# It would never happen for reasons nothing to do why it should happen..BUT..



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Kirk Hinrich should be dealt for Andre Igoudala

We have secured Duhon ..he's our point 

Igoudala starts at the 2 ..has some handle 

Gordon stays from the bench as our knock out counter puncher 

In time as Ben's defense , consistency and turnovers get under control.. the co-handle of Igoudala and his defensive orientation complements Gordon's offensive orientation as a knock out guard combo

Duhon is pure point guard from the bench

Gordon and Igoudala. 

A future to consider

From Philly's POV.. Hinrich as a handler enables Iverson to play more his traditional role and with his capacity to handle it in isolation as well it enables Hinrich to play more off the ball as a run and catch shooter in the open spot - to which I think he is better suited.

With Webber still one of the best passing big men from the post in the league and the amount of heat that Korver gets because of his shooting skills and with Iverson also being closely marked.. I think the Sixers would not lose at all with Hinrich's defense but they would gain more , if they could co-ordinate their scheme , by having a second shooter to Korver ( who is more spot up as opposed to Hinrich who I agree with ScottMay in what he brought up in another thread - that Hinrich may be better suited to a screen / curl running Reggie / Rip style type of shooter )

Combine that with his transition skills on the break with Iverson and athletes like Hunter and Dalembert to mop up the garbage and I think could be a pretty nice trade for the Sixers as well as being a pretty nice trade for us 

Kirk was/is our symbol that we use/used to change the culture of this place but we also now have Duhon, Deng , Nocioni and Chandler that are the embodiment of those same things that management saw in Kirk the season before last and why he was chosen as the organisations poster boy in changing a culture that needed to be changed

Mission accomplished 

We have other assets now and he is a tradeable commodity that should be dealt if the opportunity arose to balance up our guard attack

A Hinrich for Igoudala swap does that IMO 

*

Curry
Chandler
Deng
Igoudala
Duhon

bench

Davis
Harrington
Nocioni
Basden
Gordon

M.Allen ( assuming no amnesty additions )
Griffin
Piatowski
Pargo

*

Its now showfriends its showbusiness .. are you in or out ( could not resist the cheesy Bob Sugar bi line )


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

If we wanted Iguodala, we could have had him in last years draft. Duhon is good, but he played like 25 minutes per game last year. Trading away Hinrich would essentially be thrusting Duhon into a 40 minute per night role, because nobody else on the team can handle point guard duties without becoming a wreck and turning the ball over a bunch. Iguodala and Gordon are good ball handlers for shooting guards, but at the point they'd get eaten up. 

How much better is Iguodala at guarding shooting guards than Hinrich? Probably a decent margin, but Hinrich was one of the best defenders in the league on shooting guards so it's not really a problem. Then throw in the fact that Hinrich can run the point full time without a problem, and Iguodala isn't close to being able to do that. Hinrich is more versatile than Iguodala, and that is valuable on a team with a bunch of one dimensional players (Gordon, Duhon, Curry, Chandler).


----------



## Thorgal (Feb 1, 2003)

Kirk is pretty good on the defense. 

But hey - we are talking about All-Defensive 1st Team in a year or two with Iggy (who by that time would score 13-15ppg too).

I'd seriously consider it.

But only if Ben is ready to be a starter.

Because we would have B I G problems with scoring with the backourt of Iggy & Duhon. There's no way they can play together, unless Luol Deng would become 18-20ppg scorer _this_ autumn, which probably is not going to happen.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If we wanted Iguodala, we could have had him in last years draft. Duhon is good, but he played like 25 minutes per game last year. Trading away Hinrich would essentially be thrusting Duhon into a 40 minute per night role, because nobody else on the team can handle point guard duties without becoming a wreck and turning the ball over a bunch. Iguodala and Gordon are good ball handlers for shooting guards, but at the point they'd get eaten up.


Duhon is easily a 30 to 35 mpg player and I am assuming we would resign Jannero Pargo who is a more than capable back up

If you were still concerned .. you could include the trade to include Piatowski for Ollie.

Only problem with that is that Ollie has one more year left on his contract at $3M

But Ollie is good jib guy

I don't think $6.5M invested across 3 points is a problem ( Duhon, Pargo and Ollie )


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Thorgal said:


> Kirk is pretty good on the defense.
> 
> Because we would have B I G problems with scoring with the backourt of Iggy & Duhon. There's no way they can play together


Disagree

I think a pure point guard like Duhon feeding a slasher like Igoudala who can finish at the rim like nobody's business is a nice combination



> unless Luol Deng would become 18-20ppg scorer _this_ autumn, which probably is not going to happen.


Who knows 

I would not be prepared to back it out


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If we wanted Iguodala, we could have had him in last years draft.


Yeah..

Deng was projected to go higher and was probably worthy of the #3 pick 

And we could have picked him ( Igoudala ) at #7

But as is always the case in the draft no one knew how good anyone was going to be until the came in and showed what they got 

We knew Jamal was getting shipped out and we knew we had Kirk obviously

The thinking was maybe that the Bulls were acquiring an asset when they drafted Gordon

But getting lucky with Duhon and the ability to put depth behind him and also getting very lucky with Deng and especially Gordon who , in isolation , was the catalyst one could argue.....

It certainly does give thought for pause in assessing your assets and looking at reshuffling the deck for better balance..now and in the long term


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Do it, do it!!!!!!!!!! Then sign J-Will.

PG-Chris Duhon/Ben Gordon/J-Will
SG-Andre Iguodala/Ben Gordon/Eddie Basden
SF-Luol Deng/Andres Nocioni
PF-Tyson Chandler/Othella Harrington
C- Eddy Curry/Antonio Davis/Jared Reiner


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hey King, this is THE best trade suggestion you've done in my book. Well stated, and it really is a terrific move for both teams.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I realize how many people are billing Iguodala as a future star. But I've seen the guy play, and honestly I'm just not that impressed. Don't get me wrong, the kid is a top notch athlete. And he has *some* nice skills to boot, which I think will make him a career-long starter as a 2-guard. But seriously, I don't project him any better than Doug Christie (which I think is the most valid comparison to make for Iggy). Great defender, excellent finisher, good ballhandler and passer, average to below average shooter...a solid player no doubt. But no way he becomes a star IMO, not the way some are billing him to be. 

With that said, I think Hinrich for Iguodala is a pretty fair deal. I just don't see how it helps the Bulls all that much. It leaves us with only 1 true PG, and if Duhon is hurt or not playing well, it means we're relying on either Gordon or a 3rd string scrub to handle the point. I'd rather have Hinrich for now. But not a bad idea, SausageKing.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Hey King, this is THE best trade suggestion you've done in my book. Well stated, and it really is a terrific move for both teams.


Yeah ..Ta

I even kept the uhaul charges down on this one

I would be inclined to expand it with Pike for Ollie however


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Yeah ..Ta
> 
> I even kept the uhaul charges down on this one
> 
> I would be inclined to expand it with Pike for Ollie however


If Du plays 36 minutes/game, then all you'd need is gordon to play 12. At PG. It would work just fine.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Philly wouldn't TRADE igoudala ANYWAY

he's about to be a star


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> If Du plays 36 minutes/game, then all you'd need is gordon to play 12. At PG. It would work just fine.


And Pargo too..Ollie is just extra insurance/depth and only eats $3M of space for 1 more year than Pike


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

1. duhon is overrated. no offense to speak of. mr. whopping 6 ppg. was rarely on the floor for the bulls at the end of games and that speaks volumes. 

2. pargo sucks as a defender. shot chucker extraordinare. 3rd string for a reason. 

3. sixers not about to trade iggy. sorry, just won't happen. nope. sorry. 

4. ben isn't ready to play PG. not his natural position. talk about fitting a square peg into a round hole. 

5. this deal doesn't help the bulls, as yodurk stated, and we have deng.

6. maybe someday kirk will play on a team whose "fans" appreciate all he brings to the game. everynight. maybe it will be the bulls. i hope it is.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> And Pargo too..Ollie is just extra insurance/depth and only eats $3M of space for 1 more year than Pike


I got that, but I suspect Pax can find a 4th string PG on the scrap heap for less than an extra year at $3M. Not that I don't like Ollie just fine...


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I got that, but I suspect Pax can find a 4th string PG on the scrap heap for less than an extra year at $3M. Not that I don't like Ollie just fine...


True..

So what has Mike Wilks beeen up to over the summer


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> True..
> 
> So what has Mike Wilks beeen up to over the summer


I hear Tim Hardaway is ready to go.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> True..
> 
> So what has Mike Wilks beeen up to over the summer


It bothered me that the Bulls wasted a lot of last year's training camp/preseason answering the vexed question of who would be their 15th man, Reiner or Wilks.

But if they were so bold as to conduct round 2 this year, I would actually have to salute their chutzpah. Proactive, indeed.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> 1. duhon is overrated. no offense to speak of. mr. whopping 6 ppg. was rarely on the floor for the bulls at the end of games and that speaks volumes.
> 
> 2. pargo sucks as a defender. shot chucker extraordinare. 3rd string for a reason.
> 
> ...



I felt pretty strongly about this post so I thought I would reply to this.

1. Sort of agree. 
2. Agree
3. Agree
4. Strongly Agree
5. Disagree regarding Deng. Iggy is a 2, maybe a point forward. Nothing to do with Deng who is a 3
6. Strongly Agree/Strongly Disagree

Now number 6 is what I wanted to focus on. Kirk, I felt, was underrated by the majority for his efforts last season. I thought he was very good and a near all star. As I stated on another thread, he would be a terrific player if he could just get his FG% round 44%. I thought he was a pure shooter coming out of school and that just hasnt been the case but the mechanics are there. 

Now where I disagree is that he isnt appreciated. 2 seasons ago he had everyone, and I mean everyone, giving him what I considered an obscene amount of credit for what was a train wreck of a season. He was out of position at the 1 and over handled the ball as bad as I have seen out of a PG this side of Travis Best in a dozen years. Sure the effort was there but it wasnt particularly useful to W/L's. Skiles basically would have given him head if Kirk asked for it as well so he clearly was appreciated. Though I do agree that has come down. Its probably cause Ben was so tremendous in the 4th quarters this year. Ben was strong where Kirk wasnt, at the end, and Kirk was strong where Ben wasnt, keeping games close to the 4th. 

Now would I do this trade? I dont know. I think Kirk has found his position, and that is clearly off the ball. As I stated, I think he has the stroke, but just hasnt found it yet. If he gets that % up to the mid 40s he will spread defenses. He is an unselfish player who can bring aspects of the PG position to an off the ball role, therefore showing off his versatility. Igoudala, inspite of what that ******* Lute Olsen said, was clearly ready for the big time and showed off a wide range of skills. Yes, he will be all world defense (no comparison to the gritty Kirk I am afraid), he has the ability to finish around the basket with power and to get there as well. He can run the point for you with Ben in the game which would be huge. But his lack of range/shot does scare me and I tend to favor teams who can spread the ball out. At the end, if I was 100% comfortable with Igoudalas ability to be the primary handler (forget the PG position label for a second) I would probably do the trade so you can highlight Gordon more. But until that is 100% proven I do think Kirk has the better total floor game. Regardless, its an intriguing idea, though I have a hard time figuring out why Philly would do the trade. They have the same problem the Bulls have. They are trying to match up a big guard to cover for their midget 2 guard. And there isnt that many guards out there who can set up a Ben or Iverson at the 6-5 size. Thats why I think it would be easier to match up a guard with Hinrich then Ben. And though I think Hinrich has a better total game then Ben, its hard to compare the 2. One guy does everything well, but nothing great. One guy does something great and alot of things so/so. But that one great thing the guy can do is something few can bring so it becomes a bit of a conundrum. Either way, one of Ben or Hinrich will go in 2 seasons. I dont think there is any way on earth they can co-exist for 30 minutes a night. I think if it were any other team in the league, Ben would stay. But because of Skiles and to a lesser degree Pax, I do believe Kirk is the guy they would rather keep. Either way, the Bulls have a heck of a guard. 

But hey, I am just waiting til Pietrus goes FA with the hope the Bulls get him. Cause he actually helps both guys because he can flat out defend 2 or 3 spots in the NBA.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

rlucas

my comment about kirk not being appreciated was a bit of an aimed barb. not at skiles or pax or anyone on the team. nor at the majority of the fanbase. nor at most of the posters here. _just at one person in particular._ (but not you!) guess i was just a little incredulous that the combo of duhon/pargo/scrub would be thought to be adequate enough to make people think this proposed deal was a good thing at all for the team. it wouldn't be. 

we had our chance to get iggy. he's gonna be real good. but deng will be better and the addition of iggy wouldn't off-set the loss of kirk, imo. duhon is not really a prime-time PG if you know what i mean. i know there continues to be some disagreement as to kirk's true position. i think he is a combo guard. yes, chris is a better pure point. but he can't score. and ben can't run a team. we need kirk. at least for now. 

oh and welcome back. 



miz


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> rlucas
> 
> my comment about kirk not being appreciated was a bit of an aimed barb. not at skiles or pax or anyone on the team. nor at the majority of the fanbase. nor at most of the posters here. _just at one person in particular._ guess i was just a little incredulous that the combo of duhon/pargo/scrub would be thought to be adequate enough to make people think this proposed deal was a good thing at all for the team. it wouldn't be.
> 
> ...



Thanks

And I agree. I think the Bulls need Kirk because he really, along with Chandler, is the only guy who can play multiple spots effectively. If he gets his FG% into the mid 40s then he will be an allstar.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> *
> 
> Curry
> Chandler
> ...


That starting line-up would be zoned to death and none of those players are particularly good at creating off their dribble. It's a horrible trade, really.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I actually think Gordon for Iguodala would be a better trade. Hinrich-Iguodala-Deng-Chandler-Curry would be simply ridiculous on the defensive end. With Iguodala matching up with the other teams elite perimeter player, Hinrich and Deng wouldn't have to shoulder so much of the load on defense, and could focus on the offensive game that both of them undoubtedly possess. Then you have Chandler and Curry down low. 

It's a shame that we could have had Iguodala in the draft too. I wanted the Bulls to pick both Deng and Iguodala, and still think it would be a very good fit. I guess Paxson and Skiles figure that a good 6th man feeds the concept of balance and depth, which is more important than getting a legitimate starter into the lineup at the shooting guard.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I actually think Gordon for Iguodala would be a better trade. Hinrich-Iguodala-Deng-Chandler-Curry would be simply ridiculous on the defensive end. With Iguodala matching up with the other teams elite perimeter player, Hinrich and Deng wouldn't have to shoulder so much of the load on defense, and could focus on the offensive game that both of them undoubtedly possess. Then you have Chandler and Curry down low.
> 
> It's a shame that we could have had Iguodala in the draft too. I wanted the Bulls to pick both Deng and Iguodala, and still think it would be a very good fit. I guess Paxson and Skiles figure that a good 6th man feeds the concept of balance and depth, which is more important than getting a legitimate starter into the lineup at the shooting guard.


They might think that now but does Ben think that? I also have a hard time believing that Pax and Skiles drafted Gordon thinking of him as a 6th man. But maybe they did. But to go with a bench player at 3 doesnt make sense to me.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

Its pointless to debate this because Philly wouldn't do it. Iguodala will be at least an All Star caliber player. His development has been hindered by AI's presence on the team. I think Philly's problem isn't the lack of talent around AI, but AI himself.






So maybe AI for Hinrich then....







:laugh:


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> 6. maybe someday kirk will play on a team whose "fans" appreciate all he brings to the game. everynight. maybe it will be the bulls. i hope it is.


Hinrich is loved and hated. He has people who understand all he does on the court and how much responsibility he has on this team, then you have the people who swear he is overrated and easily replacable. Certainly Hinrich for Iguodala isn't that out of line. If a thread was made about Gordon for Iguodala or Curry for Iguodala, it wouldn't be out of line and those guys aren't that much worse than Hinrich. 

I just think it's addressing an overblown problem, and that is defense on shooting guards. We were one of the 5 best teams at guarding shooting guards. Sure we need some help, but that's what adding a guy like Basden to the rotation does for you. 

Additionally, it would create a problem that many people are overlooking, ball handling. Some people might think Duhon is the 2nd coming of John Stockton, but he is a backup point guard as much as he is a starting point guard. He straddles that line. The fact that he would be the only guy on our team who could bring the ball up consistently without turning the ball over at a rate higher than all but a few guys in the league would be a disaster. And it only confirms the huge nay on this trade when people talk about Jannero Pargo being a reliable point guard. That guy is a chucker who is only decent when the horrible shots he takes are falling. He isn't a good defender either.

Then as someone mentioned, Duhon-Iggy-Deng-Chandler-Curry is a terrible shooting lineup. Deng would be our best outside shooter. 

Hinrich scored 16 a game, just like Gordon, and shot it at a whole 1% worse. Yet Gordon is praised for his scoring ability and Hinrich is crucified for his pathetic field goal percentage. That's fine with me though, it just tells me where the expectations lie. People have higher expectations from Hinrich, because he is the better player. 

Basically, it just comes down to people not understanding how much responsibility Hinrich has and how much he does for the team. It's cool though, because Paxson and Skiles understand this stuff, so I know a Hinrich trade wouldn't happen unless someone who could shoulder just as much, if not more responsibility was being sent back in return.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> SausageKingofChicago said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


The only difference between Curry/Chandler/Deng/Iggy/Duhon and Curry/Chandler/Deng/Hinrich/Duhon is that Iggy shoots .493 and .331 3PT while Kirk shoots .397 and .355 3PT. I'd rather zone the .397 shooter than the .493 one.

:whoknows:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> The only difference between Curry/Chandler/Deng/Iggy/Duhon and Curry/Chandler/Deng/Hinrich/Duhon is that Iggy shoots .493 and .331 3PT while Kirk shoots .397 and .355 3PT. I'd rather zone the .397 shooter than the .493 one.
> 
> :whoknows:


Great point, I had no idea that Iggy was such a good 3 point shooter.

My first thought after I read your post was that Kirk shoots a lot more 3 pointers and had an eFG% at least as good as Iggy's. Damn, was I ever wrong.

Iggy .536
Kirk .461

Now I'm quite sure that Iggy's higher FG% is a result of having many more dunks than Kirk... but I fail to see how having more dunks is a bad thing?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> rlucas
> 
> my comment about kirk not being appreciated was a bit of an aimed barb. not at skiles or pax or anyone on the team. nor at the majority of the fanbase. nor at most of the posters here. _just at one person in particular._


Don't hide under deep subtelty that no one can read in your intended inference 

If you have ish's with an individual then be person enough to let them know 



> I was just a little incredulous that the combo of duhon/pargo/scrub would be thought to be adequate enough to make people think this proposed deal was a good thing at all for the team. it wouldn't be.


In your opinion..which is all peaches . 

I like Kirk . I really do. Nice player. Good guy and a good organisational soldier

Fact is is that Hinrich was a chief point in his rook year and up until our zip 9 start.

Duhon came in and we began to hum better . Chris Duhon is a better pure point guard than Kirk Hinrich and that's no diss on Kirk Hinrich. The organisation that loves his azz only second to yourself of course feels the same way - evidenced by the adjustments they made last season.

Fact is , given his distribution and defense , like him or not , brand name or no brand name , GQ or non GQ , symbol or no symbol... Chris Duhon was the starting point guard on the 3rd best team in the East last year and was a large part of the reason why we turned it around 

Consequently , I have difficulty accepting personal bias's over specific player love in the discussion when it is clear that the former ( Chris Duhon ) is our starting point guard and is at least a legit 30mpg to 33mpg guy.

You don't have to like it but he will be playing those types of minutes this year as our starting point guard. Its just a fact.

Personally , I would be more than happy in entrusting the balance 15mpg to 18mpg of point guard up for grabs between to Ben Gordon , Jannero Pargo and a vet back up ..given the capacity for Igoudala to also handle and create

I think with 4 different options right there is 15 to 18 mpg per night we should be OK

But that's me and this risque strategy belies the devil may care maverick gambler that lies within

As much as their are aspects to Kirk's game that I truly rate ..I do have legit concern as to his ability to finish at the bucket. 

Given the shooting in what we have in Gordon and Pargo , as a matter of preference and balance , I would rather someone else who is superior to finishing at the hole 

And with a pure point like Duhon and simple pick and roll plays I think a cutter / finisher like Igoudala works better



> yes, chris is a better pure point. but he can't score. and ben can't run a team.


Dun runs the show 

Ben scores off the dribble or from deep

Igoudala is our slasher/finisher

Pargo is a steady point who doesn't turn it over much and can get hot ala Ben Lite 

Basden iand Griffin are role defenders . 

Piatowski is the spot up shooter

If we have another vet back up who is in the mould of a pure point what are we actually missing in our back court rotation?

Last question was meant to be rhetorical but if you feel compelled to answer then naturally this is your choice


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

And one final word on Kirk ..

I think the perfect team for him is either the Lakers or Kings ..or any team that has big men that can pass the ball/reverse it on the weakside where you have a quick strong guard like Hinrich that can fight through screens and run curls for the delivery on a catch and shoot J

This is where I think he is at his best .. and also for that team to run a lot of transition where I think he's awesome

We don't have passing big men or play an offensive style that I think is going to be majorly conjucive to where I think he's best at 

That's why I liked him on the Sixers with a pure post guy like Webber who can pass from the post like there's no tomorrow 

Get Hinrich on a team like that and I think he would bump up a few notches


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

There's nothing insulting to Hinrich when you talk about trading him for a guy like Iggy. We're talking about trading for a guy who has superduperstar written all over him. It's not like we're talking about trading him for Cap Space quality players (which might happen anyhow).

Hey king, question for ya.

When it's Kirk's time to be RFA, do you think Paxson will drag his feet and posture on the price, talk about his low FG% in the press, etc?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> There's nothing insulting to Hinrich when you talk about trading him for a guy like Iggy. We're talking about trading for a guy who has superduperstar written all over him. It's not like we're talking about trading him for Cap Space quality players (which might happen anyhow).
> 
> Hey king, question for ya.
> 
> *When it's Kirk's time to be RFA, do you think Paxson will drag his feet and posture on the price, talk about his low FG% in the press, etc?*


If Kirk and his agent are asking for the max or near-max, I have no doubt that Pax will do exactly what you suggest.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> If Kirk and his agent are asking for the max or near-max, I have no doubt that Pax will do exactly what you suggest.


Thanks, KING bullsville.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Thanks, KING bullsville.


You're very welcome.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Don't hide under deep subtelty that no one can read in your intended inference
> 
> If you have ish's with an individual then be person enough to let them know
> 
> ...



*1. duhon is overrated. no offense to speak of. mr. whopping 6 ppg. was rarely on the floor for the bulls at the end of games and that speaks volumes. *

this is my opinion. yes, he started. but when did he ever finish?

*2. pargo sucks as a defender. shot chucker extraordinare. 3rd string for a reason. *

this is my opinion. he sucks. yes, he can light it up but he can't defend his way out of a paper bag. 

*3. sixers not about to trade iggy. sorry, just won't happen. nope. sorry.* 

this is my opinion. don't ya just love message boards? 

*4. ben isn't ready to play PG. not his natural position. talk about fitting a square peg into a round hole.* 

he is a shooting guard. this is my opinion.

*5. this deal doesn't help the bulls, as yodurk stated, and we have deng.*

this is my opinion. i know rlucas thinks of iggy as a 2 - but i think iggy and deng are redundant. 

*6. maybe someday kirk will play on a team whose "fans" appreciate all he brings to the game. everynight. maybe it will be the bulls. i hope it is.*

actually, this was directed at *dabullz* who has never been able to really hide his contempt for kirk, kirk's game, what kirk represents, why kirk is on the team and not jamal. his unbridled enthusiasm whenever a kirk trade is suggested allows these feelings to become transparent. his tireless delight at pointing out kirk's flaws is almost pathalogical. 

i am not going to talk about kirk's rookie campaign, because the team then and the team last year is like talking apples and oranges. can't really compare them. 

kirk running the show at the beginning of the 04-05 season and having the 0-9 start had much less to do with him, or the magical skills of duhon at the point than it did to the fact that these guys were all still new to each other and adjusting to each other and skiles and for three of the core (ben, luol and nocioni), to the league itself. i know pax considers duhon part of the core, but honestly, i just think he is being polite!

listen, kirk is not a superstar, but i think pax has a plan. and the plan doesn't include trading kirk. i think our superstar will be a front court player. i think somehow our superstar will be had in a deadline trade this season. i think our superstar will be.....KG.

as to this season, not having kirk and having to _rely soley on duhon/pargo(scrub)/scrub_ is really not a good plan in my opinion.


have a nice day.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> When it's Kirk's time to be RFA, do you think Paxson will drag his feet and posture on the price, talk about his low FG% in the press, etc?


of course, god forbid, kirk actually improves this, and by the time he is RFA it's not an issue.

what then? how will you sleep at night? 

you know, now that duhon is making more money than kirk (this season) do you expect duhon to match or better kirk statistically? then he'll need to get his FG% up quite considerably. and his PPG. and his assists. and his RPG. 

you guys kill me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hey miz,

When it's Kirk's time for a contract, either the Bulls "love Kirks azz" like King says, or they're going to put the screws to him like they have everyone else. It's a fair question.

As for THIS trade suggestion, it is to me what I said it is. One of King's BEST suggestions ever, if not the best ever.

As for Kirk, he's found his best fit here at SG, like it or not. You can trash talk Duhon all you like, but it sure looks to a lot of people that Du's point guard play had a huge effect in terms of the team's record. The same argument can be made for Kirk at SG.

And, FWIW, I have less problem with Hinrich than I do with the attitude of people who ride his jock like he was the 2nd coming.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The only difference between Curry/Chandler/Deng/Iggy/Duhon and Curry/Chandler/Deng/Hinrich/Duhon is that Iggy shoots .493 and .331 3PT while Kirk shoots .397 and .355 3PT. I'd rather zone the .397 shooter than the .493 one.
> 
> :whoknows:


Based on their teammates and their respective team roles, who do you think takes easier and more wide open shots?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Hey miz,
> 
> When it's Kirk's time for a contract, either the Bulls "love Kirks azz" like King says, or they're going to put the screws to him like they have everyone else. It's a fair question.
> 
> ...



i think kirk is a combo guard and do not peg him into the specific PG/SG role like some do. i know skiles thinks of him as a combo guard. 

i think the bulls record last year was more _a result of how many games we won in the FOURTH QUARTER_ and less a result of who started said games. duhon was rarely on the floor in the final minutes of games. for a reason. 

i don't think kirk is the second coming. i've said i don't think he is a superstar. just a very solid player who has a MUCH better all around game than ANY of the current guards on the team. including gordon, duhon, pargo, pike et al. 

if i'm riding kirk's jock and you are riding duhon's - what's the difference?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> The only difference between Curry/Chandler/Deng/Iggy/Duhon and Curry/Chandler/Deng/Hinrich/Duhon is that Iggy shoots .493 and .331 3PT while Kirk shoots .397 and .355 3PT. I'd rather zone the .397 shooter than the .493 one.
> 
> :whoknows:


Amazing, really.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Fact is is that Hinrich was a chief point in his rook year and up until our zip 9 start.
> 
> Duhon came in and we began to hum better . Chris Duhon is a better pure point guard than Kirk Hinrich and that's no diss on Kirk Hinrich. The organisation that loves his azz only second to yourself of course feels the same way - evidenced by the adjustments they made last season.
> 
> Fact is , given his distribution and defense , like him or not , brand name or no brand name , GQ or non GQ , symbol or no symbol... Chris Duhon was the starting point guard on the 3rd best team in the East last year and was a large part of the reason why we turned it around


The fact that Ben Gordon was not prepared for a starting role last year, and that the coaches figured this out after the first nine games, has nothing to do with this sentiment? Ben worked best as our 2nd- and 4th-quarter stick of dynamite, not as a guy who tried to project his abilities for four straight quarters. The coaches realized this, stuck Duhon into the starting lineup, created a scheme where most of our damage would be done in the 2nd and 4th quarters with Ben in the lineup and the other team's 2nd units and/or tired starters, and *POOF* we win games.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

Wow I didn't even think this thread would reach 5 posts, I sort of assumed it was a joke from the very beginning. I guess I was completely unaware that Iggy was on the verge of being this "great superstar NBA player", and that Duhon was "the reason" the Bulls turned their season around. I wonder how I missed all of this? It's amazing how quickly people begin to forget what's reality and whats not, such a shame.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i think kirk is a combo guard and do not peg him into the specific PG/SG role like some do. i know skiles thinks of him as a combo guard.
> 
> i think the bulls record last year was more _a result of how many games we won in the FOURTH QUARTER_ and less a result of who started said games. duhon was rarely on the floor in the final minutes of games. for a reason.
> 
> ...


I'm not a giant fan of Duhon. I look at the stats and see all the things everyone else does. And I look at the W/L record and realize there's something beyond the stats.

When you look at teams over the past 10 or 15 years, the big turnaround ones (like the Bulls) have something in common. The addition of a ballhandler. It appears to be true for Duhon and the bulls, too (but not for Hinrich the season before...)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/kelly_dwyer/07/06/offseason/2.html



> One theme that seems to link each of the most improved teams on this list is the presence of an improved ball-handler. Look down the list: Nash, Miller, Arenas (who started 52 more games in '02-03 than in the previous season), Kidd, *Jeff McInnis* (who started 71 more games and had a career year than in his previous campaign), Kobe and Williams -- all different lead guards for their respective teams.
> 
> This isn't to say that your favorite team should be scouring the free agent list for point guard help this summer. Available starting-quality point guards include *Antonio Daniels*, *Dan Dickau*, *Chris Duhon*, *Damon Jones*, *Brevin Knight*, McInnis, *Gary Payton*, *Damon Stoudamire* and *Earl Watson* -- not an inspiring group. Still, teams such as the '03 Warriors, the '01 Clippers and '00 Lakers all improved after making internal backcourt switches.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> When it's Kirk's time to be RFA, do you think Paxson will drag his feet and posture on the price, talk about his low FG% in the press, etc?


All I have to say is that short of the Bulls winning an NBA championship, I can't think of a single event that would make for more interesting reading than what I anticipate we'll see during the Hinrich negotiations.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Amazing, really.


Why, because I didn't say "kirk walks on water" and find some statistic to try to prove it?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Why, because I didn't say "kirk walks on water" and find some statistic to try to prove it?


No, because you implied that Iguodala was a better shooter than Hinrich.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> No, because you implied that Iguodala was a better shooter than Hinrich.


Based upon the FG%, he is.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Based upon FG%, Kenyon Martin and Andre Miller are better shooters than Rashard Lewis and Manu Ginobili.

You can't seriously be pushing this angle, DaBullz. Especially from a guy such as yourself who purportedly never draws conclusions from stats, such as those from Hollinger, Rosenbaum, +/-, Roland Ratings, etc. I smell scrambling contradiction. Is this the politics forum?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

This is fun. Based upon actual FG%:

Tony Parker is a better shooter than Mike Bibby.
Dwyane Wade is a better shooter than Fred Hoiberg.
Darius Miles is a better shooter than Vladimir Radmanovic.
Carlos Boozer is a better shooter than Dirk Nowitzki.
Eddy Curry is a better shooter than Tim Duncan.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Based upon FG%, Kenyon Martin and Andre Miller are better shooters than Rashard Lewis and Manu Ginobili.
> 
> You can't seriously be pushing this angle, DaBullz. Especially from a guy such as yourself who purportedly never draws conclusions from stats, such as those from Hollinger, Rosenbaum, +/-, Roland Ratings, etc. I smell scrambling contradiction. Is this the politics forum?


Well, VV, at what point in a conversation about shooting do you feel it's appropriate to discuss how many of a guy's shots actually go in?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Based upon FG%, Kenyon Martin and Andre Miller are better shooters than Rashard Lewis and Manu Ginobili.
> 
> You can't seriously be pushing this angle, DaBullz. Especially from a guy such as yourself who purportedly never draws conclusions from stats, such as those from Hollinger, Rosenbaum, +/-, Roland Ratings, etc. I smell scrambling contradiction. Is this the politics forum?


54% of Iggy's shots were jumpers, and his eFG% was 40.0%.
83% of Kirk's shots were jumpers, and his eFG% was 45.3%.

21% of Iggy's shots were close shots, and his eFG% was 45.3%.
17% of Kirk's shots were close shots, and his eFG% was 50.0%.

*25%* of Iggy's shots were dunks and tips.
*0%* of Kirk's shots were dunks and tips.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

bullsville said:


> *25%* of Iggy's shots were dunks and tips.
> *0%* of Kirk's shots were dunks and tips.


Cue the "Kirk's not athletic enough to hold his own" talking point!

I kid, I kid.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Hey king, question for ya.
> 
> When it's Kirk's time to be RFA, do you think Paxson will drag his feet and posture on the price, talk about his low FG% in the press, etc?


I think it won't even get to that

Kirk will be our first draftee in the rebuilding era to get re-upped ahead of time as soon as possible . As soon as he is able to get extended he'll get extended

They won't subject him to having market worth determined and then matching 

I presume Mgt feel they they know the worth of Kirk without letting the market determine that 

Not bad I guess when they can at least be confident of that with 1 of their free agents / prospective free agents


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Well, VV, at what point in a conversation about shooting do you feel it's appropriate to discuss how many of a guy's shots actually go in?


At the point where you consider every other factor that is involved in the game of basketball. Simple conclusions are for simpletons.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Legendary twist: Julius Erving (50.4% FG) was a better shooter than Larry Bird (49.6% FG).


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> *1. duhon is overrated. no offense to speak of. mr. whopping 6 ppg. was rarely on the floor for the bulls at the end of games and that speaks volumes. *
> 
> this is my opinion. yes, he started. but when did he ever finish?


To say Duhon wasn't rotated in and out of 4th quarters is not accurate 

If you mean in the last play of the game ..then that may be more accurate



> *2. pargo sucks as a defender. shot chucker extraordinare. 3rd string for a reason. *
> 
> this is my opinion. he sucks. yes, he can light it up but he can't defend his way out of a paper bag.


Maybe. Maybe not. I think this is an exaggeration personally but who gives a rip ?

He's 2nd to 3rd string going up against other 2nd to 3rd strings that have limited offensive production anyway

When you have a guy like this that can come in for 10 to 15 minutes and fill it up quickly and _ take care of the ball_ then I'm cool with that



> *3. sixers not about to trade iggy. sorry, just won't happen. nope. sorry.*


Thanks for the heads up Billy



> this is my opinion. don't ya just love message boards?


Indeed. 

Of course you are entitled to opinions . Didin't say you weren't. We are all are






> have a nice day.


And you


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Can I step in and be the voice of reason?

Hinrich is a valuable player. No doubt. And anyone who argues it really has issue either with the way the game of basketball should be played or possibly his skin color. He is gritty, he is smart, he is competitive and he makes a great captain. He has the respect of his teammates and he fills his role perfectly...................

Which leads me to the transition. He is a role player. His game has holes in it, there can be no doubt. His shot hasnt been very good since coming into the league, though I do suspect itll get better. But his game isnt perfect even if his shot does come around. He cant finish at the rim and has problems getting there sometimes. While a decent defender at the 2, does tend to get burnt by the speed at the 1, and he can be rattled by pressure or size. Plus he hasnt proven himself in crunch time. Some are right, he doesnt walk on water. 

Now having said that, he can play on my team anytime and twice on Sunday. And lets remember I was probably his biggest critic. He is the one Bull, and one of the few players in the NBA who can legitimately claim to be the best player on the floor for 5 minutes every night. He is versatile, he is about the team, and he is a championship calibur player. But he cant be the focal point of a legit championship team. I think even his most outspoken fans would agree with that. Though for my obligatory Skiles put-down, Im not so sure Skiles thinks that. Skiles put the kid on the pedestal, and frankly that is what rubbed people the wrong way. I think that is what the haters have a problem with. But let me add, the problem should be with Skiles, and perhaps the way the Bulls marketed the kid, BUT NOT WITH THE KID. Kirk lays it out there and there is nothing more that as a fan we can ask. But lets keep expectations for him correct. He is no Wade or James, but he can be a useful piece on a winning team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Can I step in and be the voice of reason?
> 
> Hinrich is a valuable player. No doubt. And anyone who argues it really has issue either with the way the game of basketball should be played or possibly his skin color. He is gritty, he is smart, he is competitive and he makes a great captain. He has the respect of his teammates and he fills his role perfectly...................
> 
> ...


Yep.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> At the point where you consider every other factor that is involved in the game of basketball. Simple conclusions are for simpletons.


You mean factors like Eddie Sutton's saying Kirk's got the prettiest jumper he's ever seen?

It's the end of Year Two, and the excuses are threadbare to the point of invisibility.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> You mean factors like Eddie Sutton's saying Kirk's got the prettiest jumper he's ever seen?
> 
> It's the end of Year Two, and the excuses are threadbare to the point of invisibility.


Feeble subterfuge.

It's pathetic, really.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Can I step in and be the voice of reason?
> 
> Hinrich is a valuable player. No doubt. And anyone who argues it really has issue either with the way the game of basketball should be played or possibly his skin color. He is gritty, he is smart, he is competitive and he makes a great captain. He has the respect of his teammates and he fills his role perfectly...................
> 
> ...



Remember, the voice of reason

"Cant we all just get along?"- Rodney King

:boohoo:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

rlucas, that's what Sir Patchwork, myself and a few others have been saying for two years.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> It's the end of Year Two, and the excuses are threadbare to the point of invisibility.


I forgot to ask this last time: excuses for what?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I think it won't even get to that
> 
> Kirk will be our first draftee in the rebuilding era to get re-upped ahead of time as soon as possible . As soon as he is able to get extended he'll get extended
> 
> ...


I completely agree that Kirk will probably be extended next summer when he is eligible for a long-term deal. HOWEVER, it depends on Kirk's contract demands- if he and his agent are seeking the max like Eddy was last summer, there is no way in hell he gets extended. 

If he is willing to "settle" for something like 6 years and $45 million, he gets extended next summer no questions asked.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I completely agree that Kirk will probably be extended next summer when he is eligible for a long-term deal. HOWEVER, it depends on Kirk's contract demands- if he and his agent are seeking the max like Eddy was last summer, there is no way in hell he gets extended.
> 
> If he is willing to "settle" for something like 6 years and $45 million, he gets extended next summer no questions asked.


I suspect that most will think the Bulls will overpay him. If they are proactive in getting him signed I think that would add some fuel to the haters fire. And I hate to say it, but I think theyll role over for him rather then ignore him, which seems to be the case with their other FAs, meaning I doubt they let the market set his price.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> I suspect that most will think the Bulls will overpay him. If they are proactive in getting him signed I think that would add some fuel to the haters fire.


You have a tremendous flair for understatement, rlucas. 

I have a feeling that if Kirk gets a dollar over the MLE, there will be people who are saying he is overpaid. But IMHO if it's a deal like I suggested- which would start at $6 million the first year of the deal- there is no way that anyone can say with a straight face that Kirk is overpaid.

Not that it will stop some people from saying it, undoubtedly.



> And I hate to say it, but I think theyll role over for him rather then ignore him, which seems to be the case with their other FAs, meaning I doubt they let the market set his price.


I disagree that they have "ignored" any of their free agents. Duhon got an offer right away, then he used the system to get a better deal.

Nobody seems to know exactly how the process played out with Tyson, but if Tyson and his agent have really been insisting on 6 years and $75 million from the beginning, I wouldn't say Pax is ignoring them- I would say that he is giving them a chance to get a bigger deal elsewhere by signing an offer sheet. I'm a huge fan of Tyson's game, but even I don't think he's worth 6 years and $75 million at this time.

Eddy's situation is quite unique with his health questions and lack on insurability so far. People assume that if he takes the QO and makes it through the season without any problems that he'll automatically be insurable next summer, which I simply don't believe. I look at Z, who has been completely healthy since December of 2002 but still couldn't get insured this summer, and I have serious doubts as to whether Eddy will get insured by the league next summer.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

bullsville said:


> You have a tremendous flair for understatement, rlucas.
> 
> I have a feeling that if Kirk gets a dollar over the MLE, there will be people who are saying he is overpaid. But IMHO if it's a deal like I suggested- which would start at $6 million the first year of the deal- there is no way that anyone can say with a straight face that Kirk is overpaid.
> 
> ...



They have said with Crawford, Duhon, Chandler and Curry that they were going to step back and let the market dictate their value. Now if they dont do that with Kirk itll look like a double standard. But I agree, 6 mil for Kirk would be a steal for JR and Company. Kirk is an 8-10mil player IMO. But Id rather have him go RFA like everyone else just so they dont show favoritism


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Legendary twist: Julius Erving (50.4% FG) was a better shooter than Larry Bird (49.6% FG).


Andre Iguodala is a better shooter than Ben Gordon, too, based on the FG% argument. But I suspect that they'll try to spin it and tell me why THAT is a totally different comparison, even though Hinrich and Gordon have near identical shot selection (same percentage of their shots are jumpshots, inside, etc).


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> They have said with Crawford, Duhon, Chandler and Curry that they were going to step back and let the market dictate their value. Now if they dont do that with Kirk itll look like a double standard. But I agree, 6 mil for Kirk would be a steal for JR and Company. Kirk is an 8-10mil player IMO. But Id rather have him go RFA like everyone else just so they dont show favoritism


Well, the reports were than Pax made an offer to Duhon semi-early in the process, but yeah I definitely see your point that extending Kirk early will look like a double-standard. But again, Eddy was seeking the max last summer- maybe if he would have "settled" for something like 6 years and $45 million he would have gotten an extension last summer.

Without being a fly on Pax's wall, we'll never know for sure if he would have extended Eddy and/or Jamal for what he thought was a fair deal.

And I don't think that Kirk is an 8-10 million player first-year, that's more than Manu got and I don't see Kirk being more valuable than him. Manu signed for 6 years and $52 million last summer, so IMHO 6 years and $45 million as an extension is more than fair for Kirk.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Andre Iguodala is a better shooter than Ben Gordon, too, based on the FG% argument. But I suspect that they'll try to spin it and tell me why THAT is a totally different comparison, even though Hinrich and Gordon have near identical shot selection (same percentage of their shots are jumpshots, inside, etc).


If Philly would give us Iggy for Gordon, I'd do that deal, too.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> If Philly would give us Iggy for Gordon, I'd do that deal, too.


Yeah, because he is a better shooter.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Yeah, because he is a better shooter.


Because he's a better _player_.

EDIT:

I have a strong feeling Iggy is going to have a 2nd year like Wade's - where he's going to be recognized as one of the truly special players in the league.

Given a choice on our side of trading Gordon OR Hinrich for him, I'd rather see us trade Gordon. However, Sausage King made a terrific case for trading Hinrich, and if it were Hinrich for Iggy or no deal, I'd do it and wouldn't think twice about it.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Because he's a better _player_.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> ...


This speaks more of your opinion about Iggy, and I already said earlier that suggesting Hinrich for Iggy isn't out of line.

Iguodala is a better player than Gordon. But is he a better shooter? Based on the argument that was used to prove he is a better shooter than Hinrich, he is.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This speaks more of your opinion about Iggy, and I already said earlier that suggesting Hinrich for Iggy isn't out of line.
> 
> Iguodala is a better player than Gordon. But is he a better shooter? Based on the argument that was used to prove he is a better shooter than Hinrich, he is.


Well, the argument actually was given two teams of 5 players, one would be "zoned to death." I don't see why you would "zone to death" a team that had iggy on it, but not the one with the sub .400 shooter. I don't think the case was made that Iggy is a better shooter or that Kirk is a better shooter. Seems to me if you'd zone against one lineup, you'd do it against both.

But the Hinrich police came out in full force to try to make the case he is the better shooter. I think ScottMay made the best point of all - at some point, your shots have to go in and those count for something.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Well, the argument actually was given two teams of 5 players, one would be "zoned to death." I don't see why you would "zone to death" a team that had iggy on it, but not the one with the sub .400 shooter. I don't think the case was made that Iggy is a better shooter or that Kirk is a better shooter. Seems to me if you'd zone against one lineup, you'd do it against both.
> 
> But the Hinrich police came out in full force to try to make the case he is the better shooter. I think ScottMay made the best point of all - at some point, your shots have to go in and those count for something.


Hinrich (and Gordon) are both better shooters than Iguodala. VV already pointed out why you can't use field goal percentage as a guide to who has what range and what ability to make whatever shot. Shaq isn't a better shooter than anyone I'm guessing, yet he is perennial leader in field goal percentage. Teams do leave Iguodala open on the perimeter quite often, while Hinrich (and Gordon) rarely gets open looks from the defense unless it's a break down. That's because they have reputations as shooters, and stats don't change that. Defenses play them close on every play. Once the stats actually do start to change the minds of opposing coaches, that's when they'll hit you with one of those 10-12 type nights. If Hinrich or Gordon got the same attention that Iguodala did on the perimeter, they would be shooting above 50% from the three point line. 

But the Hinrich haters don't want to look any deeper than one stat, because that one stat suits their argument. Big picture people.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Hinrich (and Gordon) are both better shooters than Iguodala. VV already pointed out why you can't use field goal percentage as a guide to who has what range and what ability to make whatever shot. Shaq isn't a better shooter than anyone I'm guessing, yet he is perennial leader in field goal percentage. Teams do leave Iguodala open on the perimeter quite often, while Hinrich (and Gordon) rarely gets open looks from the defense unless it's a break down. That's because they have reputations as shooters, and stats don't change that. Defenses play them close on every play. Once the stats actually do start to change the minds of opposing coaches, that's when they'll hit you with one of those 10-12 type nights. If Hinrich or Gordon got the same attention that Iguodala did on the perimeter, they would be shooting above 50% from the three point line.
> 
> But the Hinrich haters don't want to look any deeper than one stat, because that one stat suits their argument. Big picture people.


I guess there _are_ excuses for why he's not a good shooter after all.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> The only difference between Curry/Chandler/Deng/Iggy/Duhon and Curry/Chandler/Deng/Hinrich/Duhon is that Iggy shoots .493 and .331 3PT while Kirk shoots .397 and .355 3PT. I'd rather zone the .397 shooter than the .493 one.
> 
> :whoknows:


So you would completely ignore the fact that Kirk is the better perimeter shooter?

In most cases, the purpose of a zone defense is to force the opponent to shoot from the perimeter and to limit the opponent's inside game, as I'm sure you know. 

You would rather zone the better outside shooter who scores 82% of his points on jumpers and play man-to-man against the more effective inside player who gets 60% of his points on the inside?

:whoknows:


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I guess there _are_ excuses for why he's not a good shooter after all.


I guess Gordon isn't a good shooter either by the same logic. 

I respect you a ton for what you do for the board, but you're easily the most difficult person to talk basketball with on this site. You don't reason with anyone, and try to oversimplify things a great deal when facts are presented to you. Then you use sarcasm to see your way out of the argument. Even people I disagree with 100% can present their argument and if at the end we just don't see eye to eye, we agree to disagree.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

I usually don't share my opinions due to my inability to give legitimate reasons for them. In this case, I still don't have any real analysis or compelling arguments for why I think the way I do. I guess this serves as a disclaimer then.

I can't help but be biased when it comes to deals for Kirk. He won me over these past couple of years. Iggy, meanwhile, is one of my favorite players. I love watching him play. His is one of the three non-bull jerseys I own (along with brent barry and wade). I'd be happy with a BG for Iggy deal, but outside of that...I'm content to stick with Hinrich.

Simple enough.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

King Joseus said:


> I usually don't share my opinions due to my inability to give legitimate reasons for them. In this case, I still don't have any real analysis or compelling arguments for why I think the way I do. I guess this serves as a disclaimer then.
> 
> I can't help but be biased when it comes to deals for Kirk. He won me over these past couple of years. Iggy, meanwhile, is one of my favorite players. I love watching him play. His is one of the three non-bull jerseys I own (along with brent barry and wade). I'd be happy with a BG for Iggy deal, but outside of that...I'm content to stick with Hinrich.
> 
> Simple enough.


Brent Barry?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Brent Barry?


 I get that a lot. I became a big fan watching him when he was in seattle...


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

bullsville said:


> Brent Barry?



This coming from a man that has a Lamond Murray jersey


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

And I would not deal Ben Gordon for Igs

Plus..zone schmone... nothing short of smart rotations to disrupt the flow..we still have shooters in that line up.

Kind of also forces the issue of dealing or acquiring a shooting big man 

: King dreams of Raef LaFrentz in these circumstances :


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> So you would completely ignore the fact that Kirk is the better perimeter shooter?
> 
> In most cases, the purpose of a zone defense is to force the opponent to shoot from the perimeter and to limit the opponent's inside game, as I'm sure you know.
> 
> ...


As I see it, if you have anyone who scores 82% of his points on jumpers, but shoots < 40%, it's probably a good idea to let the guy shoot - instead of the .493 shooter, or Curry. I don't see that the 82% means anything to the discussion, frankly. Isn't it just really obvious that defense want the guys with the lowest FG% to take the most shots? And isn't it obvious that forcing ANY team to shoot outside is going to give them lower % shots than letting them shoot inside? The Dunk is the highest % shot after all (for most players). AND the case isn't made that Iggy can't also just as occaisionally hit enough outside shots to score against the zone.

Again, the whole thing is really about whether a lineup of Duhon/Chandler/Curry/Deng(or Nocioni) and ANYONE would be "zoned to death." Plus I don't know that the zone is as effective at stopping inside scoring in the NBA as one might think. 

(Sorry to those who don't see this as "reasoning" with someone).


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think some people are overrating Iggy on this thread. Sure, he will be a solid 2 guard for years to come in the L but is he really going to be a superstar with Wade like impact on the game? I really don't think so. Personally I would rather have Kirk. I think he has a better head for the game, a ridiculous work ethic, and he is more versatile than Iggy. Iggy is certainly more explosive but Hinrich has been one of the galvanizing forces behind the Bulls recent success and I would seriously think twice about playing bubble gum trading card trader with him.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I agree with Ace...Iggy is not star material. A very good starter in the likeness of a young Doug Christie, as I said way earlier in this thread. But how can you ignore the way he fed off of Iverson last season? When Iverson is heaving up 1/2 the team's shots and has the ball most of the time, Iguodala will naturally not be given much attention. I think that's how 25% of the guy's shots were dunks and tip-ins!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> *They have said with Crawford, Duhon, Chandler and Curry that they were going to step back and let the market dictate their value. Now if they dont do that with Kirk itll look like a double standard.* But I agree, 6 mil for Kirk would be a steal for JR and Company. Kirk is an 8-10mil player IMO. But Id rather have him go RFA like everyone else just so they dont show favoritism


I didn't read this whole thread yet, so I can't comment on anything else. But one thing that should be noted with regard to the bolded portion is that the Bulls "stepped back and let the market dictate the value" of some of those players (Duhon and Curry specifically - I don't remember much about Crawford) only after a mutually agreeable deal couldn't be worked out. 

If a mutually agreeable deal is worked out with Hinrich, then it wouldn't be favoritism, it would simply be success in the place of past failure.

And I agree about his value. If any Bulls fan thinks Hinrich is going to get a $6 million per year deal, they are kidding themselves. The only way that happens is if Hinrich's agent and Hinrich himself completely screw up the whole process.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I didn't read this whole thread yet, so I can't comment on anything else. But one thing that should be noted with regard to the bolded portion is that the Bulls "stepped back and let the market dictate the value" of some of those players (Duhon and Curry specifically - I don't remember much about Crawford) only after a mutually agreeable deal couldn't be worked out.
> 
> If a mutually agreeable deal is worked out with Hinrich, then it wouldn't be favoritism, it would simply be success in the place of past failure.
> 
> And I agree about his value. If any Bulls fan thinks Hinrich is going to get a $6 million per year deal, they are kidding themselves. The only way that happens is if Hinrich's agent and Hinrich himself completely screw up the whole process.



actually thats not really true. They basically said go out and get an offer and then we can discuss. Crawfords offer was more then the Bulls were willing to part with. It took Torontos offer to get Duhon a deal. Curry and Chandler are stuck in no mans land. Market dictated the deals, not the other way around.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> actually thats not really true. They basically said go out and get an offer and then we can discuss. Crawfords offer was more then the Bulls were willing to part with. It took Torontos offer to get Duhon a deal. Curry and Chandler are stuck in no mans land. Market dictated the deals, not the other way around.


Like I said, I don't remember about Crawford. Crawford's Knicks offer was more than the Bulls were willing to part with, like you said. But it seems to me, vaguely in my memory, that the Bulls and Crawford attempted to negotiate a deal before that for long term MLE money (or a tad less) that was rejected by JC. 

The Bulls and Curry attempted to negotiate an extension before LAST season. That didn't get done. If I remember correctly, Chandler and the Bulls did not attempt to negotiate an extension. So his situation is different. 

The Bulls did negotiate with Duhon before he met with teams like Orlando and Toronto. It was the inability to consumate a mutually agreeable deal during those negotiations that led to Duhon having the "market" set price.

The point being the the Bulls have attempted to extend players prior to having the market set the price, but have done so unsuccessfully. Any attempt to do the same with Hinrich would not be special treatment. If a deal is reached, it would be a result of a meeting of the minds as to his value, which is something that was attempted, but failed, with some of the other fellas.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> As I see it, if you have anyone who scores 82% of his points on jumpers, but shoots < 40%, it's probably a good idea to let the guy shoot - instead of the .493 shooter, or Curry. I don't see that the 82% means anything to the discussion, frankly. Isn't it just really obvious that defense want the guys with the lowest FG% to take the most shots? And isn't it obvious that forcing ANY team to shoot outside is going to give them lower % shots than letting them shoot inside? The Dunk is the highest % shot after all (for most players). AND the case isn't made that Iggy can't also just as occaisionally hit enough outside shots to score against the zone.


So you're going to play all the way up on a guy like Iggy, who takes most of his shots inside of 5-10 feet? Then you're going to let Ben Gordon shoot open three pointers all day because his percentage is low? Forcing Iguodala to drive inside, or letting Ben Gordon have open three pointers, isn't too sound of a strategy. Especially letting Gordon have open threes. That would just be suicide, he would score 50+ points easily. 

Again, to bring other players into the equation. If Shaq is on the three point line, and Peja Stojakovich is on the three point line, you're going to play all the way out on Shaq, and let Peja shoot open threes all day? 



DaBullz said:


> (Sorry to those who don't see this as "reasoning" with someone).


Your last post was better, good job. You're doing better. Kill all the sarcastic remarks, oversimplifications and calling everything "excuses" and you'll be set.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

No offense, but I don't think anyone on either side of this argument are relating the numbers you're throwing around very well to the actual context of a game.

I mean, duh, you want a team that can beat a zone, but you also don't want a team of just jump shooters. The more guys you have who can score in a variety of ways, the better you are.

It's certainly debateable to me whether we should trade Hinrich for Iggy, but a guy like Iggy brings something to the table that we don't seem to have in terms of any guy on our roster. That'd be a good thing no matter how you slice it.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> It's certainly debateable to me whether we should trade Hinrich for Iggy, *but a guy like Iggy brings something to the table that we don't seem to have in terms of any guy on our roster.* That'd be a good thing no matter how you slice it.


What exactly would that be though? Iguodala's strengths seem to be defense and an ability to finish the fast break. The Bulls have plenty of defense as it is (which Kirk is a big part of), and at the very least we have Deng and Curry who are great finishers on the fast break. Is there anything I'm missing about Iggy here? I bet we could get Mickeal Pietrus for alot cheaper than Iggy, and they seem like almost the same player.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I have now read the thread and my response to the proposed trade is as follows:

Hinrich > Duhon at the point.

Gordon > Iguodala at the two. 

No trade. 

I like Duhon and Iguodala. But I sure as hell don't like them together as a starting backcourt. Sounds an awful lot like a Eric Snow/Doug Christie backcourt to me.

The only way a Hinrich for Iggy trade makes sense for the Bulls is if one assumes that Gordon will become a dynamic point guard instead of the dynamic shooting guard that he already is. I don't see it that way, so I could never get behind this trade unless Gordon proves otherwise.

Talent for talent in a vacuum, I think King's trade proposal is more or less a fair one. I do not, however, think it is a good deal when looking at the particular lineup that would result in Chicago.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> What exactly would that be though? Iguodala's strengths seem to be defense and an ability to finish the fast break. The Bulls have plenty of defense as it is (which Kirk is a big part of), and at the very least we have Deng and Curry who are great finishers on the fast break. Is there anything I'm missing about Iggy here? I bet we could get Mickeal Pietrus for alot cheaper than Iggy, and they seem like almost the same player.


He appears to me to be a guy who can really drive to the basket. It's not like all of his shots are fast break dunks.

On the other hand, I wouldn't say Deng or Curry are really superb at finishing fast breaks. Deng's the closest thing we've got - and he's got great all around potential - he can score in any way he wants, but he's not the athletic freak of nature Iggy is.

Pietrus doesn't seem like that either. Iggy is freaking greased lightning.

Having a guy who really is a top notch finisher would be good. Having a guard who could consistently take it to the rack would be good. Currently, none of our guys can really do that. Gordon, of course, can get his own shot, but his shot seems to be pulling up and hitting a 10-15 footer. Iggy would seem to bring a slightly different element than that to the backcourt.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So you're going to play all the way up on a guy like Iggy, who takes most of his shots inside of 5-10 feet? Then you're going to let Ben Gordon shoot open three pointers all day because his percentage is low? Forcing Iguodala to drive inside, or letting Ben Gordon have open three pointers, isn't too sound of a strategy. Especially letting Gordon have open threes. That would just be suicide, he would score 50+ points easily.
> 
> Again, to bring other players into the equation. If Shaq is on the three point line, and Peja Stojakovich is on the three point line, you're going to play all the way out on Shaq, and let Peja shoot open threes all day?
> 
> ...


< .400 is < .400, whether it's Shaq shooting it or Jordan. Whoever shoots that kind of percentage is who I'd want shooting if I were the opposition. EDIT: that'd be 2pt shots... Iggy's 33% or Hinrich's 35% make them both pretty effective from 3pt land.

I don't see what the infatuation with Gordon's bad shooting is. He was 17th in the NBA in 3Pt % (.7 attempts per game to qualify). Hinrich was 60th. Iggy shooting 33% from 3 or Hinrich shooting 35% from 3 isn't going to change, at all, how a team will use zone.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> He appears to me to be a guy who can really drive to the basket. It's not like all of his shots are fast break dunks.
> 
> On the other hand, I wouldn't say Deng or Curry are really superb at finishing fast breaks. Deng's the closest thing we've got - and he's got great all around potential - he can score in any way he wants, but he's not the athletic freak of nature Iggy is.
> 
> ...


Iggy's also the BIG guard that would complement any combination of our remainging guards after a trade. He can also play SF in a pinch (like when deng went down). He'd also let us play our 3 guard offense and have a guy that could really play SF on defense.

I like everything you wrote, but felt this stuff is good to add.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Iggy shooting 33% from 3 or Hinrich shooting 35% from 3 isn't going to change, at all, how a team will use zone.


You aren't going to sell me on that one. It completely discounts how contested the shots from those two players were (i.e. how teams played them on the perimeter) and the volume of shots taken and made. 

The percentages are comparable, true. But Hinrich *made more three point shots* than Iguodala *scored points on three pointers*: 144 to 141.

Points to points, instead of makes to points, Hinrich tally is to 432 to 141. You can't honestly believe that a team will employ a zone defense to Iggy identically as it would to Hinrich. 

I agree that Iggy can knock down the 3. Point taken. But point taken too far.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> He appears to me to be a guy who can really drive to the basket. It's not like all of his shots are fast break dunks.
> 
> On the other hand, I wouldn't say Deng or Curry are really superb at finishing fast breaks. Deng's the closest thing we've got - and he's got great all around potential - he can score in any way he wants, but he's not the athletic freak of nature Iggy is.
> 
> ...



You guys had to bring in Pietrus. Iggy is a far better open court handler then Pietrus is but there isnt a guy, and I really mean it, who goes left better in the league then Pietrus. When he gets clear outs and he goes right to left its over. And he can flat out finish. Pietrus is probably the better pure stroke between him and Iggy. And while there is no difference on defense, the difference is that Iggy can play 3 positions on offense, Pietrus can only play 2. But GS, for whatever reason, isnt going to give MP2 up either. So its sort of a moot point. He is the most popular player there after Baron Davis.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You aren't going to sell me on that one. It completely discounts how contested the shots from those two players were (i.e. how teams played them on the perimeter) and the volume of shots taken and made.
> 
> The percentages are comparable, true. But Hinrich *made more three point shots* than Iguodala *scored points on three pointers*: 144 to 141.
> 
> ...


In 3 games all season long did he take as many shots as Hinrich averaged.

I don't think playing zone in the NBA is a good idea much of the time. Every team has at least one guy who'll make you pay. And the zone hasn't exactly stopped teams from scoring 80 PPG or more as it is... It is a good idea if your players can't play man defense well, though.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

To sum up for me ...

What MikeDC contributed on this page.

He said everything in objectivity that I wanted to say


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I don't see what the infatuation with Gordon's bad shooting is. He was 17th in the NBA in 3Pt % (.7 attempts per game to qualify). Hinrich was 60th. Iggy shooting 33% from 3 or Hinrich shooting 35% from 3 isn't going to change, at all, how a team will use zone.


Hinrich shot 39% from three his rookie year (and took more shots than Gordon did last year).


----------



## tiredchick (Oct 20, 2003)

While I like Iguodala as a player, IMO he doesn't have a strong enough all-around game YET to suggest he'll become a superstar. His outside shot is very inconsistent (last season Hinrich MADE 145 3-pointers, which was 3 MORE than Iguodala ATTEMPTED) and he needs work on his ballhandling -- he averaged 3 APG last season, which is on the low end of average for a starting two guard, and his assist to turnover ratio was poor, at just 1.77:1. (By contrast, Hinrich, who handled the ball WAY more than Iguodala, averaged 6.4 APG, had an assist to turnover ratio of 2.81:1, and in 4 MPG more than Iggy commited just 0.6 turnovers more per game.) He is an off the chart athlete and has the potential to be an excellent defender. But, at least by some measures, Hinrich is just as good, if not better, at defending shooting guards (see next paragraph)

According to www.82games,com, opposing two guards had a per 48 minute PER of 15.4 vs. Iggy, with an eFG% of .478. Of course, his own PER was also 15.4 (with an eFG% of 55.1%) -- which means that the Sixers only BROKE EVEN at the 2-guard position with Iggy in the game. What about Hinrich I hear you ask? Well, opposing two guards had a 48 minute PER of 13.8 against Kirk, with an eFG% of just .435. Hinrich himself had a PER of 17.6 with an eFG% of .461. So, not only did Hinrich hold foes to a lower PER than Iggy, but he gave the Bulls a PER advantage of +3.8 against opposing two guards.

Meanwhile, I know Duhon was rated recently by some formula as one of the top defensive PG last year. And while I agree that he is a tough defender, I would still be concerned about the 48 minute PERs for last season which give Duhon a well-below average PER of 10.8 while opposing PG had a 15.2 PER against him -- or a deficit of -4.4 when Chris was in the game. To be fair, Hinrich alowed a PER of 16.9 to opposing PG -- but since his PER as a PG was 15.2, that still results in a smaller deficit (-1.7) than when Duhon is at the position.

Now I know stats don't tell all, and can be deceptive, but still, these numbers would make me very hesitant to trade Hinrich for Iguodala at this point in their careers.

If you want to try and get Iguodala on the Bulls (which won't happen unless he's signed as a free agent, since the Sixers won't trade him), I'd be far more willing to package Duhon with a couple of other guys or trade Gordon straight up than get rid of Hinrich, who, flaws and all, is CURRENTLY the Bulls' best all-around player and team leader.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

tiredchick said:


> According to www.82games,com, opposing two guards had a per 48 minute PER of 15.4 vs. Iggy, with an eFG% of .478. Of course, his own PER was also 15.4 (with an eFG% of 55.1%) -- which means that the Sixers only BROKE EVEN at the 2-guard position with Iggy in the game. What about Hinrich I hear you ask? Well, opposing two guards had a 48 minute PER of 13.8 against Kirk, with an eFG% of just .435. Hinrich himself had a PER of 17.6 with an eFG% of .461. So, not only did Hinrich hold foes to a lower PER than Iggy, but he gave the Bulls a PER advantage of +3.8 against opposing two guards.


Once again, for good measure. Nice analysis.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

tiredchick said:


> Now I know stats don't tell all, and can be deceptive, but still, these numbers would make me very hesitant to trade Hinrich for Iguodala at this point in their careers.


You compared a 21 year-old first year player against a 24 year-old second year player.

http://www.82games.com/03CHI2C.HTM

Hinrich as a 23 year-old player was slightly negative considering he played a lot more minutes at PG. Iggy at 21 was BREAK EVEN. So as a rookie, he matched or bettered Kirk despite being 2 years younger.

Young players get better. Your analysis doesn't account for that at all. If it did, it probably would lead one to think that the Bulls should swap Kirk for Iggy if we could. Especially if Kirk is going to be negative at PG.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I hear Dwyane Wade doesn't have an outside shot.

Therefore, he's not a star.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I hear Dwyane Wade doesn't have an outside shot.
> 
> Therefore, he's not a star.


Utterly fascinating.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Utterly fascinating.


Methinks he's kidding, Vega. 

(Hell bent for Dwyane Wade).


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Methinks he's kidding, Vega.
> 
> (Hell bent for Dwyane Wade).


I know he's kidding. It's the subterfuge (attempted counterpoint) that's utterly fascinating.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> I know he's kidding. It's the subterfuge (attempted counterpoint) that's utterly fascinating.


I know. I just wanted to remind you that I'm hell bent for Dwyane Wade. It seemed like a good thread to mention it in.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I just didn't find the logic in the argument about Iggy to make much sense. The same things could be said about Wade, and I think a lot of people consider him to already be a special player. In fact, I remember a thread here that suggested he might end up as good as Jordan.

And yeah, I think Wade is a studly player. I've already said that it looks to me like Iggy might have a similar breakout 2nd season; in his first, he demonstrated some serious skills.

For the record, Wade took just 45 three pointers all season.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I just didn't find the logic in the argument about Iggy to make much sense. The same things could be said about Wade, and I think a lot of people consider him to already be a special player. In fact, I remember a thread here that suggested he might end up as good as Jordan.
> 
> And yeah, I think Wade is a studly player. I've already said that it looks to me like Iggy might have a similar breakout 2nd season; in his first, he demonstrated some serious skills.
> 
> For the record, Wade took just 45 three pointers all season.


The funny thing about Iggy is that sometimes he practically refuses to shoot. Perhaps this helps to keep his shooting percentage up, as he seldom takes a bad shot. However, some time he has to learn to shoot at least a bit more.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Yeah, I'm still bummed out about not drafting Iguodala. I was hoping we'd walk away with Deng and Iguodala. We'd have an amazing defense, and with everybody taking on more reduced defensive roles, Deng-Iguodala-Hinrich would all be better scorers in the process. It would be great balance on offense and simply tearing teams apart on defense.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> The funny thing about Iggy is that sometimes he practically refuses to shoot. Perhaps this helps to keep his shooting percentage up, as he seldom takes a bad shot. However, some time he has to learn to shoot at least a bit more.


Funny thing is we might have had them both if JWill didn't get hurt.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Funny thing is we might have had them both if JWill didn't get hurt.


You know that if I'm not president of the Chicago Bulls Andre Iguodala fanclub, I've got to be at least the vice president. I did after all boo at the draft when we didn't take him.

Everybody loves Dwyane Wade. Oh, what could have been.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> You know that if I'm not president of the Chicago Bulls Andre Iguodala fanclub, I've got to be at least the vice president. I did after all boo at the draft when we didn't take him.
> 
> Everybody loves Dwyane Wade. Oh, what could have been.


Can't know for certain, but a trade for Wade and then Pax bringing in all those NBDLers, I suspect we'd still have had a chance at Iggy and Gordon or Iggy and Deng.

Hindsight is 20-20


----------



## tiredchick (Oct 20, 2003)

Please don't compare Iguodala to Wade! As a rookie, Wade averaged 16.2 PPG and 4.5 APG, Iguodala averaged 9.0 PPG and 3.0 APG while getting to the line 2.6 times per game! Yes, they are similar in size and athletic ability, but Wade was and is a far superior offensive player. IMO Iguodala will never average anywhere near 20 PPG or 7 APG. He wasn't that good an offensive player in college, although he had the occasional breakout game (I believe he had a couple of triple doubles at UA). 

I grew up just outside of Philadelphia and was a huge fan of the 76ers. I'm still a big fan and saw a ton of their games last season. What I saw was a player with great athletic ability and the potential to be a shut-down defender, but a very raw all-around offensive game. Iggy got a good percentage of his points in transition and off of alley-oops from Iverson. He struggled much more in half-court sets, although he did show improvement in this area as the season went along. But to me, I can't see him ever being a 20+ PPG guy. For one thing, he doesn't get to the free throw line anywhere near enoiugh to compensate for his lack of a consistent perimeter shot. For instance, Wade, who also struggles with the 3-pointer, got to the line 5.1 times per game as a rookie, and 9.9 times last season. Iguodala got to the line 2.6 times per game as a rookie. Not only is that half as much as Wade did his rookie season, but it is less than Hinrich (2.8 times per game) got to the line last season (Hinrich got to line 2.2 times per game as rookie)!

Another question for those of you who think Iggy will have a breakout soph season. How do you expect him to do that playing alongside Iverson and Webber? He isn't going to get very more offensive touches than he did in his rookie season playing alongside those two! I would be very surprised if he averaged even 15 PPG this coming season. Put him on the Bulls along with Gordon, Deng and Curry, and he still wouldn't get the touches to allow him to put up superstar numbers. In fact, unlike Hinrich, who is anywhere from the 1st to 3rd offensive option for the team depending on who's on the floor, Iggy would be the 2nd option at best with the Bulls, and when on the court with Gordon, Curry and Deng would be the 4th option. So I fail to see how you think he'd be way more productive than Hinrich has already proven to be. Also, replacing Hinrich with Iguodala would leave the Bulls with just one legitimate 3-point shooter in Gordon, which would allow opponents to focus on him and/or pack the lane. 

Meanwhile, while the Sixers could use Hinrich's overall heady play and outside shooting, their backcourt would become smaller and less athletic by replacing Iggy with Kirk. And I don't know how well Hinrich would respond to rarely having the ball in his hands, playing alongside A.I. Personally, I think Iggy is a much better fit for their system, although that could change with the Sixers having (another) new head coach.

Now, I could be wrong (that's been known to happen on more than one occasion) but I honestly see Hinrich and Iguodala ending up with similar careers, even though their styles are very dissimilar. Both are players with All-Star potential but are unlikely to become superstars and will probably end up with career averages of 15-18 PPG (although Hinrich will average more APG and Iggy more RPG).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I was skeptical of Iggy when bulls posters were saying they wanted us to draft him.

After seeing him play in the league, and especially down the stretch when Philly was fighting for a playoff spot, it became clear to me how bright his future is.

Iverson sure does shoot a lot. But he's also considered by some to be the best PG in the game (or top 3). Webber is an amazing passer for a big man. It seems like Iggy will get all the touches he needs.

Wade, as a rookie, didn't play on a team with an Iverson type who shoots 24 times a game. I don't see the rookie PPG comparison as that meaningful. Not as much as I see Wade going from 16PPG to 24PPG his 2nd season, and feel Iggy will go from 9PPG to something close to 20PPG. Iggy doesn't need all that many more FGA than he had last season to achieve it - something like 12 would do it.


----------



## tiredchick (Oct 20, 2003)

While it's true that Wade as a rookie didn't play with one player like Iverson who dominated his team's ht attempts (A.I. had 1818 FGA last year), he DID play with Lamar Odom and Eddie Jones, each of whom had over 1100 FGA in 2003-04, thus combining for more than 400 FGA MORE than A.I. took last season. 

Also, DaBullz, you say Iguodala will need about 12 FGA to average 20 PPG. That's probably a little low (last season NO ONE who averaged less than 13 FGA/gm scored 20 PPG -- closest was Yao Ming, at 18.3 PPG on 12.2 FGA/gm; Ben Gordon, for instance, averaged 15.1 PPG on 12.9 FGA/gm), but going by that number, he would need to almost DOUBLE his FGA from his rookie season, as he averaged just 6.7 FGA last year. That is something that Wade failed to do in HIS second season, even though he played in 16 games MORE than he did as a rookie (77 to 61) and was the Heat's 1st or 2nd option on offense -- as opposed to Iguodala, who will be no better than the Sixers' 3rd option, and probably the 4th, behind A.I., Webber and Dalembert. 

It isn't out of the realm of possibility for Iggy to make this huge leap from 9 PPG to 20 PPG in one season, but it is extremely unlikely -- since A.I. has been in the NBA, only once has a teammate of his averaged 20+ PPG -- and that was in his ROOKIE season (Jerry Stackhouse, 20.7 PPG). Since then, the Sixers have had just ONE player other than Iverson to even average more than 15 PPG (min. of 70 games played in that season) -- that was Keith Van Horn in 2002-03 (15.9 PPG). So the odds are definitely stacked against Iguodala, especially when you add in Chris Webber's presence as the 2nd offensive option for Philly.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

tiredchick said:


> While it's true that Wade as a rookie didn't play with one player like Iverson who dominated his team's ht attempts (A.I. had 1818 FGA last year), he DID play with Lamar Odom and Eddie Jones, each of whom had over 1100 FGA in 2003-04, thus combining for more than 400 FGA MORE than A.I. took last season.
> 
> Also, DaBullz, you say Iguodala will need about 12 FGA to average 20 PPG. That's probably a little low (last season NO ONE who averaged less than 13 FGA/gm scored 20 PPG -- closest was Yao Ming, at 18.3 PPG on 12.2 FGA/gm; Ben Gordon, for instance, averaged 15.1 PPG on 12.9 FGA/gm), but going by that number, he would need to almost DOUBLE his FGA from his rookie season, as he averaged just 6.7 FGA last year. That is something that Wade failed to do in HIS second season, even though he played in 16 games MORE than he did as a rookie (77 to 61) and was the Heat's 1st or 2nd option on offense -- as opposed to Iguodala, who will be no better than the Sixers' 3rd option, and probably the 4th, behind A.I., Webber and Dalembert.
> 
> It isn't out of the realm of possibility for Iggy to make this huge leap from 9 PPG to 20 PPG in one season, but it is extremely unlikely -- since A.I. has been in the NBA, only once has a teammate of his averaged 20+ PPG -- and that was in his ROOKIE season (Jerry Stackhouse, 20.7 PPG). Since then, the Sixers have had just ONE player other than Iverson to even average more than 15 PPG (min. of 70 games played in that season) -- that was Keith Van Horn in 2002-03 (15.9 PPG). So the odds are definitely stacked against Iguodala, especially when you add in Chris Webber's presence as the 2nd offensive option for Philly.


That's 2 consecutive outstanding posts, I can't rep you again but I would have.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

bullsville said:


> That's 2 consecutive outstanding posts, I can't rep you again but I would have.


No kidding. That last post was superb. Great analysis.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

tiredchick said:


> While it's true that Wade as a rookie didn't play with one player like Iverson who dominated his team's ht attempts (A.I. had 1818 FGA last year), he DID play with Lamar Odom and Eddie Jones, each of whom had over 1100 FGA in 2003-04, thus combining for more than 400 FGA MORE than A.I. took last season.
> 
> Also, DaBullz, you say Iguodala will need about 12 FGA to average 20 PPG. That's probably a little low (last season NO ONE who averaged less than 13 FGA/gm scored 20 PPG -- closest was Yao Ming, at 18.3 PPG on 12.2 FGA/gm; Ben Gordon, for instance, averaged 15.1 PPG on 12.9 FGA/gm), but going by that number, he would need to almost DOUBLE his FGA from his rookie season, as he averaged just 6.7 FGA last year. That is something that Wade failed to do in HIS second season, even though he played in 16 games MORE than he did as a rookie (77 to 61) and was the Heat's 1st or 2nd option on offense -- as opposed to Iguodala, who will be no better than the Sixers' 3rd option, and probably the 4th, behind A.I., Webber and Dalembert.
> 
> It isn't out of the realm of possibility for Iggy to make this huge leap from 9 PPG to 20 PPG in one season, but it is extremely unlikely -- since A.I. has been in the NBA, only once has a teammate of his averaged 20+ PPG -- and that was in his ROOKIE season (Jerry Stackhouse, 20.7 PPG). Since then, the Sixers have had just ONE player other than Iverson to even average more than 15 PPG (min. of 70 games played in that season) -- that was Keith Van Horn in 2002-03 (15.9 PPG). So the odds are definitely stacked against Iguodala, especially when you add in Chris Webber's presence as the 2nd offensive option for Philly.


FWIW, I don't like the teams Philly's built around Iverson. 

I look at the Wizards last season and see that they were able to feature 3 very capable scorers. I'm not sure that Webber will be the same as before his injury (he didn't look it last year), so there may well be plenty of room for Iggy to grow.

At the very least, his outstanding defense will keep him on the floor and give him his chances.

I came up with the FGAs as what I figure are required for him to increase his PPG the same as Wade (from 16 to 24 = 8).


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> FWIW, I don't like the teams Philly's built around Iverson.
> 
> I look at the Wizards last season and see that they were able to feature 3 very capable scorers. I'm not sure that Webber will be the same as before his injury (he didn't look it last year), so there may well be plenty of room for Iggy to grow.
> 
> ...


The difference with the Sixers is that Iverson takes enough shots for 1 1/2 Wizards:

Arenas 19 shots/game, Hughes 18, Jamison 17.5

Iverson 24.2 shots/game, Webber 17.4

That only leaves about 10 shots at the most for Iggy, which would still be quite an increase from last season's 6.7 (a 50% increase).

And the problem for Iggy with the Sixers' current team is that AI is goint to take plenty of outside shots, and Korver is by far their best outside shooter, so Iggy is only the 3rd option there. And AI gets a lot of his assists on drive-and-dish, and Webber and Korver get more shots than Iggy. Even Dalembert got as many shots per game as Iggy last season, in many fewer minutes.

Iggy isn't a very good jump-shooter for a SG, a lot of his points come on dunks (24% of his shot attempts were dunks, and *45% of the shots he made were dunks*), which he isn't getting a lot of with Iverson doing almost all of the dribble penetration on the team and Dalembert being the main inside guy.

I just don't see Iggy being a prominent enough option on the Sixers to get anywhere near 20 ppg this season.

EDIT: I'm certainly not saying Iggy can't develop an outside shot, the kid's only 21 after all.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

bullsville said:


> That's 2 consecutive outstanding posts, I can't rep you again but I would have.


I did.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Iverson 24.2 shots/game, Webber 17.4


Philly averaged 82.2 FGA per game last season.

82.2 - 24.2 - 17.4 = 40.6 FGA for everyone else (including Iggy)

I know where you're coming from, but I think it'd be ideal to have 100% of one's shots as dunks. As well, a dunk is still an FGA.

EDIT: Iggy's FGA/game did go UP after they acquired webber.... odd!


----------



## tiredchick (Oct 20, 2003)

This is sort of beating the idea to death, but…look at the huge jump in MPG, FGA/gm and FTA/gm James, Wade and Carter – all of whom were much more offensively productive as rookies than Iguodala – needed in order to increase their scoring by more than 6 PPG from their rookie to soph seasons…can you see Iggy playing 38+ MPG next year? I don’t…


LeBron James 

Rookie season: 18.9 FGA 5.8 FTA .417 FG .290 3-Pt 20.9 PPG 39.5 MPG	
Soph season: 21.1 FGA 8.0 FTA .472 FG .351 3-Pt 27.2 PPG 42.4 MPG
Differential + 2.2	+2.2 + .055 +.061	+ 6.3 + 2.9

Dwyane Wade	

Rookie season: 13.1 FGA 5.1 FTA .465 FG .302 3-Pt 16.2 PPG 34.9 MPG
Soph season: 17.1 FGA 9.9 FTA .478 FG .289 3-Pt 24.1 PPG 38.6 MPG
Differential + 4.0	+ 4.8 + .013 - .013	+ 7.9 + 3.7

Vince Carter

Rookie season: 15.3 FGA 5.4 FTA .450 FG .288 3-Pt 18.3 PPG 35.2 MPG
Soph season: 20.7 FGA 6.7 FTA .465 FG .403 3-Pt 25.7 PPG 38.1 MPG
Differential + 4.7	+ 1.3 + .015 +.115	+ 7.4 + 2.9


On the other hand, it took Kobe Bryant to his their 4th season to average more than 20 PPG…and again, look at the jump in MPG, FGA/gm and (especially) FTA/gm in order to get to that point

Kobe Bryant

Rookie Season: 5.9 FGA 2.3 FTA .417 FG .375 3-Pt 7.6 PPG 15.5 MPG
Soph season: 11.6 FGA 5.8 FTA .428 FG .341 3-Pt 15.4 PPG	26.0 MPG
Differential + 5.7	+ 3.5 + .011 - .034	+ 7.8 + 10.5 
3rd Season: 15.6 FGA 5.8 FTA .465 FG .267 3-Pt 19.9 PPG	37.9 MPG	
Differential + 4.0	+ 0.0 + .037 - .074	+ 4.5 + 11.9 
4th Season: 17.9 FGA 6.1 FTA .468 FG .319 3-Pt 22.5 PPG 38.2 MPG
Differential + 2.3	+ 0.3 + .003 + .052	+ 2.6 + 0.3


See the trend here? All of these players, in order to average 20+ PPG had to play 38+ MPG and take 17+ FGA and 5.5+ FTA per game. That means Iguodala next season would have to increase his playing time by more than 5 MPG, take more than 10 additional FGA and 3 additional FTA per game from what he did as a rookie to have any chance to put up 20 PPG. I think that is asking WAY too much of him. I think it is more likely he will average 12-15 PPG in 2005-06, depending on playing time, his role in the new offense, etc. And that would be a significant improvement and one that should be greated with enthusiasm by Sixers and/or Iggy fans…


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Nice post and all, but I don't find the comparisons to mean that much. People used to do the same thing with Jermain O'Neal and Chandler and suggest CHandler would put up similar numbers.

Here's the deal, and it's really simple.

Iggy basically scores 1.36 points per FGA. To score 20 PPG, he needs to get about 14 FGA. An increase of 7.3. He doesn't have to play any more minutes, he just needs to shoot about 2x more often.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Nice post and all, but I don't find the comparisons to mean that much. People used to do the same thing with Jermain O'Neal and Chandler and suggest CHandler would put up similar numbers.
> 
> Here's the deal, and it's really simple.
> 
> Iggy basically scores 1.36 points per FGA. To score 20 PPG, he needs to get about 14 FGA. An increase of 7.3. He doesn't have to play any more minutes, he just needs to shoot about 2x more often.


If the Sixers trade Iverson or Iverson misses a lot of games due to a major injury, he's got a chance. But Iggy simply isn't a good jump shooter for a SG, and with Iverson and Korver and Webber, there aren't going to be 14 shots for him IMHO.

Sure, he'll get a few more dunks if he focuses more on scoring, but I'm sure the Sixers are already encouraging him to get all the dunks he can.


----------



## tiredchick (Oct 20, 2003)

I'm using these comparisons to show a few things -- that you have to shoot the ball more than 15 times per game in order to have a decent shot at scoring 20 PPG; that your chances of scoring 20 PPG also has to do with how much you get to the line, and that you have to play a bunch of minutes to get those shot opportunities.

My main argument is that Iggy isn't going to get 14 FGA per game playing with Iverson, Webber, Dalembert, Korver, et al. Webber took 17.4 FGA per game after joining the Sixers. Aside from Iverson, no one else on the Sixers averaged more than 10.1 FGA/game -- and that was Kenny Thomas, who left in the Webber trade.

More tellingly, of the players who had at least 600 FGA and/or played in 70 games last season, only 44 guys in the ENTIRE LEAGUE averaged 14 or more FGA last season. And of those 44 guys, just under HALF (21 guys) averaged 20+ PPG. That's 21 guys out of a total of 179 who played in at least 70 games last season -- or 11.7%.

Again, I think DaBullz is putting way too high expectations on Iguodala -- especially for next season. Maybe a few years down the road he will come close to the numbers DaBullz is projecting. But I doubt it will happen as long as he is playing with Iverson or any other established superstar who takes a high percentage of his team's total shots.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> If the Sixers trade Iverson or Iverson misses a lot of games due to a major injury, he's got a chance. But Iggy simply isn't a good jump shooter for a SG, and with Iverson and Korver and Webber, there aren't going to be 14 shots for him IMHO.
> 
> Sure, he'll get a few more dunks if he focuses more on scoring, but I'm sure the Sixers are already encouraging him to get all the dunks he can.


Along this line of reasoning...

What happens if Webber and his 17 FGA/game gets injured?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Along this line of reasoning...
> 
> What happens if Webber and his 17 FGA/game gets injured?


Sorry, I meant to say if "Webber" misses a bunch of games due to injuries, not Iverson. 

Iverson could break both legs and not go on the injured list, the odds of him missing a lot of games due to injury are so miniscule they ain't even worth discussing.

But back to your point, yeah of course if CWebb gets hurt, Iggy would get more shots. Of course not as many as if Iverson gets traded since that would require a lot more shots being replaced, but he'd still get more shots.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Sorry, I meant to say if "Webber" misses a bunch of games due to injuries, not Iverson.
> 
> Iverson could break both legs and not go on the injured list, the odds of him missing a lot of games due to injury are so miniscule they ain't even worth discussing.
> 
> But back to your point, yeah of course if CWebb gets hurt, Iggy would get more shots. Of course not as many as if Iverson gets traded since that would require a lot more shots being replaced, but he'd still get more shots.


You realize Iggy's FGA/game went up after Philly traded for Webber, right?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> You realize Iggy's FGA/game went up after Philly traded for Webber, right?


Webber's first game in Philly was Feb 26. In those final 28 Sixer games, Iggy averaged 6.714 FGA per game.

In the first 54 Sixer games, Iggy averaged 6.630 FGA per game. That's an extra 0.084 shots per game after Webber came, so I'd say the difference was negligible.

For practicality, I'd say Webber didn't effect the frequency in which Iggy took a shot in any way whatsoever.

2.571 FTA/game with Webber
2.556 FTA/game without Webber


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Webber's first game in Philly was Feb 26. In those final 28 Sixer games, Iggy averaged 6.714 FGA per game.
> 
> In the first 54 Sixer games, Iggy averaged 6.630 FGA per game. That's an extra 0.084 shots per game after Webber came, so I'd say the difference was negligible.
> 
> ...


80 attempts in 11 games for April = 7.27. That's when they were fighting hard for the last playoff spot (or 1st)


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> 80 attempts in 11 games for April = 7.27. That's when they were fighting hard for the last playoff spot (or 1st)


And 466 attempts in 71 games before that = 6.56. So when they were fighting hard for the last playoff spot, he increased his attempts by 10.8 per cent. Less than one more shot per game. I don't think that was the difference in them making the playoffs or not, although you are certainly welcome to argue that it is. 

And that still doesn't have anything to do with your repeated claim that his FGA went up after Webber was there. 

(Yeah, I know, they did, by an extra 0.084 FGA per game. Over 28 games, he took a *TOTAL of an extra 2.352 shots*. Over 28 games. 2 more shots TOTAL. I fail to see how such an incredibly negligible increase fits into any conversation, though.)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I agree that Iggy can knock down the 3. Point taken.


But some folks are saying he's got "no outside shot" altogether.

Wade Rookie Season 50% of shots were jumpers, eFG .371
Deng Rookie Season 64% of shots were jumpers, eFG .355
Iggy Rookie Season 54% of shots were jumpers, eFG .400

Wade Season Two 53% of shots were jumpers, eFG .389

I think people are missing the point. None of these guys are Michael Redd, but so what. You don't see Michael Redd scoring taking people off the dribble, cutting inside for an alley oop, or running fast breaks like a maniac.

For the Bulls, those would be very valuable skills, because we don't really have anyone that brings it like that from our backcourt. Matching him up with Gordon or Hinrich would make a very potent combo.

Obviously Iggy took quite a bit fewer shots than Wade or Deng or Hinrich. _The operative question is whether, given the opportunity he could do better. _Given his youth and apparent skill at everything else, and the obvious factors (playing with AI and Webber) that limited his opportunities, I don't see the fact that he didn't shoot a lot as an indicator that he can't be an effective scorer, but rather that he wasn't asked to.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> But some folks are saying he's got "no outside shot" altogether.
> 
> Wade Rookie Season 50% of shots were jumpers, eFG .371
> Deng Rookie Season 64% of shots were jumpers, eFG .355
> ...


Those are some nice numbers, thanks. I would have thought that Deng's midrange game was more effective than Iggy's, but it wasn't last season.

Not that I was just ripping on Iggy, as I said he is only 21 and has plenty of room to improve his shot. But Iggy gets a lot of his points on dunks, 24% of his shots are dunks compared to the other guys at under 10%.

Now of course there is nothing wrong with that, as I said way back in this thread obviously the more dunks, the better.

But Iggy won't be scoring big-time as long as he is a Sixer with AI and CWebb taking so many shots. Also you have AI doing most of the dribble penetration on that team, limiting Iggy's chances at doing his own thing towards the hoop. 70% of CWebb's shots in Philly were jumpers (and he was terrible at them eFG% of 33.3%), as long as AI is running the point they are going to have a drive-and-dish offense.

And in that system, CWebb is still going to get the most passes, followed by Korver who is a dead-eye shooter. And if CWebb keeps missing 2/3 of his jumpers, Iggy will never see the ball as the defense will be playing off of CWebb and begging him to shoot 18-footers.

So while he's effective in his role, he's IMHO never going to score even close to 20 pts/game as long as AI is the PG and CWebb and Korver are there.

And I agree with you 100% that matching him with Hinrich or Gordon would be very nice, they are willing to play without the ball which would allow Iggy to be more effective as a driver. That won't happen in Philly, Iverson has always dominated the ball whether he was playing with a PG or not.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> He doesn't have to play any more minutes, he just needs to shoot about 2x more often.


Yeah, because guys who already play 33 minutes a game double their shot attempts from one season to the next all the time, right?

Look, I agree that the kid is a unique talent. But I think you are setting the bar a bit high for his sophomore season, as tiredchick has pointed out repeatedly so well.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Yeah, because guys who already play 33 minutes a game double their shot attempts from one season to the next all the time, right?
> 
> Look, I agree that the kid is a unique talent. But I think you are setting the bar a bit high for his sophomore season, as tiredchick has pointed out repeatedly so well.


He took a shot every ~5 minutes - it's not as hard to double his attempts as you suggest.

My take is the reason his FGA went up in April was that it took a while for CWebb and the rest of the 6ers to get acclimated. Once they did, his passing skills gave them another guy who could get it to Iggy.

An offseason to improve his skills, and getting CWebb with the team for camp and pre-season games should help, too.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> He took a shot every ~5 minutes - it's not as hard to double his attempts as you suggest.
> 
> My take is the reason his FGA went up in April was that it took a while for CWebb and the rest of the 6ers to get acclimated. Once they did, his passing skills gave them another guy who could get it to Iggy.
> 
> An offseason to improve his skills, and getting CWebb with the team for camp and pre-season games should help, too.


I watched the kid live in High School several times when he played every position from point guard to center at Lanphier. I'm a huge fan. I just think your projection is too rapid in time and I think your PPG projection is probably where he will max out in the scoring department, not where he will finish his second season. But scoring is over-rated in my book. Iggy is special, no argument there.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I watched the kid live in High School several times when he played every position from point guard to center at Lanphier. I'm a huge fan. I just think your projection is too rapid in time and I think your PPG projection is probably where he will max out in the scoring department, not where he will finish his second season. But scoring is over-rated in my book. Iggy is special, no argument there.


I don't need to repeat myself, so I guess this thread will serve as a nice prediction, and reminder to anyone who cares when he does have his breakout season.


----------

