# The Kirk-Jamal Connection



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Kirk and Jamal are quickly becoming a great back court together. They try to setup a great play for each other rather than trying to out do each other like Jay and Jamal were doing last year. These two have outside shots so when Curry and Chandler develop downlow and get doubled team these 2 will be open on the perimiter.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> Kirk and Jamal are quickly becoming a great back court together. They try to setup a great play for each other rather than trying to out do each other like Jay and Jamal were doing last year. These two have outside shots so when Curry and Chandler develop downlow and get doubled team these 2 will be open on the perimiter.


last year was BCs fault, plain and simple, not Jwill or JCs fault. Its too bad they werent given a chance. but atleast now we have a coach who realizes that you can play a small backcourt and be successful doing it


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, Kirk is still a rookie so we can expect more ups and downs. But the really encouraging thing is that this kid can play some serious D and he seems to have a knack for the PG position.

Jamal can flat out score and he's been moving a lot better w/o the ball to get his scoring chances. He is playing great under Skiles and as a fan.. its nice to see him happy and confident.

I'd like to see both take the ball to the hoop more (as they did tonight), draw fouls, get easy looks for teammates, reak havoc, play together. With apologies to Kendall Gill.... our best/most explosive backcourt is by far Kirk and Jamal. Let's hope they keep playing well together.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Well, Kirk is still a rookie so we can expect more ups and downs. But the really encouraging thing is that this kid can play some serious D and he seems to have a knack for the PG position.
> 
> Jamal can flat out score and he's been moving a lot better w/o the ball to get his scoring chances. He is playing great under Skiles and as a fan.. its nice to see him happy and confident.
> ...


perfecto, couldnt say it better myself


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I am actually more impressed with Kirk then I am with Jamal, just because he seems to make fewer mistakes. 

I do think Jamal has potential to be one of the top scorers in the LEAGUE, he has that ability. He just needs to learn a better timing for some of the shots he takes. Sometimes he takes shots that arent out of his ability, but its not best for the team and I would like to see him eliminate those.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

Jamal's got a jumper as silky smooth as anyone's in the league, he just needs to work on his selection a bit. As Hinrich and Crawford become increasingly comfortably playing together, and gain more experience not only playing on the court at the same time but just playing in the league in general (they're both still under 25), they could be scary good. This should be a helluva backcourt in the future, now I just want to see Chandler get healthy.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

After last night's game, is there anyone here who still believes that JC cannot pass? The problem with the Craw-Heinrich connection as this thread so puts it, is that they play the same position, PG. Sure the Bulls can get by against certain teams running a two PG offense, but in the long run, the Bull not succeed. Crawford can make due at shooting guard, but it's not his natural position. He is not a catch-and-shoot type of player. So the question is, who is a better PG? Now I'm not talking about last night's game or JC's best games, I'm basing my evaluation on everything that I have seen from both players, this season.


Court Leader; Adv. Heinrich
Handles (with the ability to breakdown a defense); Adv. Craw
Passing; Slight Adv. Craw (fewer passing related TOs and his height helps him see the court better)
Shooting (when open): Tie
Shooting (with a hand in his face): Adv Craw
Driving to the hoop: Very Slight Adv Craw. (Although Heiny is gutsy and not afraid to attack the hoop, he doesn't have the athleticism to take it strong to the hole, plus JC has an effective floater)
Defense (fundamentals): Adv Heinrich
Defense (athleticism): Adv Craw.
Defense (Overall): Tie (Hein is less likely to get burned, but he's also more likely to have his opponent drill shots with him right on him).

So if you look at the factors that make you look for in a PG, you'd have to give the nod to Craw. But Hein will make an awesome backup and since Craw can play SG from time to time, Hein will get plenty of minutes.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

MichaelOFAZ, Jamal Crawford is not a point guard. He is a shooting guard with a set of very nice point guard skills. Kirk Hinrich is a point guard with a set of very nice shooting guard skills. Kerr and Larrivee were talking about this during the game last night. They talked about how Crawford wasn't getting the job done at point, how a rookie came in and took the point guard position, moving Jamal over to his natural position as a scorer, and how this was ultimately beneficial to the team, both short term and long term. However, they did not need to have that discussion, as these points have been glaring at us in the face of unbiased fans for a long time now. Hinrich and Crawford play best when they play like they did last night -- with both players starting, with Hinrich assuming most of the PG duty and with Crawford assuming most of the SG duty.

Why do you think Hinrich "doesn't have the athleticism to take it strong to the hole"? Did you not see him get the and-one on Jermaine O'Neal last night? Do you think that's easy to do? Also, just because Hinrich hasn't shot nearly as much as Crawford has this year doesn't mean he doesn't have an effective floater.

I'm not trying to be rude or offensive, but when you conclude that overall defense between the two players is "equal", I know your criteria is patently biased. Moreover, it seems as if you're still one of those holding out some sort of belief that Hinrich is not very athletic, despite every indication to the contrary. That's like KirkHinrich saying that Crawford can't pass or lead the break or take his man off the dribble.

All I'm saying is, Give props where props are due, no matter the player. And one more thing -- it's "Hinrich", not "Heinrich".:grinning:


----------



## TysEdyKirkrthefuture. (Nov 19, 2003)

Hinrich and Crawford are not equal defensivily and Hinrich is a better penitrator and passer.Jamal is a great shooter, but I would like to see him finish at the basket, he almost never gets to the bucket, he just throws up a running one hander half way down the lane instead of going all the way to the bucket. Jamal also need to work on his shot selection, he has to reckonize when the clock is his friend, he has to know when the other team is in foul trouble and who in particular is having foul trouble, and he has to make sure that there is someone on the offensive boards when shoots. These 2 combined with Tyson and eddy could really make some noise

That and1 drive to the basket Kirk had on JO was a good display of the strength of Kirk, not many points in the league could've finished that one


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I think Jamal is a diffrent kind of passer from Hinrich. I've said it before, but I guess I'll say it again, Hinrich throws John Stockton type passes. Jamal throws Lebron James passes(case in point, that bullet pass he threw from the top of the key to Davis). I think Jamal also has better vision than Hinrich, which may have a lot to do with height. But I just think Crawford is a hair quicker at spotting the open man. I saw a couple times last night where Hinrich missed a wide open JYD.

All of that said, I think it works best when Hinrich is bringing the ball up the court if we're going to go halfcourt. Because Crawford is our biggest offensive threat. And so having him off the ball, gets him shots instead of allowing him to sit up at the top and try and get our other players to hit shots that they aren't capabale of making. Hinrich though, also has some nice off the ball ability. They really are very interchangable on the whole.

And I disagree completely with the assertion that you can't use a two-pg system long term. When one of those guys is a scorer and the other is a lock down defender--I think there is ample precedent with that example.

Look at Isiah and Joe Dumars. Even right now the Sixers are doing just fine with Iverson and Snow, which is one of the best backcourts of the last 5 years.

Notice in both of those situations, it's almost exactly what we have. One guy is the defensive stopper, and the other is the electric scorer on offense. But it's folly to try and assert that one is more valuable than the other.

For Hinrich and Crawford it's all about building chemistry.

Francis and Mobely is another example, now that I'm thinking about it.

Hinrich and Crawford is the longterm and shorterm solution for our backcourt. That's set. It's the other positions that we need to be wise about filling in.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Future I agree with every thing that you said, except that AI has been known to play a little D, too  .


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> Future I agree with every thing that you said, except that AI has been known to play a little D, too  .


Iverson's not a great on the ball defender by any stretch of the imagination, Snow is. Iverson's liability as an on the ball defender is concealed by his ability to play the passing lanes. They really are perfect for each other.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> MichaelOFAZ, Jamal Crawford is not a point guard. He is a shooting guard with a set of very nice point guard skills. Kirk Hinrich is a point guard with a set of very nice shooting guard skills. Kerr and Larrivee were talking about this during the game last night. They talked about how Crawford wasn't getting the job done at point, how a rookie came in and took the point guard position, moving Jamal over to his natural position as a scorer, and how this was ultimately beneficial to the team, both short term and long term. However, they did not need to have that discussion, as these points have been glaring at us in the face of unbiased fans for a long time now. Hinrich and Crawford play best when they play like they did last night -- with both players starting, with Hinrich assuming most of the PG duty and with Crawford assuming most of the SG duty.
> 
> Why do you think Hinrich "doesn't have the athleticism to take it strong to the hole"? Did you not see him get the and-one on Jermaine O'Neal last night? Do you think that's easy to do? Also, just because Hinrich hasn't shot nearly as much as Crawford has this year doesn't mean he doesn't have an effective floater.
> ...


First and foremost, you're entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine. Secondly, I don't consider something as a fact just because Kerr and Larrivee said so. If that were the case the Bulls would still have Michael and Khalid El Amin. Third of all, I certainly wouldn't consider you an unbiased fan considering that you tout KU in your logo. Now on to my comments;

I still believe that both Hinrich and Crawford are PGs by nature. Different types of PGs, but PGs none the less. Hinrich, although just a rookie, appears to be a better floor general (which doesn't sound biased to me). He also appears to be a better defender from a fundamentals perspective (again, doesn't sound biased). Third, if you leave him wide open, I would even venture to say that he might be a slightly better perimeter shooter (although I know that Crawford is very good shooter in his right). I will also say that of the two players, Crawford is much better equipped to play SG (but it isn't his best position).

Regarding Crawford not getting the job done at PG, talk about unfair and ridiculous statements. How many games did Crawford get to play PG for most of the game (until Skiles took over)? Not many, Cartright had everyone from Gill, Pippen, Hinrich, and Rose bringing it up the court. How do you expect any PG to establish himself as a leader. In his first game under Skiles, Crawford scored 30 pts, had 8 dimes, and 8 boards (as a PG). While I'll agree that I'd rather see him get 24 pts, 12 dimes, and 8 boards, those numbers aren't too shabby. As I stated earlier, there are two different types of PGs. There and the Jason Kidds and John Stockton types who aren't prolific scorers, but are exceptional assist men. And then there are guys like Marbury, Francis, Payton (in his prime), and Baron Davis who are scoring PGs, but can also dish and board. Crawford clearly falls into this category. The point is that just because a player can score, doesn't mean that he's not a PG. Also, you can't really tell how good of a PG Craw could be unless you let him play the position for 10 games or so. Since the Bulls do not have a scorer at the 2-guard, the two will alternate between PG and SG depending on the match ups. Because Craw is closer to being a SG than is Kirk, you'll probably see Craw play there more often. But to me they are both PGs.

Why don't I think Hinrich doesn't have the atleticism to take it strong to the hole? I'm not saying that he can't or that he doesn't have the will, nor am I saying that he is weak or fraile, all I am saying is that I don't see him driving to the hole a dunking on someone. Crawford can. Not that it makes Craw a better player because he can jump higher, just makes him a bit more athletic. Plus, I'm not going to base my opinion on one game or one play. That would be stupid and short-sighted of me. You need stop being so defensive and protective of Hinrich. I admitted that he is turning out to be much much better than I ever imagined. I have admitted that I was very quick to judge him in the early going. I'm not saying that Hinrich cannot take his man off the dribble, I'm just saying that Crawford is better at it. I'll say it here right now, Hinrich is a much smarter player than Crawford. JC makes a lot of dumb decisions that are usually masked by his ability to convert/execute. With playing time, Crawford will work through and learn from his mistakes. Did you or anyone notice, last night, how Crawford made it a point to look to pass for a stretch? You could say that he did so because Skiles instructed him to. Based on what I saw, it appeared that he was starting to learn that he needed to get his teammates more involved.

The way I concluded that there D is equal is pretty simple. I watched the game and observed how they guarded their opponents. For the most part, Hinrich guarded Anderson and Craw defended Miller. Both did well, but I felt that Crawford had a tougher assignment guarding Miller and did a slightly better job. Saying they're equal defenders is more than fair in my opinion. And I'll admit that Kirk is better fundamentally.

Regarding your last statement .... you might want to read it yourself. I didn't attend Kansas U or U of M. In fact, I hate (or a strong dislike) U of M. I just know basketball.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> Secondly, I don't consider something as a fact just because Kerr and Larrivee said so.


I don't consider it fact, either. Mentioning this merely lends my opinion a bit more credibility, that's all.



> Third of all, I certainly wouldn't consider you an unbiased fan considering that you tout KU in your logo.


I'm a fan of the sport first and foremost. This supercedes the fact that I'm a Kansas basketball fan as well. Am I supposed to presume that you are an Arizona fan and therefore biased towards Mike Bibby, Richard Jefferson and Gilbert Arenas because of your location, handle or sig line? No, because one's location, handle, sig line and avatar mean little compared to the content of one's posts. And I think I've been about as objective as objective can be throughout all my posts on this board.



> I still believe that both Hinrich and Crawford are PGs by nature. Different types of PGs, but PGs none the less.


Agreed, sort of. Hinrich has a point guard mentality, whereas Crawford has a scorer's mentality. Big difference. They both have great court vision and passing ability, but their respective mentalities and how they approach the game are their most discernable differences. Differences that are observed by a great many other people than just myself.



> Hinrich, although just a rookie, appears to be a better floor general (which doesn't sound biased to me). He also appears to be a better defender from a fundamentals perspective (again, doesn't sound biased).


No offense, but these observations were quite obvious a long time ago, and no bias or lack thereof is needed to make them.



> Third, if you leave him wide open, I would even venture to say that he might be a slightly better perimeter shooter (although I know that Crawford is very good shooter in his right). I will also say that of the two players, Crawford is much better equipped to play SG (but it isn't his best position).


Agreed, except I believe a combo-type SG _is_ Crawford's optimal position, provided he gain some more strength and learn to shoot off of screens with greater regularity.



> Regarding Crawford not getting the job done at PG, talk about unfair and ridiculous statements.


Why isn't Crawford starting at PG right now? He's had over 3 years in the League to build up to this point and get the job done, and -- voila! -- he's not the starting PG on the team because he's moved over to his natural position at SG.



> As I stated earlier, there are two different types of PGs. There and the Jason Kidds and John Stockton types who aren't prolific scorers, but are exceptional assist men. And then there are guys like Marbury, Francis, Payton (in his prime), and Baron Davis who are scoring PGs, but can also dish and board. Crawford clearly falls into this category.


Agreed. But I think Marbury and Payton are clearly more suited for PG than is Crawford, and I think Francis is clearly a combo-type scorer playing out of position at the point (which Crawford had previously been doing for a long time). Also, I thoroughly believe Crawford can be a much better player than Francis, and perhaps the best combo-type scoring guard in the League in time.



> Also, you can't really tell how good of a PG Craw could be unless you let him play the position for 10 games or so. Since the Bulls do not have a scorer at the 2-guard, the two will alternate between PG and SG depending on the match ups. Because Craw is closer to being a SG than is Kirk, you'll probably see Craw play there more often. But to me they are both PGs.


Didn't Jamal play quite a bit of PG when Rose and Marshall were on the team?



> Why don't I think Hinrich doesn't have the atleticism to take it strong to the hole? I'm not saying that he can't or that he doesn't have the will, nor am I saying that he is weak or fraile, all I am saying is that I don't see him driving to the hole a dunking on someone.


I still have the game tape of Hinrich dunking over a 6'7" guy on the break in college. Regardless, two points is two points, and a running floater or a stop-and-pop jumper is worth two points, same as a dunk. You do realize that Kirk has a higher vertical leap than Dwyane Wade, don't you? You also realize that Kirk has the speed of NFL wide receivers, right?



> Crawford can.


Sure he can, same as Hinrich -- but when has he ever done it? If you're comparing the strength of each player in taking it to fthe hole, why do you think that Crawford has the edge here? Kirk has shown much more ability than Jamal to drive and go up strong and draw the foul.



> You need stop being so defensive and protective of Hinrich.


Trust me, I'm not. I call 'em how I see 'em. I simply believe you're way off base here, just as you were a couple months ago in saying that Hinrich was overrated and not that good a player (I remember those discussions quite fondly).



> I admitted that he is turning out to be much much better than I ever imagined. I have admitted that I was very quick to judge him in the early going.


Well, you should. It's called being objective and credible.



> The way I concluded that there D is equal is pretty simple. I watched the game and observed how they guarded their opponents. For the most part, Hinrich guarded Anderson and Craw defended Miller. Both did well, but I felt that Crawford had a tougher assignment guarding Miller and did a slightly better job. Saying they're equal defenders is more than fair in my opinion. And I'll admit that Kirk is better fundamentally.


Sure, but what about other games? You think Kirk has had it easy guarding Allen Iverson, Baron Davis and Stephon Marbury? Why has Kirk had to guard the opposing team's SG so often, even when Crawford is in the game?



> Regarding your last statement .... you might want to read it yourself. I didn't attend Kansas U or U of M. In fact, I hate (or a strong dislike) U of M. I just know basketball.


This has nothing to do with university allegiance or player favoritism. It has everything to do with objectivity, analytical opinion and track records with regards to previous statements.

P.S. It's all good, really. Intelligent banter and opinions make the world go 'round, and I appreciate a good debate. I just happen to disagree with you...rather strongly.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

to me neither JC or kirk are true pg in the true sense of the word 

for one kirk doesn't have the inate handle needed , which is why he turns it over the way he does , although he has gotten better at it 

JC tends to get into modes in which sometimes he wants to pass and sometimes he wants to score ...he should do both all the time 

i label them both simply guards and i'm pretty cool with them sharing the duties , there tends to be too much classifications on positions and not enough emphasis on the results they produce


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

happygrinch has it right

They split the guard duties and both produce and in the Indy game they both had a smile which is a good sign. There is also the JYD-Fizer connection. They both are trying to be tough out there and like to intimidate opponents...Not quite the same but I was just trying to make a connection between the 2 connections


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

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


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> i label them both simply guards and i'm pretty cool with them sharing the duties , there tends to be too much classifications on positions and not enough emphasis on the results they produce



Exactly. Why can't we focus more on whether or not the pairing is effective rather than worrying about whether either is the prototypical this or that. PG, SG, Combo Guard, it is all irrelevant to me. If they produce, super. I dont' care what you call it, as long as the job is being done.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree or to agree for different reasons. However, I'll just laugh at your last comment that the so-called "difference that are observed by a great many". Like you've taken a poll and the masses side with you. Anyway it doesn't matter ... we can agree to disagree on this entire issue.


Per your suggestion, I'll make a poll on this subject and see what the opinion of this site is.



> I guess it's inconceivable to think that we might have two PGs and we simply are forced to play one as a SG.


Touche, but why couldn't Crawford produce at point guard at the beginning of the season? Why was he repeatedly pulled from the game, benched and moved to SG? Is it all Cartright's fault?



> Yes, he played under Cartright's microscope.


So did everyone else, including Kirk Hinrich. Must be everyone's fault except for Jamal's though, I guess.



> ROFLMAO over this one! You've kept a game tape of Hinrich in college under your pillow for all this time and now you say that you're not biased or that you could possibly favor Hinrich.


Personal attack aside (I don't really care, but it is as annoying as well as expected), I honestly don't see how you can say this with a straight face considering the length and content of your sig line. Regardless, I've already stated in clear terms that I believe my opinions and observations are unbiased and honest, and my first allegiance is always to the sport before anything else. I'm not some obsequious homer with some sort of agenda. I'm a fan of the game, have been since I was a kid and always will be.

Simply put, I don't "favor" Hinrich. Such a blanket statement is misleading and ignorant. I see what I see, and I call things how I see them. I evaluate and opine on Hinrich with the same standards and criteria that I've used to evaluate hundreds and hundreds of players for years. I think it's preposterous, hypocritical and rude for you to believe (and state publicly) that I somehow can't hold an objective opinion on something just because I have a broader context of that subject than you do. If that was the case, then anybody who has ever studied one thing more than another is categorically biased, despite what logic and uniformity they may or may not possess or utilize in regards to the subject. If you think I'm some sort of diehard homer, why don't you ask rlucas and see if I'm against saying what needs to be said in regards to Kirk Hinrich. Ask him what I thought after the first New Orleans game. I base my opinion on logic and experience, and I attempt to draw an even context for everything I have an opinion on, from basketball players to music to systems of logic to politics. On the contrary, I believe a great deal of your opinion is based on ad hominem and previous immutable sentiment.

I posted a great many things about Hinrich's merits on this board in the past that were soundly ridiculed by people like you, yet I stood my ground and believed wholeheartedly in my analysis. You know what? I was right. My opinion never wavered. It still doesn't.

Regarding the game tapes, I tape all Kansas games for my uncle because he doesn't have the opportunity to see them live due to where he lives. I don't keep them "under my pillow", but thanks for the snide remark.



> However, taking the ball to the hole hard can make a statement and can energize a team when it needs it the most (ala Kevin Johnson's dunk on Hakeem). If Hinrich can do that, then I guess he's every bit as athletic as Craw.


He can. He's done so more often than Crawford and I believe he will continue to do so in the future. Speaking of energizing the team, what do you think Hinrich's and-one on Jermaine O'Neal did? Come on man, don't be blind.



> Unfortunately, I don't know that he has the vertical leap of Wade or the speed of NFL wide receivers. So, I guess I'll have to take your word for it.


Well, you should. I know people who trained with him and measured his stats in college. In fact, one of them roams around this site from time to time, but I don't want to single him out.



> Cause I know there's no way you could be over-exaggerating at all (Is Kirks poster on the back of your door or the front?)


Again, thanks for the snide remark. Your argumentative integrity is duly noted. I don't exaggerate. I simply tell it how it is. If you don't like it, tough luck.



> I never said that he wasn't a good player, I simply said that he wasn't deserving of a starting positon coming out of the gate. Evidently you're memory has failed you. I will admit that I ripped him after he played a couple of bad games, just as I have ripped Crawford when he has played bad.


Nope. I wasn't soundly ridiculed for nothing, you know. And I'd like to think I have a decent memory. 



> Crawford didn't dress against Marbury's Suns. Against the Hornets, Crawford and Hinrich split time guarding Davis (27 and 28 minutes, respectively). Against Iverson, it was defense by committee. Crawford cannot guard AI, but then again who can?


Again, if you're going to assert that Crawford and Hinrich are "equal" defensively, I can't take the rest of your previous observations with total seriousness.



> By the way, what pillow do you keep the Hinrich tape under?


Third time's a charm. Why resort to insults? I didn't think the argument was _that_ one-sided.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> I'm not some obsequious homer with some sort of agenda.



Excellent choice of vocabulary.

Obsequious: adj.
excessively eager to please or to obey all instructions


----------



## Robert23 (Dec 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> Experts on positioning NBA players, umm no. Steve Kerr, maybe. John Redd Kerr, probably not.


You mean NBA Champion, Three time NBA All-Star, NBA Coach of the year Johnny Redd Kerr? Yeah your probably right he doesn't know what he's talking about. 



> If Hinrich can do that, then I guess he's every bit as athletic as Craw. Unfortunately, I don't know that he has the vertical leap of Wade or the speed of NFL wide receivers. So, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Cause I know there's no way you could be over-exaggerating at all (Is Kirks poster on the back of your door or the front?)


Despite your disbelief if you would have read any of the pre-draft reports on measurements and times you would have seen this. Quite a few people were surprised he beat Wade and had some of the top scores.




> VincentVega said "Sure he can, same as Hinrich -- but when has he ever done it? If you're comparing the strength of each player in taking it to fthe hole, why do you think that Crawford has the edge here? Kirk has shown much more ability than Jamal to drive and go up strong and draw the foul."
> 
> I base my OPINION on what I see, on height and wing span, and footspeed. I believe I said that it was a slight advantage for Crawford.


So based on physical charateristics Craw has the advantage. Despite never doing it? Hmm interesting way to score. How about taking score on what they actually do instead of what they could do? Based on this scoring system shouldn't Yao be slightly better than Shaq. Yao has wins height and wingspan.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Wow, nice little debate going on here. Kudos.

The one point that is so off-base here is concerning Jamal's defense. Can anyone find me one snippet of an article (any source, paper, writer, etc) that praises Jamal's defensive effort in one NBA game? Find me one. Any one. Yet 20 games into Kirk's NBA career, there have been numerous articles from many different sources praising Kirk's defense. He's got it.

Jamal is athletic. He has a 6'10" wingspan and hops. Hooray. But playing defense has more to do with footwork, spacing, discipline, effort, and yes... instinct. Ron-Ron won't be winning any high jump contests, but he's got heart/hustle/plays physical and gets after it. JKidd? Not the quickest PG but he has instincts and knowledge of the game. Christie, CRobinson, Bowen, Eric Snow? Not too many posters made of these guys, nor are we drooling over their athleticism.

Defense is probably 90% heart, hustle and instinct. I would rank Kirk's defense far above that of Jamals.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> to me neither JC or kirk are true pg in the true sense of the word
> 
> for one kirk doesn't have the inate handle needed , which is why he turns it over the way he does , although he has gotten better at it


Happy, I brought up the same thing in another thread, but I think you are ignoring how hard the transition from a college point guard to an NBA point guard is. Lots of people struggle with their handle right off the bat and have to improve it, and do.

I know he's not a true point guard either, but one example is Jamal. Jamal was terribly inconsistent at bringing the ball up his rookie year. Now he's pretty much money with his handle. Kirk has made such a notable improvement already that I really don't doubt his potential. 

Please remember how Elton Brand struggled his first month or so. Some of us thought he wouldn't be able to score on this level. 

I suggest you give Kirk a little bit more time to become your pure point guard. Really, he hasn't required much patience at all, so that's not a lot to ask for.


----------



## Wild Wild West (Jun 30, 2003)

The main thing with this backcourt is it appears they can grow together for years to come with both having the ability to become an above average starter, but probably not star which is fine. Curry and Chandler do have star near allstar upsides, and the frontcourt bench after the trade is set for a couple of years. 

We now have four young talented starters, and if we can luck out to get the fifth, a SF in the draft, that would make filling in future pieces with the MLE, veterans minimum and mid to later draft picks pretty easy.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree or to agree for different reasons. *However, I'll just laugh at your last comment that the so-called "difference that are observed by a great many". Like you've taken a poll and the masses side with you.* Anyway it doesn't matter ... we can agree to disagree on this entire issue.


Well, I made a poll. And as of 1:00 PM CST, the results overwhelmingly support my assertion. So, I guess you could say the masses do in fact side with me.

Voila!
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67463&forumid=27


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

My last response to this thread ...

I applaud you for putting together such an intelligent response. My references to Hinrich tapes under your pillow or posters on your door, were tongue-in-cheek remarks to suggest that perhaps you might have a slight bias toward Hinrich, just a I have toward Craw. I wasn't trying to be snide, although I can see how it came across that way, I was just trying to rebutt your original accusation that I was being (blatantly) biased toward JC. I understand and appreciate your point-of-view and defense of Hinrich, I just don't totally agree with it. The question never was could Hinrich play PG, it was who between the two is better suited for the role. 

As far as Johnny Kerr being a good judge of talent, I'll just say that Isiah was an All-Star, but it didn't make him a good coach or judge of talent. Doc Rivers was COY, and yet he's not an NBA coach now. And finally, Cartright is a three time NBA Champion, I suppose that make him a great coach too? I've listened to Kerr and his color-commentary crew for years and years now. I haven't missed a game in the past 4 years and watched religiously for 20 years prior to that. I'm not suggesting that Kerr was categorically wrong and that he didn't know what he anything about basketball, I simply suggested that I would necessarily consider him a reliable judge of today's NBA talent, based on what I've heard him say over the past few years. I've heard them rant and rave about how El Amin and Michael Ruffin had solid futures in the NBA. 

I haven't check out your poll. But I am not surprised at the results.

If you don't see that Cartright had it out for Crawford, then I think you're honestly blind. How does a team lose it's top two veterans and scorers, and still only give up a point and half in average scoring? How does a guy go from playing 10 minutes one night and 30 the next, to playing 35-40 minutes every game? Is he suddenly a different player now that Skiles is coaching? 

Yes, I saw the GREAT move Hinrich had went he took the ball up against O'Neal. It was awesome and I was very impressed. I never said that he wasn't capable of taking the ball strong to the hoop, I simply said that Crawford had a slight advantage in this area. If I am blind, you're clear ultra-defensive. It's not like I said that Kirk couldn't hold a candle to JC or anything. 

You don't have to agree or take me serious regarding any of this. I will still contend that Hinrich is a better fundamental defender and JC is a better defender based on other aspects. Ron Artest is a great defender, but fundamentally he's not the best. Where as Bruce Bowen is fundamentally a great defender. (Not to compare our guys to either of these players).

The best way to settle this argument is observe and take note. Tomorrow's game may not work because I am not sure that the game will be aired on NBA League Pass and I don't think it'll be on WGN in AZ. But for the next televised game, you and I (and others if desired), should make a log of the following for each player; in man-to-man what is the FG% of the player to which JC or Kirk is assigned to guard (while they are guarding that player), in a zone, the FG% of the shooter when Craw or Kirk is the closest defender. Then take each of those results and subtract them from the shooters/opponents season FG %. The delta will determine which is the better defender. Now, I realize that there is a lot more to defense than just FG%, but for a quick-and-dirty benchmark comparison, this is about as good as any. I'll bet that the statistical results will bear that Craw is a slightly better defender. If you're willing to participate in this analysis, just let me know. Otherwise, it is simply your opinion versus mine.

Lasty, I apologize for being rude, immature, and inconsiderate with my comments. I should have just you have your opinion and kept my opinions to myself


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

I think answer for "who is better than defender?" is all in already. Case closed.

While Jamal never proved himself as a defender through his 4th year in NBA and in fact it has been most criticized aspect of his game, Kirk has proven himself to the world that he is one heck of defender only through 20 something games into NBA.

You don't need a stat sheet to get this. It is so plain obvious that you only have to watch the game.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> My last response to this thread ...
> 
> I applaud you for putting together such an intelligent response. My references to Hinrich tapes under your pillow or posters on your door, were tongue-in-cheek remarks to suggest that perhaps you might have a slight bias toward Hinrich, just a I have toward Craw. I wasn't trying to be snide, although I can see how it came across that way, I was just trying to rebutt your original accusation that I was being (blatantly) biased toward JC. I understand and appreciate your point-of-view and defense of Hinrich, I just don't totally agree with it. The question never was could Hinrich play PG, it was who between the two is better suited for the role.
> ...


Michael, your absolutely spot on with your analysis. When I read your first post I was going to reply in agreement with you before I saw the great debate start. One little caveat I wanted to add to this discussion is that a lot of folks are saying "Jamal has moved to the 2" and that JUST not so. Jamal started against Indy as the pg. I clearly remember him taking the ball up to the top of the key and initiating the offense on the first offensive set of the game for the Bulls and for MANY subsequent sets. In fact, I would even estimate that Jamal "ran the point" more than Kirk did in the game against Indy. It seems that a lot of folks, Dore & Kerr included, are forgetting this and just talking about how "great Jamal looks at the 2", when, in actuality he is doing MOST of his damage playing right where he always has...the point guard spot. Sure, he's sharing time with Hinrich handling point guard duties, sure, he IS spending time at the 2. But, as of the last game he was still starting at the point and playing MORE point than Hinrich. A fact that a lot of people seem to be missing.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

MichaelOFAZ, why would I waste my time computing a delta for each player's defense next game? I much prefer watching and enjoying the games with a few beers and some friends. Besides, it wouldn't matter anyway -- Kirk could have 10x the delta score of Jamal and you still would probably try to argue your way out of it and contend that the two players are equal defensively. The fact is, the vast majority of fans, coaches, analysts, commentators and scouts consider Hinrich to be a better defender than Crawford. There have been numerous articles written in various media praising Hinrich for his defense, _and the kid hasn't even played 20 pro games yet._ He's already gaining recognition as one of the better perimeter defenders in the East. And yet, there's no mention of Jamal in this context -- not in all the time he's been in the League (hundreds of games). Why not?

And I didn't take offense to any personal comments you made toward me, as I feel they are more indicative of you losing the debate than it is an indictment on myself.

P.S. If the poll results "don't surprise you", then why did you "laugh" at me before? Isn't that a bit contradictory of you? Or perhaps glaringly hypocritical?

P.P.S. I can make another poll regarding the overall defense of the two players as well. Just promise you wont laugh at me and then later claim you weren't surprised.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I DO agree that Hinrich is clearly a better man defender. Jamal has the size and long arms to play good defense but he isn't as good a defender as Hinrich. I think that was what Michael was getting at that Jamal has the more physical tools.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Per your suggestion, I'll make a poll on this subject and see what the opinion of this site is.
> ...


See Triangle, and see the difference in play with EVERYONE. See why Jay-Will probably looked so bad transitioning to the pro's, i'd love to see Jay-Will play his game now if he didnt injure himself. I can totally see why players played so poorly trying to run an offense they really didnt have a clue how to run, let alone having the veterans to run it with.





> So did everyone else, including Kirk Hinrich. Must be everyone's fault except for Jamal's though, I guess.


If you remember correctly, Kirk was brought along slowly, and screwed up alot then as well. Its just that Jalen and Jamal took the brunt of the blame that should've gone mainly to Cartwright, then the team as a whole. Jamal was no more to blame than any other player on the team trying to do too much, when the real problem was the offensive system and coaching.




> Personal attack aside (I don't really care, but it is as annoying as well as expected), I honestly don't see how you can say this with a straight face considering the length and content of your sig line. Regardless, I've already stated in clear terms that I believe my opinions and observations are unbiased and honest, and my first allegiance is always to the sport before anything else. I'm not some obsequious homer with some sort of agenda. I'm a fan of the game, have been since I was a kid and always will be.
> 
> Simply put, I don't "favor" Hinrich. Such a blanket statement is misleading and ignorant. I see what I see, and I call things how I see them. I evaluate and opine on Hinrich with the same standards and criteria that I've used to evaluate hundreds and hundreds of players for years. I think it's preposterous, hypocritical and rude for you to believe (and state publicly) that I somehow can't hold an objective opinion on something just because I have a broader context of that subject than you do. If that was the case, then anybody who has ever studied one thing more than another is categorically biased, despite what logic and uniformity they may or may not possess or utilize in regards to the subject. If you think I'm some sort of diehard homer, why don't you ask rlucas and see if I'm against saying what needs to be said in regards to Kirk Hinrich. Ask him what I thought after the first New Orleans game. I base my opinion on logic and experience, and I attempt to draw an even context for everything I have an opinion on, from basketball players to music to systems of logic to politics. On the contrary, I believe a great deal of your opinion is based on ad hominem and previous immutable sentiment.
> 
> ...


Your bias towards Heinrich at the expense of Jamal. Plain and simple.




> He can. He's done so more often than Crawford and I believe he will continue to do so in the future. Speaking of energizing the team, what do you think Hinrich's and-one on Jermaine O'Neal did? Come on man, don't be blind.



no he hasnt, only in the last 2 games maybe, but not overall. I dont think you should be calling anyone blind, unless your only speaking of the last 2 games.





> Well, you should. I know people who trained with him and measured his stats in college. In fact, one of them roams around this site from time to time, but I don't want to single him out.


I'm curious to know what his vertical leap was, and what his time was next to NFL receivers. Are we talking James Jett fast, or Warren Sapp fast(technically he can be considered a receiver i guess)


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I DO agree that Hinrich is clearly a better man defender. Jamal has the size and long arms to play good defense but he isn't as good a defender as Hinrich. I think that was what Michael was getting at that Jamal has the more physical tools.


Ace, we're still talking about Jamal's physical tools (on defense) in his 4th year in the league? If this was the primary factor for defense, I'd expect eRob, RDavis, DMiles, TThomas, JBender, MOlowandi to be all NBA defense this season. Please see my post from before, cheers.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=830043#post830043



> Jamal is athletic. He has a 6'10" wingspan and hops. Hooray. But playing defense has more to do with footwork, spacing, discipline, effort, and yes... instinct. Ron-Ron won't be winning any high jump contests, but he's got heart/hustle/plays physical and gets after it. JKidd? Not the quickest PG but he has instincts and knowledge of the game. Christie, CRobinson, Bowen, Eric Snow? Not too many posters made of these guys, nor are we drooling over their athleticism.
> 
> Defense is probably 90% heart, hustle and instinct. I would rank Kirk's defense far above that of Jamals.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> I'm curious to know what his vertical leap was, and what his time was next to NFL receivers. Are we talking James Jett fast, or Warren Sapp fast(technically he can be considered a receiver i guess)


Here is a copy of the my post from way back on the combine athletic numbers. Actually Dwyane Wade had better numbers than Hinrich all around, but not by much. Hinrich has a 33.5 inch vertical jump, the equal of Carmello's. That's a very solid though unspectacular vertical, and I certainly saw Kirk throw down at Kansas.



http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36273&highlight=combine

Some stats on who the best athletes are from the Chicago combine (post #1) 


Here is some info that I have compiled from an Insider article that came out this morning. Unfortunately, Mr. Ford did not include the total number of participants, which would have helped big time in understanding where these athletes rate amongst themselves.

Dwyane Wade - 14
Kirk Hinrich - 20
Josh Howard - 22
Carmelo Anthony - 38
Darko Milicic - 41
T. J. Ford - 44
Chris Kaman - 45
Chris Bosh - 51
Nick Collison - 54
David West - 61
Luke Ridnour - 63
Brian Cook - 68
Mike Sweetney - 70
Pavel Podkolzine - 76


(Incidentally, there were no stats on LeBron in this article except body fat (6.7%) and wing span (7' 1/2"), and height (6' 7 1/2" without shoes!, 6'8 1/2" with!) LeBron missed these the rest of the tests because he was at his high school graduation.

Also, the number 1 athlete in the draft is Troy Bell, who among other things has a 41 inch vertical leap, a 3/4 court sprint speed of 3.06 sec, and lifted the bar 185 lb bar 17 times. Damn, you go little dude!

I have listed the results of some of the top prospects below. Most of the time, the person on the top of this list was not the top person overall but was the best of the top prospects.


Notable vertical leaps:
TJ Ford: 39.5 in
Josh Howard: 36.5
Wade: 35
Hinrich: 33.5
Anthony: 33.5
Bosh: 33
Collison: 33
Darko: 32.5
Kaman: 30.5 (not bad at all for a center)
Pavel: 22.5 (I think that means if Pavel and TJ Ford both jump as high as they can, their heads wind up at about the same height!)


Notable bench press reps:
Kaman: 15
Darko: 13
Hinrich: 10
Bosh: 9
Wade: 9
Collison: 8
Melo: 7
Pavel: 5
Ford: 0 (See, this is why Troy Bell is my hero.)


Notable lane agility times:
Wade: 10.56 sec
Howard: 10.89
Hinrich: 10.98
Darko: 11.3
Kaman: 11.33
Anthony: 11.4
Ford: 11.45 (Damn TJ, gettin beat by a seven foot center!?!)
Collison: 11.62
Bosh: 11.8
Pavel: 13.4


Notable 3/4 court sprint times:
Wade: 3.08 seconds 
Howard: 3.09
Hinrich: 3.1
Anthony: 3.15
Ford: 3.2
Collison: 3.28
Bosh: 3.3
Darko: 3.36
Kaman: 3.37
Podkolzine: 3.8


Body fat:
James Lang: 21.4%
Collison: 17%
Kaman: 16.3%
Melo: 8% (Wow, Melo doesn't have nearly the baby fat I expected.)
LeBron James: 6.7%


Conclusions:

- Troy Bell is one sick little dude.
- Dwyane Wade is one of the better athletes in the draft.
- So is Kirk Hinrich. (Sorry to make a race related comment, but I'm always just a little bit proud when I discover a white guy with hops to make up for my 10.5 inch vertical!)
- TJ Ford may seem quick on the court, but he's not in drills.
- Kaman is a really decent athlete for a center prospect.
- Josh Howard can really hang. Should we consider drafting him as our swingman if we trade down?
- Pavel ain't outrunning anyone.
- James Lang is actually not as fat as I thought he was.


Does anyone have any info/links on how some of our draft picks have done on these tests in the past few years? I seem to remember seeing Jay's stats on some of these tests.

Don't you wish we had the measurements for Sofo, Pietrus, Diaw, and the HS kids? I sure wish I did.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Thanks for the numbers, Darius Miles Davis. I've searched long and hard for a link to those stats, but haven't been able to find one since last summer.

One thing I'd like to add, before anyone thinks I'm making up numbers -- prior to his junior year at Kansas, everyone on the team had their vertical leaps measured. Coach Holliday and Coach Robinson conducted these using professional technique (ie, no-step jump off two feet using swivel pegs). Hinrich measured an even 36.0", and my buddy wrote the score in a log book, as he helped the team in certain capacities that year. I remember seeing the measurement made at the combine nearly a year later and was a little surprised that is was considerably lower than what he registered earlier. I later read quotes from Hinrich stating that he was so fatigued from traveling so much and going full-force in workouts all across the country for various teams in such a short amount of time, and as a result he believed he didn't do as well as he could have in the physical tests.

Regardless, vertical leap is a strange, strange thing. Some guys jump best off one foot, some guys jump best off two feet, some guys don't jump that high in tests but then jump out of the gym in games, etc.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Thanks for the numbers, Darius Miles Davis. I've searched long and hard for a link to those stats, but haven't been able to find one since last summer.
> 
> One thing I'd like to add, before anyone thinks I'm making up numbers -- prior to his junior year at Kansas, everyone on the team had their vertical leaps measured. Coach Holliday and Coach Robinson conducted these using professional technique (ie, no-step jump off two feet using swivel pegs). Hinrich measured an even 36.0", and my buddy wrote the score in a log book, as he helped the team in certain capacities that year. I remember seeing the measurement made at the combine nearly a year later and was a little surprised that is was considerably lower than what he registered earlier. I later read quotes from Hinrich stating that he was so fatigued from traveling so much and going full-force in workouts all across the country for various teams in such a short amount of time, and as a result he believed he didn't do as well as he could have in the physical tests.
> ...


VV, many many NFL scouts consider vertical leap the purest measurement of athletic ability. FYI. Hinrich is a good athlete.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

One more thing -- during the preseason of either '01 or '02, I distinctly remember reading in one of the papers that Hinrich had run a 4.4 second forty yard dash, which is NFL receiver speed. His speed in games certainly corroborates this claim. Also, he was known as a phenomenal 200- and 400-meter runner in high school.

Regardless, all this talk is trivial to on-court results.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> One more thing -- during the preseason of either '01 or '02, I distinctly remember reading in one of the papers that Hinrich had run a 4.4 second forty yard dash, which is NFL receiver speed. His speed in games certainly corroborates this claim. Also, he was known as a phenomenal 200- and 400-meter runner in high school.
> 
> Regardless, all this talk is trivial to on-court results.


OT, but interesting. Sometime this summer I found the figures from the previous year's draft. When they combine the numbers to rate the best overall athlete, those at the top are almost always small guys, as you could imagine. They are quicker, usually jump higher, and often do well at the bench press due to shorter arms. 

But I remember Nene was the number 2 rated athlete in the whole class.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> VV, many many NFL scouts consider vertical leap the purest measurement of athletic ability. FYI. Hinrich is a good athlete.


I'd tend to agree. Ever see some of the verticals of pro DB's? It's disgusting. They ALL bench 350+ and have 35"+ verticals.

Another topic which would surely result in me not studying one bit for my upcoming finals would be to compare/contrast football athleticism with basketball athleticism.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, we're still talking about Jamal's physical tools (on defense) in his 4th year in the league? If this was the primary factor for defense, I'd expect eRob, RDavis, DMiles, TThomas, JBender, MOlowandi to be all NBA defense this season. Please see my post from before, cheers.
> ...


I take your point. Just don't forget that Jamal didn't start playing organized bball until his Junior year of HS and only played 17 college games. Then there was the ACL tear too...I think you see what I am trying to say...I hope.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Incidentally, E-Rob has the 5th highest vertical leap in the NBA at like 54.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Happy, I brought up the same thing in another thread, but I think you are ignoring how hard the transition from a college point guard to an NBA point guard is. Lots of people struggle with their handle right off the bat and have to improve it, and do.
> ...


in jamals rookie year he was a 168 lbs 19 yr. old not even close to pyhsically mature

kirk is 5 years removed from high school ,as a pg, is his handle supposed to be still improving?

no it shouldn't it should be capable enough that no one should worry about it 

are people worrying about TJ ford's ability to handle a ball ? or ridnour or banks?

JC was a project if his handle wasn't up to snuff by now i would be the 1st to put as far from the pg position as possible


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Incidentally, E-Rob has the 5th highest vertical leap in the NBA at like 54.


Where does one find stats on who has the highest vertical? 

Eddie is really over 50 inches?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Incidentally, E-Rob has the 5th highest vertical leap in the NBA at like 54.


What? Is this documented? Erob can certainly jump out of the gym, and he's freakishly athletic. But the highest recorded vertical leap I can recall is Michael Wilson, the old Memphis player/Harlem Globetrotter, who held the world record in dunk height (11'6") for a long time and had an official vertical of 51".

Could very well be true, but I think that numer is a bit too outrageous to believe. But who knows. MJ in his prime had a 48" vertical, which pretty much qualified him as a major commercial airline pilot.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> What? Is this documented? Erob can certainly jump out of the gym, and he's freakishly athletic. But the highest recorded vertical leap I can recall is Michael Wilson, the old Memphis player/Harlem Globetrotter, who held the world record in dunk height (11'6") for a long time and had an official vertical of 51".
> ...


i'm almost positive e-rob has 48 inch vert or at least did at some point 

and mj topped out at 39"


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

I doubt E-rob has a 54'' vertical, and even if he did, that would be far and away the best in the league, not the 5th best. Doesn't Vince Carter only jump a 43'' vert?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Seriously, how do you know MJ topped out at 39"? I've heard all sorts of numbers, but the one I remember reading in the past and investing the most trust in (it was in The Sporting News or SI or something) was the 48" number.

Anways, here's some other numbers:

Vince Carter -- 43"
Amare Stoudamire -- 38"
Spud Webb -- 44"
Jeff Trepagnier -- 42"
Steve Francis -- 43"
Desmond Mason -- 38"
Michael Finley -- 35"


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Seriously, how do you know MJ topped out at 39"? I've heard all sorts of numbers, but the one I remember reading in the past and investing the most trust in (it was in The Sporting News or SI or something) was the 48" number.
> 
> Anways, here's some other numbers:
> ...


they take these things at pre draft camps 

probably the same way you have the #s above 

it surely wasn't 48 ...at one point the highest vertical in the league belonged to clyde drexler at 43 and since clyde started 1 year before and played well into and through MJ's prime...48 is fantasy

also his coaches were saying his athletic ability was already on its downside by the time the bulls won their 1st title


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Whoa, Webb and Carter have almost the same vertical? ERob at 50+ does seem really off. Has anyone seen him get higher than Carter?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Spud Webb in the '86 dunk contest was absolutely jaw-dropping. When he jumped, he would just keep elevating and elevating, and when he finally reached the rim, it was like he was dangling off the side of a cliff.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> MichaelOFAZ, why would I waste my time computing a delta for each player's defense next game? I much prefer watching and enjoying the games with a few beers and some friends. Besides, it wouldn't matter anyway -- Kirk could have 10x the delta score of Jamal and you still would probably try to argue your way out of it and contend that the two players are equal defensively. The fact is, the vast majority of fans, coaches, analysts, commentators and scouts consider Hinrich to be a better defender than Crawford. There have been numerous articles written in various media praising Hinrich for his defense, _and the kid hasn't even played 20 pro games yet._ He's already gaining recognition as one of the better perimeter defenders in the East. And yet, there's no mention of Jamal in this context -- not in all the time he's been in the League (hundreds of games). Why not?
> 
> And I didn't take offense to any personal comments you made toward me, as I feel they are more indicative of you losing the debate than it is an indictment on myself.
> ...


I understand why you wouldn't agree to validate your theory on statistical fact. Afterall, wouldn't be easier just to say, "I'm right, because a lot of people agree with me and because it is in print somewhere. If it's written down, it has to be true." Because instead testing your theory, you'd rather drink beers and enjoy the game. What about taping the game and looking at it objectively? Huh? Objectively? What is that? Unlike you, I am willing to live with the facts. I am willing to risk being wrong to get to a fact-based conclusion. I agree that one game doesn't indicate anything, but all things being equal, one game is just as fair to Kirk as it would be to JC. 

The poll results don't surprise me because your pole is a red herring (meaning it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but is used to divert the attention from the real issue). If you want fair results, you might want to consider a fairly worded poll. Naah, that would too logical. If you can't figure why I have laughed at your hypocricy by now ... you never will. 

Instead of making poll about who's a better defender. Why not post the poll that I suggested? Was that not fairly worded and does it not address our debate? Which was, is JC a PG or a SG? The truth of the matter is, that I suspect that the results will still favor your contention. And it still doesn't mean that it's right, it just would mean that a lot of people here agree with you. But I'd still suggest that you post the poll to see.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I thought Spudd Webb had the nba record with a 46 inch vertical .

This site lists some verticals of some of the more famous jumpers in the nba .

http://www.jumpusa.com/psj.html


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

MichaelOFAZ, you get an A for effort, but I don't think very many people, if any, are still buying what you're trying to sell. Not to be rude, but it's a little unsettling watching you continue on like this, but alas, I can't change anything and I have to admit it is a little entertaining.

Per your request, I'll set up another poll, even though it is, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as my other one.

One last question: if a philosopher dictated a truth to be absolute and proved it with the laws of reason, or if a mathematician corroborated a hypothesis with numerical evidence, or if a historian wrote a book based on findings he'd discovered and researched, would their claims be "wrong" if a lot of people agreed with them and/or they were written down?

Logic, man.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> I thought Spudd Webb had the nba record with a 46 inch vertical .
> 
> This site lists some verticals of some of the more famous jumpers in the nba .
> ...


interesting stats on that page. Shaq can really fly considering how massive he is!

Also I never thought Kobe was a skywalker on the same level as a younger MJ and this supports that. The guy can jump, no doubt, but it always seemed like he would "top out" at a slightly lower trajectory than young MJ did and Vince does now. I wonder what kind of elevation he gets on his jumper though - it's almost unblockable. 

Steve Francis can really get up. I think his vertical is mis-calculated there, if he reaches 5 inches less than Jordan and touches TWO inches less, his vert is 3 inches better, or 46 inches, which is unreal. He can touch higher than Kobe and almost as high as Shaq!!!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I've read numerous times that Kobe's vertical was measured at 33" in the combine right before he was drafted.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Kobe has atleast 36
MJ had atleast 42
E-Rob can't have 54?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> interesting stats on that page. Shaq can really fly considering how massive he is!
> ...


How can Francis suddenly gain 6 inches on his veritcal. The math doesn't add up. They did it wrong.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> MichaelOFAZ, you get an A for effort, but I don't think very many people, if any, are still buying what you're trying to sell. Not to be rude, but it's a little unsettling watching you continue on like this, but alas, I can't change anything and I have to admit it is a little entertaining.
> 
> Per your request, I'll set up another poll, even though it is, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as my other one.
> ...


Dude? What are you babbling about? You sound Cliff Clavin. Spouting out words you must have learned from extensive time spent in the greater Lawrence, KS area, but in context make little to no sense.

A philosopher doesn't dictate truths to be absolute and certainly doesn't prove them. By definition a philosopher is a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment OR expounds of a theory in a particular area of experience. By the very definition of the term, there is no proof and it's never support by mathematics. If it was, it would be called a theorem. And if a historian wrote a book based on facts, then of course I would believe it. But since you're neither a historian or an author or expert of NBA facts, and this matter is purely one of opinion, then your palaver is moot.

I too, give you an A for effort. This was an entertaining exchange of opinions.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> Dude? What are you babbling about? You sound Cliff Clavin. Spouting out words you must have learned from extensive time spent in the greater Lawrence, KS area, but in context make little to no sense.
> ...



Oh my God your definition of a philosopher isn't even close to accurate. It's so bad to be laughable. Philosophers can and sometimes do attempt to prove their theories. Often that can be done with mathetmatics. For example, St. Thomas Acquinas (theologian and philosopher) used math in attempts to prove his theory on the existence of God. 

Dude, you're talking out of your ***. Feel free to disagree with Vega with your KH/JC debate, but how about not resorting to defining the nature of the universe to do it.

Also, Vega's possible proximity to Lawrence, Kansas has nothing to do with anything. Resorting to jabs like that is completely childish. I don't see him trying to condemn your argument b/c you are in Phoenix. You know why? Because it's totally irrelevant. You just make whatever your good arguments are look stupid by intertwining them with this BS.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*It is quite clear...*

...that MichaelOFAZ hasn't been to the library lately.

And if you think about things for more than five seconds, my disconnected ramblings (yes, I admit they're ramblings) do make complete sense in regards to the context you set up, MichaelOFAZ.

Care to discuss the polls?


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL. My definition was taken straight from Merrian-Webster's on-line dictionary. Now who's so laughable? Why is it so rude and childish when I respond, but not so when he does? Perhaps don't subscribe to your hypocricy. I never said anything about philosophers "attempting to prove" anything, I said that by definition, the do not prove. For if they did, it wouldn't be philosophy. 

I'm not condemn him for anything. I'm just defending myself against his belittling comments. If you're gonna battle, then prepare to battle.

For your reference ... The definition of Philosophy follows.

Notice in the very first definition the operative phrase, "exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts". Now, my graduate degree was not awarded by University of IL, but when I went to school the phrase "exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts", basically translates to "not based on technical facts/principles"

1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

*Re: It is quite clear...*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> ...that MichaelOFAZ hasn't been to the library lately.
> 
> And if you think about things for more than five seconds, my disconnected ramblings (yes, I admit they're ramblings) do make complete sense in regards to the context you set up, MichaelOFAZ.
> ...


I repeat, my definition was taken straight from Merrian-Webster.com Link: http://www.m-w.com

Here's the deal, whether I agree with you or not, I admit that a fair portion of your posts are well thoughtout and are very sensible, but there are also portions of your posts (at least the ones that I have read lately) that are seemingly illogical, hypocritical, and biased. 

Regarding the poll. As you and I both predicted, the latest poll is in glaring support of your claim. Does that make it true or a fact? No. Does it make you right and me wrong in the court of public opinion? Yes. Yes, I admit it. You share the same opinion to most of those who have responded to the poll. You were right, the masses agree with you.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> A philosopher doesn't dictate truths to be absolute and certainly doesn't prove them. By definition a philosopher is a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment OR expounds of a theory in a particular area of experience. By the very definition of the term, there is no proof and it's never support by mathematics.



OK dude. I'm going to try this again because you're not responding on point. It is ludicrous to assert that a philosopher does not attempt to offer proof for his theories. I applaud you for looking up the word philosophy in the dictionary. Unfortunately, nothing in the definition says anything about whether a philosopher attempts to prove his theories. Also, it does not say that it's never supported by mathematics. I don't know where you get these ideas, but they're not from the dictionary.

More importantly, all I am trying to say is that I don't see Vega making the personal attacks that you are making against him. Either or both of you may be hypocritical in your opinions or flawed in your analysis (as might I). The bigger issue I'm trying to point out is that when you get personal in your posts, the valid arguments you make are more likely to be dismissed by readers. Including that extraneous material serves no purpose other than perhaps some degree of some self-satisfaction derived from being mean-spirited.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jnrjr79</b>!
> 
> I applaud you for looking up the word philosophy in the dictionary.




Word.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

My bad guys. I have my #'s mixed up. E-Rob is tied for the 5th hightes vertical leap in the NBA at 40". I originally read it somewhere else but I tracked down a list for you anyways.

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http:/...ities.com/wink3online/features.html&qte=0&o=0


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

MichaelOFAZ, did you watch the Orlando game tonight?


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> MichaelOFAZ, did you watch the Orlando game tonight?


Yes I did and it was AWESOME. Jamal played like garbage and Kirk had another great game. Since the Bulls played zone most of the game, I didn't do the analysis that I had suggest we do. Although I will admit that JC let his man go by twice. So, I hope you realize that I am just as critical of Jamal as I am of anyone else on the team. But don't get me wrong, I'm not ready to give up on him after one horrible night of shooting. I'm not that fickle. He had a bad night and the Bulls still won. I would have been more pissed if he would have had a great night and the Bulls would have lost. Personally, in the end all I want is the Bulls to win. I don't care if Hinrich scores 30 or if Crawford does.


----------

