# For the Hinrich Critics...



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

...the guys with short short memories:



> The NBA has announced that Chicago Bulls’ guard Kirk Hinrich was named to the 2003.04 got milk? All-Rookie* First Team*.
> --
> 
> Selected by head coaches from around the league, Hinrich is *joined* on the got milk? All-Rookie First Team by *Cleveland’s LeBron James, Denver’s Carmelo Anthony, Miami’s Dwyane Wade and Toronto’s Chris Bosh*.


http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/hinrich_allrookie_040427.html



> The Chicago Bulls announced today that CDW/HP has selected guard Kirk Hinrich as recipient of the CDW/HP Chicago *Bulls Player of the Year* for the 2003.04 season. The 6-3, 190-pounder was also selected CDW/HP Player of the Month in both January and February for his outstanding play.
> --
> Hinrich’s best stretch of the season came during February. Through February’s 11 games, he averaged 14.8 ppg, 8.1 apg, 4.5 rpg and 2.00 spg, while shooting .397 from the floor, including .453 from three-point range, and .957 from the free throw line. He led the team in assists in all 11 games and in scoring on two occasions. In the final game of that month versus Golden State (02/28), he tallied his first career triple-double with 12 rebounds, 11 points and 10 assists in an 87-81 Bulls win. He is the only rookie to record a triple-double this season.


http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/hinrich_poy_040409.html

No revisionism please...



> As a high schooler, Kirk participated in the 1998 World Youth Games in Moscow, where he *helped lead the USA to a* perfect 6-0 record and a *gold medal against some very tough international competition*, including Russia, Greece, Belgium and Croatia. “He’d never really been away from home [before the Games],” Nancy notes. “He’d always gone with his dad everywhere, for either basketball or baseball. That really started the growing-up process. But four full years of college also really made him grow up.”
> 
> Hinrich, along with KU running mate Nick Collison, a fellow Jayhawk-turned-NBA-rookie (drafted No. 12 by the Seattle Supersonics), helped make their Kansas team a national force for the past four years. Both Kirk’s and Collison’s contributions didn’t escape the attention of the various committees who handed out postseason college awards: Hinrich was named Third Team All-America by the Associated Press as a senior, after earning Honorable Mention acclaim as a junior; also after his senior year, he was named to the NCAA’s All-Final Four Team, the All-Big 12 Conference First Team, the Big 12 All-Defense Team, and the John R. Wooden All-America Team.
> 
> He was a first-rate dime-dropper at Kansas, finishing his collegiate career third in school history in assists, behind Jacque Vaughn and Cedric Hunter—not to mention third in steals behind Darnell Valentine and Danny Manning. Most impressively, Hinrich’s scoring average improved significantly each year. As a freshman, he scored 5.5 PPG; as a sophomore, 11.5; as a junior, 14.8; and as a senior, 17.3.


http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/hinrich_feature_030827.html



> Chicago Bulls rookie sensation Kirk Hinrich was one of the league’s elite freshman point guards.
> 
> The 6-3, 190-pounder spent the first five games of the season on the Injured List with a viral infection but quickly proved why Chicago drafted him 7th overall. Fighting to gain back his conditioning and the 15 pounds he lost while on the Injured List, *Hinrich averaged 4.1 assists per game and 4.14 turnovers per game through his first 7 appearances.
> 
> Through his final 68 appearances, he averaged an impressive 7.2 apg (486) and limited his mistakes to just 2.56 tpg (174). Hinrich led Chicago in assists in 46 of his last 63 games*, including 27-of-33 contests, and passed a season-high 14 assists versus Boston (02/12). He also tied his then season-high with 23 points (6-8 3FG) against the Celtics that night.


http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/hinrich_rookie_0304.html


I realize you guys miss And1, but this guy we've got has a proven pedigree and track record of turning it up on every level he's played at. A slow start is no reason to start slamming him now...especially when he's got more teammates willing to play team ball that he has to get used to.

It's early. Be chill.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

GB:

It's not about and1, people just need a focus for their agnst. There must be a target to attribute the losing. Skiles will not suffice. Kirk -- like a certain Knick guard -- continues to be a good third option. 

Kirk is being setup to fail through being given too many responsibilities: primary scorer; point guard; primary defender. Of course Hinrich is being worn down. I can understand why Skiles is reluctant to move Deng and Duhon into the starting lineup. Both are so inexperienced that unlimited playing time might hinder their development. But, I feel like I'm watching a player, game by game, lose any sembelence of jib. It's quite sad really. . . At some point in time you have to balance Hinrich's development with that of Deng and Duhon.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!
> GB:
> 
> It's not about and1, people just need a focus for their agnst. There must be a target to attribute the losing.


I really think people miss his flashy form of losing, versus the work your tail off type of losing the Bulls are doing now.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

i think Kirk is being targeted now because we all know he's the teachers pet..

I'm just looking for equality here...

If we can bash Curry, Chandler, Gordon or even Jamal, then why can't we do the same for Kirk...

He's subject to the same criticism


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> I really think people miss his flashy form of losing, versus the work your tail off type of losing the Bulls are doing now.


I for one did not give a damn about how he got it done, but Crawford filled a role last year - a role that Hinrich is having a tough time filling this season. Why do you have to denigrate posters like me by assuming that all we cared about was Crawford's "flashy form," whatever that might be? Personally, I do not like Crawford's style, but for the Bulls it filled a necessary role that allowed players like Hinrich to fill roles that they were better suited for. That is what I cared about. Perhaps it is your extreme distaste for his style that blinded you to the fact that he was doing _a few_ good things.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!
> GB:
> 
> It's not about and1, people just need a focus for their agnst. There must be a target to attribute the losing. Skiles will not suffice. Kirk -- like a certain Knick guard -- continues to be a good third option.
> ...


good points sweet t (may i call you that?)

and the thing is, at the end of the day, hinrich will be _so much harder on himself_ than any coach, fan, reporter or internet armchair quarterback will be.

he will be fine.

this is not to excuse the below average play so far (5 games, people, 5 games)...but he can't change his stripes _overnight_ from having a pass-first mentality to that of a shoot first type. i mean, could ANYONE do that?

it is not time to write his "eugoogoly" quite yet.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

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


Thats funny, thats EXACTLY what Jamal was asked to do last year...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

did jamal ever have a pass first mentality ace?

this has nothing to do with him.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> did jamal ever have a pass first mentality ace?
> 
> this has nothing to do with him.


sure he did, he was averaging around 7 assists a game last season before he was moved off of the ball.

I actually think it has something to do with him because he took a lot of pressure off of Hinrich and he isn't there to do that for him now. I do think in the end though you are right, Hinrich is a trooper and a hard worker and he will be fine eventually.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> sure he did, he was averaging around 7 assists a game last season before he was moved off of the ball.
> ...


agreed. granted. point taken.

:grinning:


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Hinrich just looks uncomfortable on the floor. He is playing with new teammates and his old teammates are poor basketball players. He'll adjust.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

Jamal was the perfect type of player for this team..


A shooter/scorer with great ball handling and passing skills...





Julius Hodge will complete the squad...mark my words


Granted we don't make any dumb trades that set us back yet again..


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

You can look at stats all you want, but when you examine the kind of player Hinrich is and all of his abilities, its really obvious that all he needs to do is find a balance. Skiles isn't helping that. The kid can score, pass and defend at a high level, and his combination of intelligence on the court and athletic ability is among the best in the league for guards. Its just a matter of time, as long as Skiles doesn't continue to poison these guys. There is no reason Hinrich can't be at a Mike Bibby level in a couple years.


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I really think people miss his flashy form of losing, versus the work your tail off type of losing the Bulls are doing now.


Please tell me the difference.. losing is losing no matter how you slice it.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Man, it is apparent what is going on on this board. KH has stunk it up this season. Deng has been better, Curry has been better, Chandler has been better, Nocioni has been better. Why is KH getting the all love, free pass?

It is one thing to love a player but IMO your team/organization should come first. KH has stunk. You want to know why Curry struggles, he is playing with a PG who can't feed the post, has trouble breaking down defenses, and can't shoot worth a lick.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> Man, it is apparent what is going on on this board. KH has stunk it up this season. Deng has been better, Curry has been better, Chandler has been better, Nocioni has been better. Why is KH getting the all love, free pass?
> 
> It is one thing to love a player but IMO your team/organization should come first. KH has stunk. You want to know why Curry struggles, he is playing with a PG who can't feed the post, has trouble breaking down defenses, and can't shoot worth a lick.


MemphisX,

Kirk is getting a lot of negative criticism on this board. Read some more threaads.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Lets trade Hinrich and build a team around Curry that gets him the ball. 

OH I'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Why do you have to denigrate posters like me by assuming that all we cared about was Crawford's "flashy form," whatever that might be? Personally, I do not like Crawford's style


Let's not fight dude...and lets keep away from the nearly personal attacks too...

If the shoe doesn't fit you, then I wasn't talking about you.




> Originally posted by <b>Ace</b>!
> Thats funny, thats EXACTLY what Jamal was asked to do last year...


I doubt anyone thinks that KH will take as long or have as difficult a transition as Jamal made it for himself last season. I'm actually leaning more toward thinking that he's just a slow starter in the season.



> he was averaging around 7 assists a game last season before he was moved off of the ball.


There isn't a more meaningless stat where Jamal is concerned. He's <b>never</b> been an effective floor general and he's <B>never</b> done a good job of setting up and running the offense. And thats been the consensus through 2 GM's and through 3 coaches.



> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> The kid can score, pass and defend at a high level, and his combination of intelligence on the court and athletic ability is among the best in the league for guards. Its just a matter of time, as long as Skiles doesn't continue to poison these guys. There is no reason Hinrich can't be at a Mike Bibby level in a couple years.


Outstanding point. More than they ever would with Jamal, the Bulls would regret letting KH go without getting some real value in return. Just shows you how much some people regard sizzle over substance though.



> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> 
> > Why is KH getting the all love, free pass?
> ...


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

A lot of you folks need to get realistic about Hinrich. I would love to have Hinrich on my team -- as the third guard, a sixth or seventh man. Play a little point against opponents' second teamers and a little SG as need be. That's all he is.

I see all this talk about future all-star, etc. People, Hinrich wouldn't even start for well over half the teams in the NBA (including some pretty bad ones) and wouldn't crack the rotation on some.

Skiles and Paxson have built him up to be something he clearly is not now, or ever.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> Hinrich wouldn't even start for well over half the teams in the NBA (including some pretty bad ones) and wouldn't crack the rotation on some.


Welcome to the sport.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> A lot of you folks need to get realistic about Hinrich. I would love to have Hinrich on my team -- as the third guard, a sixth or seventh man. Play a little point against opponents' second teamers and a little SG as need be. That's all he is.
> 
> I see all this talk about future all-star, etc. People, Hinrich wouldn't even start for well over half the teams in the NBA (including some pretty bad ones) and wouldn't crack the rotation on some.
> ...


Yeah, he isn't nearly as good as Steve Blake.  

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=686512#post686512



> They concluded that they could get Hinrich by taking Blake in the second round. So far, it's impossible to fault that logic.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Jamal Crawford FG%
2004-05: 41.2%
Career: 39.7% 

Kirk Hinrich FG%
2004-05: 34.7%
Career: 38.3%

Jamal Crawford TO/min
2004-05: .066
Career: .068

Kirk Hinrich TO/min
2004-05: .093
Career: .084

Jamal is a more efficient shooter and turns the ball over less.

Good for him!


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

> Yeah, he isn't nearly as good as Steve Blake.


Easy there, sport. On the Wizards, Hinrich would be filling the same role as Steve Blake -- fighting Juan Dixon for back up minutes behind Arenas and Hughes.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Jamal Crawford FG%
> 2004-05: 41.2%
> Career: 39.7%
> ...


Very selective...

And over how many seasons to balance his stats out?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> 
> Easy there, sport. On the Wizards, Hinrich would be filling the same role as Steve Blake -- fighting Juan Dixon for back up minutes behind Arenas and Hughes.
> 
> Thanks for playing.


Vincent Vega is gonna be on this quicker than a first-response haz-mat team showing up at a train derailment. Gangway!


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ShakeTiller</b>!
> Easy there, sport. On the Wizards, Hinrich would be filling the same role as Steve Blake -- fighting Juan Dixon for back up minutes behind Arenas and Hughes.
> 
> Thanks for playing.


says the guy that think Steve Blake is better than Kirk Hinrich.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Very selective...
> ...


You use the term AND1 a lot.

Where in the stats should I be seeing the "AND1" effect?


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

> says the guy that think Steve Blake is better than Kirk Hinrich.


Not better, just more or less the same. Personally, I'd probably take Kirk over Blake as my third guard because he is a better shooter. But I wouldn't get close to taking either of them in the lottery or mistaking either of them for being a franchise player.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> You use the term AND1 a lot.
> ...


It's not a stat dude...it's a philosophy...a way of life...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

shake, just out of curiosity, but did you attend MIZZOU??

literally _every single one of your posts_ on the site has a negativity toward kirk - and while that is WELL within your right - hey it's your opinion - but since you never ever post about anything else, i was just wondering!

thanks.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> You use the term AND1 a lot.
> ...


:laugh: :laugh:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal is a more efficient shooter and turns the ball over less.
> ...


Basing this on the first 5 or 6 games of the season seems a little pointless. But even so, Hinrich is still shooting like 38% on 3-pointers if I'm not mistaken. Doesn't seem to make much sense, but I guess he struggles finishing among the "tall trees" in the lane and thrives when he has more space out by the arc. Even if Hinrich is a less efficient scorer than Crawford, he's a better SHOOTER. As for the turnovers, Crawford barely drives to the basket; Hinrich is constantly doing the drive-and-dish play. That seems simple enough.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Rafer "Skip to my Lou" Alston, who I think actually played on the AND1 tour, actually has been one of the biggest surprises of this early season. He has been the best player on that Raptors' team, a team that has played above expectations despite getting very little out of Vince Carter, Jalen Rose, and Donyell Marshall.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Basing this on the first 5 or 6 games of the season seems a little pointless. But even so, Hinrich is still shooting like 38% on 3-pointers if I'm not mistaken. Doesn't seem to make much sense, but I guess he struggles finishing among the "tall trees" in the lane and thrives when he has more space out by the arc. Even if Hinrich is a less efficient scorer than Crawford, he's a better SHOOTER. As for the turnovers, Crawford barely drives to the basket; Hinrich is constantly doing the drive-and-dish play. That seems simple enough.


Crawford is shooting 41% from three point land this season.  

And anyone who has been watching NY play should be noticing that Crawford is driving to the basket a lot more this season.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Rafer "Skip to my Lou" Alston, who I think actually played on the AND1 tour, actually has been one of the biggest surprises of this early season. He has been the best player on that Raptors' team, a team that has played above expectations despite getting very little out of Vince Carter, Jalen Rose, and Donyell Marshall.


I love the Rafer Alston story. You hear time and time again that guys can't be taught how to shoot. I guess Rafer Alston and Mike Redd and even LeBron James didn't get that memo.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Rafer "Skip to my Lou" Alston, who I think actually played on the AND1 tour, actually has been one of the biggest surprises of this early season. He has been the best player on that Raptors' team, a team that has played above expectations despite getting very little out of Vince Carter, Jalen Rose, and Donyell Marshall.



I'm definatly not surprised


I guess his background didn't scare me off like it did so many other basketball purist


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

my 2nd favorite team houston rockets could use someone like kirk in their lineup.... 

i hpoe the rockets sign chandler in the off season and somewhat steal kirk from the bulls..

kirk
t-mac
jj
chandler
yao

thank you chicago bulls. if u r gonna waste players, blame them how much they suck after a few games. might as well make us rockets a championship contender.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I really think people miss his flashy form of losing, versus the work your tail off type of losing the Bulls are doing now.


So do you honestly believe that last years team didnt work hard and won games but this years team does and cant win one ?

Last years team had injuries to key players and still managed to crank out a 2-3 record before it hit the fan with BC.Are you telling me they did this not even trying ?:laugh: If they were that good then why did the heck did we blow up the team instead of trying to gut it out like the Heat did ?

I dont really have any preference when it comes to losing because Id rather not lose at all.

Also that flashy style youre referring too last year in our 5th game against the magic it was outplaying Tmac IN Orlando to get us that 2nd win so would I rather be flashy and 2-3 or comotose and obedient and be 0-5 hmmmmm ......


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> Basing this on the first 5 or 6 games of the season seems a little pointless. But even so, Hinrich is still shooting like 38% on 3-pointers if I'm not mistaken. Doesn't seem to make much sense, but I guess he struggles finishing among the "tall trees" in the lane and thrives when he has more space out by the arc. Even if Hinrich is a less efficient scorer than Crawford, he's a better SHOOTER. As for the turnovers, Crawford barely drives to the basket; Hinrich is constantly doing the drive-and-dish play. That seems simple enough.


That's why I included career as well! 

A FG attempt is a shot. 

You seem to be arguing that Hinrich has poor shot selection.

I don't have any data to back up your TO argument.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Jamal Crawford FG%
> 2004-05: 41.2%
> Career: 39.7%
> ...


I shouldn't be amazed, but still am: 

How did this thread turn into a Kirk v. Jamal? I'm not singling you out either, there are a couple posters who pushed it in this direction.

The whole point of this thread is that Hinrich, a good young player, is struggling with a new role. He was forced to take up this burdening role because Crawford was traded. If the question is who should play for the Bulls: Jamal or Kirk, *the answer is yes.*

2 years of bickering over a point guard controversy and the answer was always the same. Jwill, Hinirch, Jamal, whomever, add to the team and could play together on the same court. 

Don't you guys see it? It's over. There was never any reason for a controversy .


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

For once, I agree with GB


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>such sweet thunder</b>!
> 
> Don't you guys see it? It's over. There was never any reason for a controversy .


Yeah, I agree w/ you.

Its just when I see posts gleefully ripping on Crawford and forgiving Hinrich for his faults... I just don't get it.

The team would be better off with Crawford on it... and I think we would have at least 1 win with him as our SG, IMO.

Hinrich is struggling because he has a shaky supporting cast and is an average player at this point in his career, IMO. I'm not getting ready to single him out for all of the Bulls woes this season... although I don't think he's been helping much in many games.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Crawford is shooting 41% from three point land this season.
> ...


If he would have done that at all in a Bulls uni, then I would have been all for giving him the $$ he was asking for. But at the cost, I was for moving him and taking our chances on the big Cs and letting the little one go (given Reinsdorf's budget, it was pretty obvious we weren't going to be able to keep all three).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> 
> 
> If he would have done that at all in a Bulls uni, then I would have been all for giving him the $$ he was asking for. But at the cost, I was for moving him and taking our chances on the big Cs and letting the little one go (given Reinsdorf's budget, it was pretty obvious we weren't going to be able to keep all three).


Yeah, he'd have to auction off his 3rd yacht if they kept all three of them


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> The team would be better off with Crawford on it...


I'm quite sure Dengs high ppg is due to the lack of ball-hoggedity, bad, off-balance, ill-advised shots being generated from the SG position.

Nocioni is doing that well enough.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Crawford is shooting 41% from three point land this season.
> ...


5 or 6 games, and his backcourt mate is already ripping the offense...and one New York paper has already ripped him too.

I hope he gets it together. The league is always better when it has a strong team in NY...but relying on him and Tim Thomas to do it...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Honestly, you think we miss Jamal because we hate Kirk and Jamal was "and 1" I for one miss Jamal Crawford because he was a very talented player that could help us win, and we traded him for nothing. When we start getting something in return for a guy, then it will be easier to miss these guys.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> I for one miss Jamal Crawford because he was a very talented player


Then why didn't and don't we have this outpouring of support for:

Michael Jordan
Scottie Pippen
Toni Kukoc
Elton Brand
Brad Miller
Ron Artest


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

one of Hinrich's problems is fouling so much. Hinrich is fourth (second amongst guards) in fouling with 4.6 per game. 

The entire team has a problem with fouling. 28.80 per game! vs 22.6 we give up.

that's a league high +6.20 differential. The next closest is NY with a 4.0 differential.

Too many turnaround jumpers for this club. Do we think we are all jordans?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Then why didn't and don't we have this outpouring of support for:
> ...


For 1, Jamal inspires hate from a certain segment of the basketball fan population.

I miss all those players. 

The reason Crawford sticks out for me is the NOTHING factor.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 5 or 6 games, and his backcourt mate is already ripping the offense...and one New York paper has already ripped him too.
> ...


Just imagine if they had Hinrich, Gordon and Nocioni! 

Oy Vey!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

GB, your obsessive distaste for Crawford is what drives much of the Crawford banter on this board. You were the one who brought him up on this thread with your "I know you guys miss And1" and "flashy form of losing" comments. What is it with you and Crawford? Why are you so obsessed with him?

I have said over and over and over again that I feel that Crawford and Hinrich were equally valuable to the Bulls last season - both were valuable to the Bulls in their own roles. It is silly to praise or denigrate one but not both. And this season the Bulls are still searching for someone to fill Crawford's role and the player who has been hurt the most by Crawford not being here has been Hinrich.

But obviously your distaste for Crawford is not entirely about what he brought the Bulls on the court - it is a disgust with his style of play. I think many find that extreme level of disgust over the top. And that leads to the back and forth banter about Crawford.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

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


Why U Hatin On....

ah.. . nevermind


----------



## jollyoscars (Jul 5, 2003)

why don't we just cut him!? i'd rather have the bulls eat his contract and be on the line for it than put me through the torcher of having to watch him do a poor job of leading the worst team of all time. for the love of the fans pax!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> I have said over and over and over again that I feel that Crawford and Hinrich were equally valuable to the Bulls last season - both were valuable to the Bulls in their own roles. It is silly to praise or denigrate one but not both.


Why is YOUR opinion the CORRECT opinion?

Why are you attacking me personally? Obsessive? I mentioned Jamal in passing, others supplied the wind to the cyclone.


----------



## jollyoscars (Jul 5, 2003)

hinrich will go down as the biggest bust in the history of the bulls franchise. bigger than the signing of e-rob. bigger than the drafting of jay will.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jollyoscars</b>!
> why don't we just cut him!?


Please don't give them any ideas...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Why is YOUR opinion the CORRECT opinion?
> ...


Dan has MUCH credibility as a serious stats guy, I have read his stuff in ESPN and several other publications, he is a respected capologist that knows his stats and he always said that from a statistical standpoint Crawford and Hinrich were pretty equal in terms of productivity. Now, I'm NOT a stat geek, I like to watch players and evaluate their games. Still, I think there has to be some truth to DB's statistical analysis given his background and the fact that he wasn't really biased one way or the other. It just seems like you have a personal loathing for Jamal for some reason.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Why is YOUR opinion the CORRECT opinion?
> 
> Why are you attacking me personally? Obsessive? I mentioned Jamal in passing, others supplied the wind to the cyclone.


My second sentence that you quoted did not come out right. I was just trying to make the point that I am no great fan of Crawford. But GB, it is these mentions in passing that start everything. And you do that all of the time.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Numbers are like bikini's. You can adjust them to be provocative...or you can adjust them to conceal.

It's all up to you.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jollyoscars</b>!
> hinrich will go down as the biggest bust in the history of the bulls franchise. bigger than the signing of e-rob. bigger than the drafting of jay will.


Heck, if he gets no better than he is now, he is about par for the course for where he was picked. I am not sure how he could possibly be a bigger bust than Jay Williams even if he stopped playing right now.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> But GB, it is these mentions in passing that start everything. And you do that all of the time.


Then I suggest a smackdown on the <B>responders</b>.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Numbers are like bikini's. You can adjust them to be provocative...or you can adjust them to conceal.
> 
> It's all up to you.


So are you saying that I devised my entire statistical methodology just to show that Crawford and Hinrich were equally valuable? Do you know how farfetched that is? If Crawford had turned out to have statistics like players that did not help their teams win, then I would have said he was not very valuable to the Bulls. My system has generally given Hinrich a lot more credit than other systems, so are you accusing me of biasing it in favor of him as well?

As a guy who teaches students how to responsibly use statistics, your statements are a really low blow. What you are accusing me of is everything that I teach my students not to do. You in essence are calling me a liar.

Thanks for nothing. :sigh:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> So are you saying that I devised my entire statistical methodology just to show that Crawford and Hinrich were equally valuable. Do you know how farfetched that is? If Crawford had turned out to have statistics like players that did not help their teams win, then I would have said he was not very valuable to the Bulls. My system has generally given Hinrich a lot more credit than other systems, so are you accusing me of biasing it in favor of him as well?
> 
> ...


I respect your statistical analysis Dan. And so do major media outlets so I wouldn't let one disgruntled posters opinion bother you. After all, your still getting paid


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I respect your statistical analysis Dan. And so do major media outlets so I wouldn't let one disgruntled posters opinion bother you. After all, your still getting paid


Thanks for the kind words, but I am not getting paid for my NBA expertise. I get quoted a lot and I have contact with a handful of teams, but other than a short stint consulting with the NBPA and tickets to a couple games, I have never gotten paid for any of my work.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> So are you saying that I devised my entire statistical methodology just to show that Crawford and Hinrich were equally valuable? Do you know how farfetched that is? If Crawford had turned out to have statistics like players that did not help their teams win, then I would have said he was not very valuable to the Bulls. My system has generally given Hinrich a lot more credit than other systems, so are you accusing me of biasing it in favor of him as well?
> 
> ...


Boy did you take that way out of context. It was Chicago to Indianapolis and you went to Orlando.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Thanks for the kind words, but I am not getting paid for my NBA expertise. I get quoted a lot and I have contact with a handful of teams, but other than a short stint consulting with the NBPA and tickets to a couple games, I have never gotten paid for any of my work.


your welcome. I assummed you would be getting paid for your cap and statistical expertise a lot of other capologists and such are. Still, you know your stats and even though stats aren't the alpha and the omega they do mean something.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Can we get back to basketball?

You two can take the touchy-feely to PM.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Boy did you take that way out of context. It was Chicago to Indianapolis and you went to Orlando.


Well then, explain what you did mean when you insinuated that I was "provoking" or "concealing?" In what possible way is that not an insult?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

For what it's worth:

What I said about stats was a takeoff on a badly remember quote. I googled it:

<I>Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.</i>

Same page says:

<I>When you want to lie you come out with statistics.</i>

and

<I>Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.</i>

and

<I>Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything. </i>

and finally:

<I>Three statisticians go deer hunting with bows and arrows. They spot a big buck and take aim. One shoots and his arrow flies off ten feet to the left. The second shoots and his arrow goes ten feet to the right. The third statistician jumps up and down yelling, "We got him! We got him!"</i>

:laugh: 

http://www.najaco.com/literature/quotes/statistics.htm


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> <I>Three statisticians go deer hunting with bows and arrows. They spot a big buck and take aim. One shoots and his arrow flies off ten feet to the left. The second shoots and his arrow goes ten feet to the right. The third statistician jumps up and down yelling, "We got him! We got him!"</i>


I like that one!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*"Stats," Hinrich theorized, "are like a bikini. They show some things but they don't show it all."*






http://www.kusports.com/news/archive/story/82783


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> *"Stats," Hinrich theorized, "are like a bikini. They show some things but they don't show it all."*
> 
> http://www.kusports.com/news/archive/story/82783


Awesome!!

:laugh: 

I feel a blizzard of new tables and charts coming on to show that Kalid El-Amin was and will always be a better PG than KH. :yes: 


Dan...it's all in good fun. No one is trying to insult you, ok?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> For what it's worth:
> 
> What I said about stats was a takeoff on a badly remember quote. I googled it:
> ...


And each of those jokes, except the last one, accuse the statistician of purposely trying to mislead people. (The last joke is even funnier if you have a deep understanding of statistics.)

I don't care that you got these jokes from a web-site, but the fact that you used them as an argument against paying attention to statistics furthers my point. It suggests that I am purposely trying to mislead people with my statistical analysis. Advocates do that all of the time and for that reason give those of us who do our best to objectively analyze statistics a bad name. Since the kind of statistical analysis that is done by advocates is against everything in my being, your argument is very insulting to me.

We have had this discussion several times before, so I think it is disingenous for you to pass this all off as one big joke.

But again, what was the point you were trying to make in the first place?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

awww, c'mon dan. can't we all be friends? 

gb wasn't trying to insult, i don't think. not my take anyway. just being his usual smartass self.

oh, and gb - you are most welcome!!



 :laugh:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> It suggests that I am purposely trying to mislead people with my statistical analysis.


Dude, I think you're acting...a little sensitive here.

I'm just saying stats aren't the end and be all of analysis, just as another quote, not a joke, I saw said:

<I>When evaluating a model, at least two broad standards are relevant. One is whether the model is consistent with the data. The other is whether the model is consistent with the 'real world.'</i>
http://home.earthlink.net/~posner/quotes_s.html

I've said my piece in the response to Miz. If you don't accept it, then put me on your ignore list and move on. If you do, then lets move on. In any case...lets move on.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> awww, c'mon dan. can't we all be friends?
> 
> gb wasn't trying to insult, i don't think. not my take anyway. just being his usual smartass self.
> ...


When you've made it clear to someone you don't like or appreciate what they're saying to you, and yet they keep saying it, then that person is being insulting and disrespectful. 

It's really just a matter of courtesy for others. If someone makes clear they don't appreciate your "attempts at humor" at their expense, it's rude and harrassing to keep it up.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> When you've made it clear to someone you don't like or appreciate what they're saying to you, and yet they keep saying it, then that person is being insulting and disrespectful.
> ...


why are you telling *me* this? what did i do?

oh nevermind. go bulls. sheesh.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Edited: MikeDC 

kirk is doing poorly , in pretty much every facet of the game, does he look at kirk and any factors concering this ...no , he questions posters for doing so , and then tries to blurry the issue by turning it to an argument between kirk and a guy who plays currently on the knicks.

its nothing new .

Dan will bring up a few stats and because they dont fit GB's way of thinking obviously something must be wrong with Dan and his stats , just discrediting the whole thing , i doubt very much he was saying Dan Rosenbaum a liar , its just his method of operation.

Edited: No need to attack other posters this way. If you are correct, the facts will speak for themselves. MikeDC 

"playing the right way " or "kirk's a hard worker "  , "and1" are just his catch phrases to run away from the real things concerning our team and attempting to push his own IMO, warped agenda.

Dan , you know who you are talking to , I wouldn't take it as seriously as you are taking it, if you weren't a statistician he would have had the same responce , it wasn't personal .

its just him.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> why are you telling *me* this? what did i do?
> ...


I was just pointing out why Dan probably doesn't find the appreciation you do.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I was asked a question here:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1650010#post1650010

I posted a response, I posted my take on Stats(http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1650084#post1650084), I made it clear no insult was intended (http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1650065#post1650065).

IOW--I answered his question and his concerns.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> kirk is doing poorly , in pretty much every facet of the game,


15 ppg, 6 assists a game.

He needs to be more efficient by shooting a higher percentage, and he needs to adjust to the refs new view of defense.

I don't think he's doing poorly in every facet of the game.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Hinrich is shooting poorly, and has been too passive in the past three games. You can tell that he is probably holding back after that big shooting game. 

You can look at the turnover average, but you should also look at the trend. In the first two games, he turned it over 12 times combined. In the past three games, only 5 times combined. He is still passing equally as well also. 

He just has to find a balance between being a scorer and being a passer. I'm confident in his ability to evaluate his flaws and find his place on the team, in the game and in the league.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 15 ppg, 6 assists a game.
> ...


for someone who spent so much time discrediting stats , you were pretty quick to pull them up.

getting numbers and not efficiency was one of the "supposed beefs " you had with a former bulls player who is now a knick (not JYD) and kirk is far less efficient in putting up these stats than that player, yet you seemingly have no problem with it .


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> 15 ppg, 6 assists a game.
> ...


"There's statisticians, and there's damn liars." I think you can attribute that quote to Mark Twain.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> "There's statisticians, and there's damn liars." I think you can attribute that quote to Mark Twain.


I think thats a paraphrase. I believe the quote is, "there are lies. damn lies, and then there are statistics."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Not that I have any intention of discrediting Dan or his statistics. Far from it. They're well reasoned and quite interesting.

What the stats don't show, and Dan has often mentioned this, is that the stats don't and can't describe the benefits of having a consistent scorer, rebounder, assist man, or whatever. 

What Rose gave us, and then Crawford gave us, was THE GUY you could count on to score 20 points every night, or take the last second shot in a quarter (or game), or be counted on to carry a team for a quarter (particularly Q4), or a real threat to score 30+ (or even 50+) on any given night.

I agree with Dan that both Hinrich and Crawford played pivotal roles on the team last season, and were important contributors in their own ways. 

What's actually happened over the past two seasons is we had a guy, Rose, that teams focused their defenses on. Then we had Crawford. Then we have Hinrich. Successively, the guy on our team who was subjected to this defensive attention has performed worse (Crawford worse than Rose) and worse (Hinrich worse than Crawford).


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> for someone who spent so much time discrediting stats , you were pretty quick to pull them up.
> .


I'm not even fighting this fight anymore.

Theres a difference, and thats all I'm saying.


----------

