Kirk a more effective player since he can play more of a catch and shoot game, which better suits him anyway. I am not saying, never allow him to handle the ball, but look at Miami as a model, not a team like San Antonio who basically gave it too one guy and said do it. Anybody would have been stopped by the game plan the Lakers had in place for that kind of attack


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

i think Skiles and Pax used Jamal AND Kirk rlucas. And i'm sure they know about Jordan PiP and Pax handling duties. They want more than one ballhandler, and will alway have more than one where possible. Preferably a point forward for me.

and there were plenty sucessful teams with one primary Ballhandler dominating the ball in any case


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Phil however sicked the dogs on parker over the last 4 games. Phil did this because he saw HOW GOOD THIS KID WAS. If that doesnt say what Phil thinks, I dont know what else to say. But to compare the schemes Parker faced to what Kirk and Jamal faced is a reach IMO. Phil had a week to prepare for this kid, and he still put up better numbers over 10 games then basically either of our guards, and that was against teams that prepared plans in games that mattered to stop him


You go from 0-2 to 4-0 after one small change of defensive focus. Why didn't Phil do this earlier? If it's so easy to contain Parker, why didn't he do it earlier? And why didn't he just study tape from the regular season, where Parker had a down (and inconsistent) year numbers-wise?


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Please...
> ...


I found your obsession for bashing any player othern JC "ridiculous" as you put it.

If it does anything, your obsession for JC and abhor for Kirk made me hate JC even more.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> You go from 0-2 to 4-0 after one small change of defensive focus. Why didn't Phil do this earlier? If it's so easy to contain Parker, why didn't he do it earlier? And why didn't he just study tape from the regular season, where Parker had a down (and inconsistent) year numbers-wise?


One small change, 4 hall of famers woke the hell up and said a 21 yr. old french kid is by himself trying to deny us a championship, we gotta knock him on his butt a few times, do whatever we have to to stop him...the defensive gameplan was tailored to stopping this kid, that in itself goes to show what kind of player he is...

He had Gary Payton, a first ballot hall of famer, whining to the media, complaining, some people even thought he was finished because of how badly TP was outplaying him, that deserves merit...

Not only did the Lakers stop him to take this series also decided to stop last year's MVP Tim Duncan....

You're looking at facts, but you're just looking at minute ones to help your argument, this isn't just about Parker, they stepped up and stopped Duncan and everyone else too.

Keep ****ting on everyone else's accomplishments except "Mr. Underdog", but it will get you nowhere in these kind of arguments. (Not if I'm involved).

I wonder if you and Fleet actually went to some games this year, teams play at most 70-75% effort against us, why? Cuz they can and still win...

You're confused if you think coaches are in the other locker rooms drilling home to their guys that they need to stop Hinrich. a guy who's not going to get in the paint before the shot clock goes off and a guy who misses the majority of his wide open looks.

Probably same with JC, he has his scorching on fire nights, but with our offense it leads to him and Hinrich getting at best 30 ft shots from the basket as the shot clock is running out, other teams will take that all day, if we can beat someone that way, we deserve to win.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Keep ****ting on everyone else's accomplishments except "Mr. Underdog", but it will get you nowhere in these kind of arguments. (Not if I'm involved).


Hey Mr. Irony.

It is YOU that keep ****ting on Kirk every cahnce you get. This whole argument has started becuase of your comment hinting another Kirk bashing. 

Why can't you just say Parker has amazing talent and stop there? Why do you have to put Kirk down?

And how do you feel when some one put your man (JC) down? 

I certainly understand your favoritism towards JC even I have totally different opinion on JC (for one he is one overestimated ****.) and I have no clue whatsover on your hatred toward Kirk.

What has he done to you except proving himself to be one xecellent NBA rookie?

Did you ever say one nice thing about Kirk?

Losing JC's PG position is that much of shock when almost evrybody think Krik is our PG for years to come.

OF course everybody but Arenas, rlucas, Ace . THat is.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

arenas, you sure do talk a lot, but I don't get much out of your posts.



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Keep ****ting on everyone else's accomplishments except "Mr. Underdog", but it will get you nowhere in these kind of arguments. (Not if I'm involved).


All I'm doing is trying to inject some objectivity in the "Parker is the/one of the best PG in the league" buzz after Game 2. I think that the last four games (as well as the regular season) backs my point up rather well. And yes, I realize that I will get nowhere in these kinds of arguments with you.



> You're confused if you think coaches are in the other locker rooms drilling home to their guys that they need to stop Hinrich.


Hinrich and Crawford, yes. Every game.



> a guy who's not going to get in the paint before the shot clock goes off and a guy who misses the majority of his wide open looks.


It's amazing Kirk is even in the league. Surely he'll get sent to the NBDL to work on his game.



> Probably same with JC, he has his scorching on fire nights, but with our offense it leads to him and Hinrich getting at best 30 ft shots from the basket as the shot clock is running out, other teams will take that all day, if we can beat someone that way, we deserve to win.


This is one of the reasons I said that defenses key on our perimeter. Our inside is so weak, we're forced to p***y-foot around the perimeter until the shot clock runs out, leading to bad shots. This is, IMO, a big reason why KH and JC's FG% were so low.

Like I said, I wonder how Parker would do in Chicago's system passing to Curry, Chandler and AD instead of Tim Duncan, David Robinson (previously) and Rasho.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> i think Skiles and Pax used Jamal AND Kirk rlucas. And i'm sure they know about Jordan PiP and Pax handling duties. They want more than one ballhandler, and will alway have more than one where possible. Preferably a point forward for me.
> 
> and there were plenty sucessful teams with one primary Ballhandler dominating the ball in any case


There have been some teams with a primary handler who have done well. Parker last year with San Antonio and Avery with San Antonio 4 years earlier. But you have to go back to the Laker teams in the mid 80s to find a team with a true PG who have done it consistently

The Bulls never had a PG. In fact, they openly admitted they didnt know what one was and didnt care to know

Houston won a title with a backcourt of Vernon Maxwell and Clyde Drexler to go with Cassell and Smith. They didnt play with one guy taking the ball most of the time. 

The Lakers started Derek Fisher as the their "pg" but he was about as far away from John Stockton as I am away from George Bush. Kobe, Fox and Fisher all shared ball handling duties

Detroit won 2 titles with the 3 guard attack. Isiah was as likely to bring the ball up the floor as Dumars or Johnson were. 

This years Bulls team wasnt a diversified attack. We were among the leagues worst in assists and that was with one guy who was 8th in the league. That means to me two things. A) too much responsibility was given to one guy to handle the ball. B) the other guy (JC) either wasnt moving the ball or was told to score score score. It was far from a diversified attack. Again, teams that have this type of statistical disparities will not do well. And its fairly obvious this is what happened


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> You go from 0-2 to 4-0 after one small change of defensive focus. Why didn't Phil do this earlier? If it's so easy to contain Parker, why didn't he do it earlier? And why didn't he just study tape from the regular season, where Parker had a down (and inconsistent) year numbers-wise?


You make my argument here. IF IT WERE SO EASY TO CONTAIN PARKER, HE WOULD HAVE DONE IT FROM THE ONSET. It took him a week to figure it out. And this is one of the best guys in league history at stopping players (see Magic Johnson in 91). So clearly it wasnt easy to contain him. Hubie, another great tactician couldnt do it. Phil took 2 games to figure it out. So I think the point here is that Parker is stoppable, but it took 6 games to figure out how to stop him. And he was certainly, along with Duncan, the focal point of teams defenses. Still, inspite of Hubie and Phil focusing squarely on Parkers head, the kid averaged 18 ppg, 7 or 8 assists, shot 43.5% from the field and 40% from 3pt line and his team went 6-4 against 2 teams with over 50 wins. To say Parker UNDERACHIEVED is a reach if you ask me.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> arenas, you sure do talk a lot, but I don't get much out of your posts.
> 
> 
> ...


I dont think your getting Arenas point here mate. And I think your playing both sides of the fence. Your saying teams keyed to stop Kirk and Jamal but then laugh at Parker when he doesnt do so well. I think its fair to say that the playoffs are a different beast. Teams have a week to prepare for one another and see the same teams on multilpe nights. I seriously doubt there was serious game plans put out there by our opponents this year. In fact, one NBA player is an investor in my fund. he told me that they spent 15 minutes in walk around on us compared to 45 minutes for most teams. and those 15 minutes consisted of basically 2 things, stop Curry (mostly by confusing him early), and dont let Jamal get going early. Pathetic. Most knew they would beat us and didnt have to prepare much. I doubt you would find anyone who put the effort that Jackson did to stop Parker in stopping any of our players.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I dont think theres any doubt that Parker is much much better at creating his own shot and finishing in the lane. However, he *can* be contained, and once you do contain him, he becomes very ineffective since hes very average if you take away his scoring. 

Thats why I'm not a fan of scoring point guards, because when they are relied upon too much as scorers the defenses will adjust and its much easier to contain a scoring point guard (especially when theyre barely over 6'0) than it is to contain an elite scorer at any other position. Point guards are usually very one dimensional scorers. 

Aside from scoring, Hinrich is better than Parker in every other category. Defense, rebounding, passing, hustle, etc. Parker has a large advantage in scoring, but since I dont value scoring that much out of a point guard, that doesnt outweigh Hinrichs advantages.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> You make my argument here. IF IT WERE SO EASY TO CONTAIN PARKER, HE WOULD HAVE DONE IT FROM THE ONSET.


First off, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. My questions above are honest.

Secondly, I'd like to think that perhaps Phil was wary of a guy named Duncan (54 points) in the first two games. The Lakers weren't winning, so Phil instigated his defensive point of attack on Parker. Parker subsquently choked, resulting in a domino effect on the team (and Duncan, who relies on Parker). Sorry, but a PG who can't adjust to a defensive scheme after four games and who looks miserable trying to do so doesn't make it into my "top PG" category. PG's have to deal with direct pressure. When the going got tough, Parker collapsed. That's all I'm saying.



> It took him a week to figure it out. And this is one of the best guys in league history at stopping players (see Magic Johnson in 91). So clearly it wasnt easy to contain him. Hubie, another great tactician couldnt do it. Phil took 2 games to figure it out. So I think the point here is that Parker is stoppable, but it took 6 games to figure out how to stop him.


How come all these non-playoff coaches figured out ways to stop Parker during the regular season?



> To say Parker UNDERACHIEVED is a reach if you ask me.


I never said Parker underachieved. He'll never underachieve, seeing as how he was such a low draft pick and that he's already a very good player on a very good team. My point, a point which gets ignored and changed from post to post in this thread, is that Parker is not as thoroughly awesome as some people thought he was in the midst of his Game 2 glory.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> I dont think your getting Arenas point here mate. And I think your playing both sides of the fence. Your saying teams keyed to stop Kirk and Jamal but then laugh at Parker when he doesnt do so well.


No, I'm just trying to figure out why some people discredit Kirk's accomplishments/talents because he plays on a bad team, while people magnify Parker's accomplishments/talents because he plays on a good team. I'm not laughing at Parker when he doesn't do so well. I'm laughing at the people who thought he was the best PG in the league after Game 2.

And how do you know Phil took a week to figure out a gameplan for Parker? How do you know he didn't already have one (perhaps even the same one various coaches used during the regular season), but he didn't decide to break it out until Game 3 when it became apparent that whatever he was trying wasn't working?


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> There have been some teams with a primary handler who have done well. Parker last year with San Antonio and Avery with San Antonio 4 years earlier. But you have to go back to the Laker teams in the mid 80s to find a team with a true PG who have done it consistently
> 
> ...


sounds like heavy overanalysis to me. You are focusing on title winners, and i'm focusing on just being a good team. You could add the The Kidd Nets, the KJ Suns, the Payton Sonics and and the Stockton Jazz if you want if you get off title winning clubs.

Titles are won with big guys basically. If you want to overanalyze the guard position, you can, but i think its a mistake. Of course, you need more than one guy who can handle the ball to win! No team ever won a lot of game who did not
..........the big link you are trying to make to the Bulls is totally unfair. I don't see why you have to project all this gloom and doom like a candidate trying to unseat an incumbent. WHAT makes you think the Bulls want to do this? Have only one guy who can handle the ball? I mean WHAT? The problem the Bulls have is that they have don't have enough good players period. Its not some kind of crazy Philosophy. Its lack of talent. 

The Bulls made a personell mistake. Pip was the extra Ball handler rlucas. So was Rose. Those guys don't play here for other reasons besides some outlandish one guard rotation philosophy like you are saying. Its no kind of awful crazy one man backcourt philosophy. I'm sure you don't think this stuff. I only wish you would be fair and tell it like it is instead of predicting all this tragedy. We know you don't like Pax and Skiles, but this is a stretch even for you and arenas. Lets be fair


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> I dont think theres any doubt that Parker is much much better at creating his own shot and finishing in the lane. However, he *can* be contained, and once you do contain him, he becomes very ineffective since hes very average if you take away his scoring.
> 
> Thats why I'm not a fan of scoring point guards, because when they are relied upon too much as scorers the defenses will adjust and its much easier to contain a scoring point guard (especially when theyre barely over 6'0) than it is to contain an elite scorer at any other position. Point guards are usually very one dimensional scorers.
> ...


Bingo


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Aside from scoring, Hinrich is better than Parker in every other category. Defense, rebounding, passing, hustle, etc. Parker has a large advantage in scoring, but since I dont value scoring that much out of a point guard, that doesnt outweigh Hinrichs advantages.


Since what was what you valued "law"?

This argument has gotten beyond ridiculous, right now tonight, Tony Parker is a better player than Hinrich, you can find some stats or whatever that says he wasn't, but that doesn't change that he's the better player.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

whats beyond ridiculous, arenas, is how some people pour salt on Bulls players 24/7.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> whats beyond ridiculous, arenas, is how some people pour salt on Bulls players 24/7.


Sure is Fleet...

Got to read about it all year in regards to JC.

P.S. I know what you're getting at....


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Since what was what you valued "law"?


What the hell? What I value *is* law when I'm expressing my opinion.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Sure is Fleet...
> ...


that goes for everybody arenas. JC and Kirk, and all the other players when they give it the proffesional go. It seems like coaches and GMs should be fair game though (given more than a cup of coffee like Pax and Skiles however). I spent many a post on Krause  
maybe i'm still happy happy over that and i can't get down on Johnny P so soon. Not that i'm optimistic, but definately not negative


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Bump.

Season to date:

*Tony Parker:* 13.5 ppg, 5.6 apg, 2.2:1 A/TO, 3.4 rpg, 1.2 spg, 44% FG, 26% 3PT, 69% FT, +13.27 Efficiency Rating.

*Kirk Hinrich:* 14.2 ppg, 7.0 apg, 3.2:1 A/TO, 3.6 rpg, 1.3 spg, 38% FG, 35% 3PT, 84% FT, +15.50 Efficiency Rating.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Bump.
> 
> Season to date:
> ...


Kirk has got to improve his shooting percentage this year, at least up to 40%. Aside from that, you have to be pretty pleased with his contributions this year.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

BTW, the above bump isn't to laud KH as much as it is to cast some rays of reality on Parker's game.

KH's shooting is horrendous. I figured he'd have that ironed out by now. Apparently not.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> BTW, the above bump isn't to laud KH as much as it is to cast some rays of reality on Parker's game.
> 
> KH's shooting is horrendous. I figured he'd have that ironed out by now. Apparently not.


still wouldn't believe the spurs would do an even up swap, and i doubt many would.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> still wouldn't believe the spurs would do an even up swap, and i doubt many would.


Nah, doubt they would either. I mean, they've won championships with this guy at the helm. They've already invested a great deal in Parker and the chemistry that is the San Antone Spurs.

But, in a vaccuum, I think Popovich would consider it. I think the thought of having a big (relatively), defensive-minded PG that can knock down the long ball would be VERY appealing. This is based on MY perception of Pop's basketball philosophy.

I think Kirk would look pretty good next to Duncan. Duncan makes the Spurs go 'round, including Parker.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

You never mess with a good thing. 

For that reason, the Spurs not only wouldn't move Parker for Hinrich, they probably wouldn't move him for Bibby, Francis or Baron either.

It's only where you're guaranteed to improve yourself: Kidd.

Now if they were starting out from scratch and had their choice of Bibby, Francis, Parker, Baron or KH on his rookie contract...._maybe_ KH would get some consideration.

I can't see it in any other circumstance.

Could they win the bling with KH at the PG spot? Undoubtably. Duncan makes everyone around him better. He's what the army would call a "force multiplier"..


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

BUMP. 

This is one of the craziest threads I've been a part of on this site. 21 pages, damn. I had bookmarked this thread because I wanted to see what another 3/4 of a year would do for the Hinrich vs. Parker debate that this became. Basically, at the time Parker was on fire, and Hinrich was on the 3rd worst team in basketball, sitting home watching Parker rip a hole through the Lakers in those first two games. There was a poll on the main forum, and Parker won in a landslide. I had mentioned it was the timing, so we agreed to look back at this when both guys can be looked at fairly. 

This was the first one:
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=93210&highlight=Parker



> Originally posted by <b> rlucas4257</b>!
> well JTCK, in the pursuit of an honest poll, lets put one out around January of next year and see what people say. I am willing to do that. I dont think youll see much difference but who knows. if they stopped the playoffs right this second, Parker might win the MVP of the playoffs


It's January, so I made it. 

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=135688&forumid=2

Kirk is winning, but that may change, I just made it not too long ago.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> BUMP.
> 
> This is one of the craziest threads I've been a part of on this site. 21 pages, damn. I had bookmarked this thread because I wanted to see what another 3/4 of a year would do for the Hinrich vs. Parker debate that this became. Basically, at the time Parker was on fire, and Hinrich was on the 3rd worst team in basketball, sitting home watching Parker rip a hole through the Lakers in those first two games. There was a poll on the main forum, and Parker won in a landslide. I had mentioned it was the timing, so we agreed to look back at this when both guys can be looked at fairly.
> ...


Interesting...


----------

