# Couch: Hinrich 4th or 5th best player on the Bulls



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/couch/353117,CST-SPT-greg22.article



> *They can win without him*
> 
> The Bulls spend every trade deadline trying to figure out which of the core players to trade, if any.
> 
> ...





> On top of that, early in the second half, Hinrich was called for a foul and then was called for a technical when he whipped his mouthpiece into the stands in anger as he huffed off.
> 
> ''It slipped,'' he said.
> 
> ...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Gotta say I was thinking the same thing during the game.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Nice knee jerk reaction to a bad game. Is he the 4th or 5th best player on the team. 3rd or 4th probably. But on a team like the Bulls that really doesn't mean a whole lot given now narrow the margin is between #1 and #4. 

Seriously, outside of it being an emotional technical, when Hinrich threw his mouthpiece was anyone worried about a fan getting injured? I wasn't then and I'm not now. It was dumb because it was an unnecessary tech. Thats it. Apologize "from the heart"? Don't make me laugh.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Kirk is , 

the team's best point guard in a pg dominated offense. 
maybe the 3rd best scorer 
and its best defender (gone are the days where Ben W. is a DPOY candidtate even though he won it last year) at worst the team's 2nd best defender...he will be getting some votes for the defensive team , he might make 2nd team this year.

and he is the heart and soul of the team

Kirk is still when you add it all up the player on the bulls , he may no longer be the most important in any individual game, but over the course of a season or playoff series I cant see the Bulls having much of a chance if Kirk repeatedly has bad games.

the only other guy I can put in that class is ben gordon , I can see the bulls winning although unlikely if Deng, nocioni, or even ben wallace have bad series, i think its just an impossibility if Hinrich or Gordon do though.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Nice knee jerk reaction to a bad game. Is he the 4th or 5th best player on the team. 3rd or 4th probably. But on a team like the Bulls that really doesn't mean a whole lot given now narrow the margin is between #1 and #4.
> 
> Seriously, outside of it being an emotional technical, when Hinrich threw his mouthpiece was anyone worried about a fan getting injured? I wasn't then and I'm not now. It was dumb because it was an unnecessary tech. Thats it. Apologize "from the heart"? Don't make me laugh.


Right on. :clap:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

By the way, Couch might want to recall the history of Playoff Kirk. Who was nails in the post season the last two years despite meltdowns from Gordon 2 years ago and Deng last year. 

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/kirk_hinrich/career_stats.html

Kirk played like *** yesterday. And the Bulls won anyway. Thats a good thing.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Stupid, stupid article. Isn't this the same guy who said that Hinrich wouldn't improve much after his first two years in the league?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Tough talk from the 4th or 5th best sports columnist on the Sun-Times.


Kirk shouldn't have thrown the mouthpiece. No, I don't believe it "slippped."

But come on.

The huffy, indignant hatchet job he wrote here is Couch's attempt to be a poor man's Mariotti.

These tirades are silly enough when they come from Jay. Greg is even less convincing.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> In the last week, he ticked off the Heat by saying, in published reports, that the Bulls should have beaten Miami in the first round last year. He was suggesting that they would like to draw the defending champs again, which the Heat took as talking smack.
> 
> ''They've asked for us,'' Shaquille O'Neal then told reporters. ''And here we come.''


God forbid a confident player explain (in published reports!) that he thought his team was good enough to best a series that Miami barely won last year. Regardless, Kirk's comment may have taken effect last night -- Shaq had 2 points and 1 rebound in the second half.



> Yes, and that's because the Bulls lost a chance to move into a high seed in the playoffs with a win over New Jersey in the final regular-season game. It was a huge game, and the Bulls were clobbered, as Hinrich fell apart in the first half.


Apparently Couch blames Hinrich for not being able to guard Mikki Moore more effectively and for Gordon's statline (5-15 FG, 0 reb, 1 ast).


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

on a good team, or a championship contender, hinrich should be the 3rd or 4th best player on the team. couch is way off.

he won't be nearly as bad as yesterday throughout the series, and the heat did look aged.the bull must continue to up the pace, get out in the open court and they can win this series.:cheers:


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> Kirk is ,
> 
> the team's best point guard in a pg dominated offense.
> maybe the 3rd best scorer
> ...


Couldn't have said it better myself. We got lucky yesterday that Luol got hot, and the rest of the team overall played well. Most importantly though, we didn't get screwed by the refs as we all expected. The refs were VERY good yesterday. They didn't seem biased or calling BS calls like normal....and of course those always go against the Bulls if the refs will be showing biases.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Hey, remember last year how hard the press tried to make an issue between Ben Gordon and Skiles, and it just fizzled? 

They're sharks. They'll scream blood and everyone will rush over and chomp and bite and maybe end up biting each other the most. 

For them not to do that takes a tremendous amount of self control, like the Sharks in Nemo who were in FishEaters Anonymous:

Sharks: [reciting] I am a nice shark, not a mindless eating machine. If I am to change this image, I must first change myself. Fish are friends, not food. 












"I'm having fish tonight!"


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Oh give me a break, he has ONE incredibly bad game in the first game of the first round of the playoffs.

Then again I don't visit the Sun-Times website either, far as I'm concerned I'm not missing anything there.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

Great article. I know Hinrich is beloved by a lot of people in Chicago, but I think he's overrated and have wanted him to be traded for years now. He's just too inconsistent of a player and he gets too many minutes for how inconsistent he is. He's a streaky outside shooter who has poor shot selection, he lacks great foot-speed defensively in spite of the great effort he puts forth, he commits too many turnovers, he's a poor penetrator, and he's not a pure point guard. He's been in the league for four years, and he still doesn't have the ability to make his teammates around him better. His value is very overrated for this team. At some point they'll likely need to move one of the players off the core, and I think it definitely needs to be him. He's a luxury for this team, not a necessity. 

In time, Ben Gordon and Thabo Selofosha should play the majority of the minutes forming a big, athletic, explosive backcourt. They both have much more potential than Kirk. Couch is right. The team played much better with Hinrich on the bench. Hopefully that will be a sign of things to come. I think the players the Bulls have to keep are Gordon, Sefolosha, Tyrus Thomas, and Luol Deng. I think Nocioni would be next on the list, but he could probably be moved. If a trade idea comes up, Hinrich should be the guy that the Bulls trade.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

BDMcGee said:


> Great article. I know Hinrich is beloved by a lot of people in Chicago, but I think he's overrated and have wanted him to be traded for years now. He's just too inconsistent of a player and he gets too many minutes for how inconsistent he is. He's a streaky outside shooter who has poor shot selection, he lacks great foot-speed defensively in spite of the great effort he puts forth, he commits too many turnovers, he's a poor penetrator, and he's not a pure point guard. He's been in the league for four years, and he still doesn't have the ability to make his teammates around him better. His value is very overrated for this team. At some point they'll likely need to move one of the players off the core, and I think it definitely needs to be him. He's a luxury for this team, not a necessity.
> 
> In time, Ben Gordon and Thabo Selofosha should play the majority of the minutes forming a big, athletic, explosive backcourt. They both have much more potential than Kirk. *Couch is right. The team played much better with Hinrich on the bench.* Hopefully that will be a sign of things to come. I think the players the Bulls have to keep are Gordon, Sefolosha, Tyrus Thomas, and Luol Deng. I think Nocioni would be next on the list, but he could probably be moved. If a trade idea comes up, Hinrich should be the guy that the Bulls trade.


You know, it might just be me, but teams usually play better when someone who is having a bad game is sitting on the bench. 

The team rallied, and Thabo did what he had to do. But I wouldn't want to rely on Thabo to run the team, or Ben, for that matter. 

Thabo is the definition of luxury. Kirk is the necessity.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> God forbid a confident player explain (in published reports!) that he thought his team was good enough to best a series that Miami barely won last year. Regardless, Kirk's comment may have taken effect last night -- Shaq had 2 points and 1 rebound in the second half.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently Couch blames Hinrich for not being able to guard Mikki Moore more effectively and for Gordon's statline (5-15 FG, 0 reb, 1 ast).


Wow, why the hell are people making a big deal about losing that game to the Nets? If we had won that game, it means we're playing the Nets in round 1. Not exactly an ideal matchup against the team that owns us more than any other team in the league. Didn't he notice that the Nets took out Toronto on the road yesterday in game 1? I'd rather play Miami, personally.


----------



## Nu_Omega (Nov 27, 2006)

Seems like the "Damn,(X Player)played like crap! Lets ship him out for a better guy" syndrome is back.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

This is reminiscent of Sam Smith's article on Tyrus. I really resent it when sportswriters seem to develop a vendetta against a certain player.



Da Grinch said:


> the team's best point guard in a pg dominated offense.
> maybe the 3rd best scorer
> and its best defender (gone are the days where Ben W. is a DPOY candidtate even though he won it last year) at worst the team's 2nd best defender...he will be getting some votes for the defensive team , he might make 2nd team this year.


I think this sums up Kirk's value pretty well. He's gone from being somewhat overrated to underrated. Good shooters who put up 15 PPG, run the offense, and play man defense as well as almost anyone in the league don't just grow on trees. Would I trade Kirk ahead of Lu or Gordon? Yeah. Would I move him if he could bring back a big time post scorer? Yeah, but I don't think his value is that high. I think the odds are high that if we dealt Kirk, we'd be worse off. Couch should lay off. If the person who was "hit" by the mouthpiece (I didn't get a good look but I don't think he whipped a laser into the crowd) is that upset they can sell it for $200 on Ebay to heal their wounds.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Wow, why the hell are people making a big deal about losing that game to the Nets? If we had won that game, it means we're playing the Nets in round 1. Not exactly an ideal matchup against the team that owns us more than any other team in the league. Didn't he notice that the Nets took out Toronto on the road yesterday in game 1? I'd rather play Miami, personally.


Yeah, I pointed that out myself the other day. I probably still would have preferred to play the Nets (especially coming off a road victory against them), but I'm not sure I would have been right about it. But the bigger picture is that either way we had a pretty tough matchup. As it stands, it looks to me like the Heat are protecting Wade a bit. If they have to protect him to keep him on the court, I think we've got a very good chance.

Regarding the article, I think if Kirk Hinrich were a member of the Heat, there'd be widespread agreement with it. I think he's played like garbage for two important games in a row now, so it's starting to become annoying. But it's not the end of the world either, and it's unclear what the alternatives are. For the playoffs at least, he's obviously going nowhere. On the off chance he gets dealt, few will consider him a necessity. If he doesn't get dealt, so what if he's the 5th best player on the team next year?


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

Kirk Hinrich is mediocre, if he's your best anything you don't have a special team. Doesn't matter how much people like him. Nobody cares. Mike Conley is a better player right now, today. Hinrich is not spectacular at anything but he's a complete player. And in a city with blue collar roots and a lot of coaches sons being a complete player is sometimes a necessity. Problem is if you know the history of the NBA you'll know that being a team dominated by complete players has never been a determinant in Championship play. 

In 1992 the Cavs had more complete players than the Bulls. The Bulls just had the two most spectacular players on the court. Complete players win regular season games. Complete players even win first rounds sometimes. The last guy where the best thing you could say about him was that he's a complete player to dominate championship discussion was probably Dennis Johnson. 

If Kirk Hinrich is your best defender you're incapable of coming up with a defender that can stop the caliber of players who win championships. Honestly where would Kirk rank as a defender on the 92 Bulls? If it was even fourth, you'd say "ok, they're the 92 Bulls." He'd be sixth, behind Pippen, Jordan, Grant, Cartwright and Paxson. And the fact is if you're going to predicate contending for a title on defensive play, you probably want to have your best defender be somewhere between Jordan and Grant.

Oh, and as far as Kirk being better than Wallace defensively, 1) highly debatable, 2) defending centers, just like SCORING in the post, will always be more important than defending a teams bigger guard. 

Kirk can be overrated and not terrible at the same time. I'll personally take Deng, Wallace, Nocioni, Thomas and Gordon all over Kirk as career players. If Kirk is anything close to the best thing you have going, you're in trouble. Not to mention Luol. As good as he was in game one, who was the last player to be the best player on a title team that you can honestly say Luol is better than or will be better than?

Dennis Johnson?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Funny article from Couch. The bloom may be off the rose for Captain Kirk in Chi-Town. Heard a lot of Hinrich bashing on THE SCORE yesterday after the game as well.

It a way its not fair, since he really isn't good enough to be propped up as he is by the Bulls Org (announced last, focus of the marketing efforts, embodiment of the "the right way"). But, he is propped up there, so this is bound to happen unless he keeps up with the great Bulls players like Deng and Gordon.

If its game 7, Bulls vs Heat, and I have to go to war without one of Gordon, Deng, Wallace or Kirk, given the current roster, I pick Kirk. Let's hope he picks it up. He almost lost game 1 for us yesterday with his crap play.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

I don't think anyone on the Bulls roster is clearly better than Hinrich. Perhaps Deng and Gordon, but that's arguable. I would much rather have Hinrich on my team than an overrated Ben Wallace.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Funny article from Couch. The bloom may be off the rose for Captain Kirk in Chi-Town. Heard a lot of Hinrich bashing on THE SCORE yesterday after the game as well.
> 
> It a way its not fair, since he really isn't good enough to be propped up as he is by the Bulls Org (announced last, focus of the marketing efforts, embodiment of the "the right way"). But, he is propped up there, so this is bound to happen unless he keeps up with the great Bulls players like Deng and Gordon.
> 
> If its game 7, Bulls vs Heat, and I have to go to war without one of Gordon, Deng, Wallace or Kirk, given the current roster, I pick Kirk. Let's hope he picks it up. He almost lost game 1 for us yesterday with his crap play.


Again. Have you seen his stats for the previous two seasons in the playoffs. One game changes nothing.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Gotta say I was thinking the same thing during the game.


Gotta say it doesn't matter if Hinrich is the first, second, third or fourth best player. All that means is we have a very solid and deep team. He is part of our core and essential to our success. He is easily a top 10 PG in this league. He happens to be older than Gordon / Deng and got his extension first. I guarantee Deng AND Gordon will both have bigger contracts than Kirk. What's to fuss about? This type of article is completely useless. 

Who the heck is Couch? Nobody I've ever heard of. Must be the 10th best sports writer in Chicago. Guess I won't pay attention.


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

Premier said:


> I don't think anyone on the Bulls roster is clearly better than Hinrich. Perhaps Deng and Gordon, but that's arguable. I would much rather have Hinrich on my team than an overrated Ben Wallace.


Key words: I don't think


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

Couch sounds like that was the first Bulls game he's seen in years, what a moron.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

joehoo said:


> If Kirk Hinrich is your best defender you're incapable of coming up with a defender that can stop the caliber of players who win championships.


So in other words, the team that led the league in defensive efficiency doesn't defend well enough to win a championship?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

You can make a very good argument for Hinrich still being the best player on the Bulls. He shot the same percentage as Gordon, is a better passer, turns it over less, and is a much better defender. Gordon is a better scorer. Deng and Hinrich are very comparable all around players, but Kirk has more responsibility offensively whereas Deng needs to be set up for a lot of his shots.

Deng and Gordon have more potential, are younger, and more flashy in Gordon's case so they'll get the benefit of the doubt. Even if you believe Hinrich isn't better, it's hard to argue there's a significant gap.

Couch could have written the same article and substituted Gordon and/or Wallace after the Detroit game. When you have team depth across the board missing one player isn't likely to make a noticeable drop-off.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Funny article from Couch. The bloom may be off the rose for Captain Kirk in Chi-Town. Heard a lot of Hinrich bashing on THE SCORE yesterday after the game as well.
> 
> It a way its not fair, since he really isn't good enough to be propped up as he is by the Bulls Org (announced last, focus of the marketing efforts, embodiment of the "the right way"). But, he is propped up there, so this is bound to happen unless he keeps up with the great Bulls players like Deng and Gordon.
> 
> If its game 7, Bulls vs Heat, and I have to go to war without one of Gordon, Deng, Wallace or Kirk, given the current roster, I pick Kirk. Let's hope he picks it up. He almost lost game 1 for us yesterday with his crap play.


Great post. Your right, the organization vastly overrates Kirk as a player. They act like he's the centerpiece of this team, when really all he can become if he reaches his full potential, is a good role player. I've never understood the weight he pulls with Skiles and Paxson. Even when he's playing like garbage for 90% of games, Skiles always puts him back in during the last few minutes. I just can't see why he's so special. He's limited and isn't a necessity for this team's future success.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Seems to me Gordon showed what he'd do as PG for the team.

11 assists and the team built a double-digit lead with Kirk on the bench in foul trouble. After Kirk returned, the game became close and Gordon's scoring and assist output declined to near zero. Really, how many PGs are going to give you 24 points and 11 assists?

Hinrich is a terrific player, and I'm glad he's a Bull. I just wish Skiles and the organization would figure out his best role.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

If Couch was waiting to write a negative article on Hinrich (and given that Couch ain't a Hinrich fan, he might've been), Cap'n Kirk certainly handed Couch his material on a silver platter. Hinrich went over the top when he threw his mouthpiece. Greggy went over the top when he tried to spin the mouthpiece toss into some sort of artillery attack on an unsuspecting fan.

The bad news for Couch is that it's likely that Hinrich will play a good game in the near future while Couch has little chance of writing a good article.

As for Hinrich being the 4th best player on the team, that's not hard to argue...I'm not sure I buy it, but I wouldn't spend a lot of breath debating the point. A year ago, Hinrich was a very good player on both ends and he's improved this season. I'll settle for that.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

BDMcGee said:


> Great post. Your right, the organization vastly overrates Kirk as a player. They act like he's the centerpiece of this team, when really all he can become if he reaches his full potential, is a good role player. I've never understood the weight he pulls with Skiles and Paxson. Even when he's playing like garbage for 90% of games, Skiles always puts him back in during the last few minutes. I just can't see why he's so special. He's limited and isn't a necessity for this team's future success.


Man, what are you talking about?

90% of the games like garbage? In a 49 win season, as the third leading scorer, first in assists, 45% shooting, etc. 

Is there anything you'd like to say about what is going on in the real world?


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

Frankensteiner said:


> You can make a very good argument for Hinrich still being the best player on the Bulls. He shot the same percentage as Gordon, is a better passer, turns it over less, and is a much better defender. Gordon is a better scorer. Deng and Hinrich are very comparable all around players, but Kirk has more responsibility offensively whereas Deng needs to be set up for a lot of his shots.
> 
> Deng and Gordon have more potential, are younger, and more flashy in Gordon's case so they'll get the benefit of the doubt. Even if you believe Hinrich isn't better, it's hard to argue there's a significant gap.
> 
> Couch could have written the same article and substituted Gordon and/or Wallace after the Detroit game. When you have team depth across the board missing one player isn't likely to make a noticeable drop-off.


Bulls message board fans have lived off of conjecture and opinion for years now.

Deng is a better player at a younger age if you just look at the statline. And yes, I know stats are imperfect, but I'll take stats all day and night over your opinion. I realize you *like Kirk*, but that doesn't make him better. 

You can keep Hinrich, his 15.1 PPG on 41.5% and his 6.4 APG, which is not all that great for a point guard. Michael and Scottie did better at SG and SF, playing together, in the same season, while also averaging 52 PPG between the two. When you're a POINT guard who can't do POINT guard things better than Michael or Scottie, I'd hesitate to call you an elite enough PG for anyone to care. 

I'll take Noce's 14.1 PPG in 9 fewer minutes over Kirk's 16.6 PPG. Gordon goes for 21.4 PPG. 

And if you want to argue opinion impact, very few people outside of the short shorts mafia would take Hinrich over Ben even at his advanced stage. Ben doesn't have stats, but he has a ring, so I'll take him too. 

In two years, I'll take Tyrus.

The rationale that "Deng, needs to be set up for his looks while Kirk has a greater role" is one of the biggest reaches I've ever read while not reading a text about the benefits of "free trade."


----------



## kelvinzee (May 5, 2006)

Hinrich is the poster boy for all the bulls marketing? Is it because he is white?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

joehoo said:


> Bulls message board fans have lived off of conjecture and opinion for years now.
> 
> Deng is a better player at a younger age if you just look at the statline. And yes, I know stats are imperfect, but I'll take stats all day and night over your opinion. I realize you *like Kirk*, but that doesn't make him better.
> 
> ...



Kirk Hinrich 80 80 35.5 *.448* .415 .835 .40 3.00 3.40 6.3 1.25 .29 2.39 3.40 *16.6* 

Shooting percentage and points per game this season in bold.

Again, I ask, what are you talking about?


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

joehoo said:


> Bulls message board fans have lived off of conjecture and opinion for years now.
> 
> Deng is a better player at a younger age if you just look at the statline. And yes, I know stats are imperfect, but I'll take stats all day and night over your opinion. I realize you *like Kirk*, but that doesn't make him better.
> 
> ...


If you're into stats, Hinrich's are 16.6ppg on 44.8% and 41.5% on 3s. 6.3 assists and a 2.6 assists/TO ratio. 1.2 steals and 3.4 rpg. He has a decent chance at making the NBA All-Defensive second-team. Nothing to apologize for there.

Last year at this time, I knew who the Bulls best player was and it was Hinrich. A year later, Hinrich is coming off his best season, but the "Bulls Best Player" picture isn't nearly as clear.

PEOPLE: THIS IS A GOOD THING!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Our "top" player had the worst +/- on the team for 2 straight critical games
Hinrich -6 yesterday & -13 against the Nets. 

http://www.popcornmachine.net/GameFlows.html

I hope the stanch supporters are right and he turns it around quick.


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

Good Hope said:


> Kirk Hinrich 80 80 35.5 *.448* .415 .835 .40 3.00 3.40 6.3 1.25 .29 2.39 3.40 *16.6*
> 
> Shooting percentage and points per game this season in bold.
> 
> Again, I ask, what are you talking about?


I was referencing his career stats in the beginning, that said:

Deng shot 51.5% this year, Gordon I believe shot a higher percentage on a higher PPG.


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

transplant said:


> If you're into stats, Hinrich's are 16.6ppg on 44.8% and 41.5% on 3s. 6.3 assists and a 2.6 assists/TO ratio. 1.2 steals and 3.4 rpg. He has a decent chance at making the NBA All-Defensive second-team. Nothing to apologize for there.
> 
> Last year at this time, I knew who the Bulls best player was and it was Hinrich. A year later, Hinrich is coming off his best season, but the "Bulls Best Player" picture isn't nearly as clear.
> 
> PEOPLE: THIS IS A GOOD THING!


Things on the Bulls are very mediocre. You can say they aren't, but I watched Michael and Scottie. And no, these guys don't have to be that good to win or contend. But they have to be a lot closer than they are, or even will be.

There isn't a player on our roster I'd take over Horace Grant.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kelvinzee said:


> Hinrich is the poster boy for all the bulls marketing? Is it because he is white?


Yup. Same reason Luc Longley was the poster boy during the second threepeat.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

joehoo said:


> Things on the Bulls are very mediocre. You can say they aren't, but I watched Michael and Scottie. And no, these guys don't have to be that good to win or contend. But they have to be a lot closer than they are, or even will be.
> 
> There isn't a player on our roster I'd take over Horace Grant.


Clearly, you are wrong. Things on the Bulls are very above average.

I also watched Michael and Scottie. They were over-the-top GREAT. If we set our middle line at the dynasty years, we might as well give up on the Bulls and save ourselves the disappointment. That was then, this is now.

I also watched Erwin "Wolfgang" Mueller, Dave Schellhase, Howard Porter, Granville Waiters and Bobby Wilson...any of whom, if they had achieved mediocrity would have gotten a nosebleed.

As for Grant, he was one of my favorites. However, if you started 5 Horace Grants, you'd never get the ball up the court (but the other team would have a tough time as well if you full-court pressed all the time). Deng's a similar player and I think I'd take Deng.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

I'm not a Bulls fan, but how often does Hinrich have a "pretty good" game. Every time I watch the Bulls Hinrich either has a fantastic game or he completely stinks. Where are the average-good games?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> Clearly, you are wrong. Things on the Bulls are very above average.
> 
> I also watched Michael and Scottie. They were over-the-top GREAT. If we set our middle line at the dynasty years, we might as well give up on the Bulls and save ourselves the disappointment. That was then, this is now.
> 
> ...


What was it like to watch Dolph Schayes play?

:biggrin:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

looks like kirk got the hatchet-job trifecta today with barry rozner and phil arvia both throwing him under the bus as well.

(oh, and don't let the thread title fool you...the point, if there was one, of couch's article, imo, wasn't to point out kirk's "standing" on the team, but to take him to task for his mouthpeice outburst - well, that, plus he did suck majorly yesterday.)

and which is it anyway? 4th or 5th? which end of the floor are we looking at. best offensive player? well, then i guess he's third. best defensive player? no. i think that goes to wallace, but kirk is the best guard defender. it's all subjective. 

and that's not even the point either.

kirk had a horrific game. he's getting drilled in the press. on the radio. and on message boards. heck, over at realgm (you know you've seen it) there's that 14+ page thread titled, in ALL CAPS! GET RID OF HINRICH!

yeah, that'd be productive.

i won't re-iterate the excellent points made here by transplant, good hope et al. but i will say this...memories, especially amongst sports fans, are criminally short sometimes. sure kirk laid an egg. his detractors will lie in wait for a game like this. his fans, will hope he comes out next game and shows those haters a thing or two. 

but it seems that's life as a bulls fan. one would think we'd all be "stanch" supporters of _every player_ on the team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> one would think we'd all be "stanch" supporters of _every player_ on the team.


Even Jalen Rose?
:yay:


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Funny article from Couch. The bloom may be off the rose for Captain Kirk in Chi-Town. Heard a lot of Hinrich bashing on THE SCORE yesterday after the game as well.
> 
> It a way its not fair, since he really isn't good enough to be propped up as he is by the Bulls Org (announced last, focus of the marketing efforts, embodiment of the "the right way"). But, he is propped up there, so this is bound to happen unless he keeps up with the great Bulls players like Deng and Gordon.
> 
> If its game 7, Bulls vs Heat, and I have to go to war without one of Gordon, Deng, Wallace or Kirk, given the current roster, I pick Kirk. Let's hope he picks it up. He almost lost game 1 for us yesterday with his crap play.


Just to add to your comments: Hinrich is the only player the media can actually tear down. Deng and Gordon really haven't been 'built up' yet -- they're still too early in their careers. Wallace is new, if only to our teams. Noc is coming off an injury.

So the hachet comes for Kirk. And he played for all intents and purposes the worst game of his career yesterday. Whatever. If he's the primary hole on our team, then we we're doing just fine. Unfortunately, he's not the hole on our team . . .


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Seems to me Gordon showed what he'd do as PG for the team.
> 
> 11 assists and the team built a double-digit lead with Kirk on the bench in foul trouble. After Kirk returned, the game became close and Gordon's scoring and assist output declined to near zero. Really, how many PGs are going to give you 24 points and 11 assists?
> 
> Hinrich is a terrific player, and I'm glad he's a Bull. I just wish Skiles and the organization would figure out his best role.


Gordon has had his moments running the point but at 2.6 versus 1.2 Kirk has a pretty big edge in assist to turnover ratio. Ben's assists might go up if he were the primary ballhandler but his turnovers might too.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Gordon has had his moments running the point but at 2.6 versus 1.2 Kirk has a pretty big edge in assist to turnover ratio. Ben's assists might go up if he were the primary ballhandler but his turnovers might too.


Give him the ball 10 straight games and his ballhandling miscues will reduce dramatically. he's not been given the chance. When forced into it, he had 5 TO, while Hinrich had 4 in significantly fewer minutes...

And, I'm not so alarmed by a few TO. His scoring more than makes up for it.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

joehoo said:


> I was referencing his career stats in the beginning, that said:
> 
> Deng shot 51.5% this year, Gordon I believe shot a higher percentage on a higher PPG.


As others have commented, I don't think it's a knock on Kirk if BG and Lu are better players. Furthermore, you're skewing things towards Lu if you just go by straight FG% because he doesn't take three pointers while Ben and Kirk take plenty. If you look at TS% which accounts for three point shooting and free throws, the big four are all pretty close: Noc (57.8%), BG (57.2%), Lu (56.0%), Kirk (55.9%). Kirk's previous career high was 52.8% so I'm constantly baffled that people are starting to attack him during what is by far his best season.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Give him the ball 10 straight games and his ballhandling miscues will reduce dramatically. he's not been given the chance. When forced into it, he had 5 TO, while Hinrich had 4 in significantly fewer minutes...
> 
> And, I'm not so alarmed by a few TO. His scoring more than makes up for it.


I'm not saying his turnovers are unacceptable, only that if they're minimized by playing him at the 2 I'd like to keep it that way. Ben played the point admirably yesterday and Kirk had a poor game but that's one game and I'm not willing to emphasize it over the few hundred others I have at my disposal. BG handles the ball plenty at the 2 so I'm not sure why allowing him to handle the ball at the one would allow him to suddenly learn how to take care of the ball better.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> What was it like to watch Dolph Schayes play?
> 
> :biggrin:


Schayes had game...as you well know.:biggrin:


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> looks like kirk got the hatchet-job trifecta today with barry rozner and phil arvia both throwing him under the bus as well.
> 
> (oh, and don't let the thread title fool you...the point, if there was one, of couch's article, imo, wasn't to point out kirk's "standing" on the team, but to take him to task for his mouthpeice outburst - well, that, plus he did suck majorly yesterday.)
> 
> ...


Miz, despite the Bulls win, I know the last 24 hours or probably hasn't been a happy time for you. No one on this board is more closely associated with Hinrich than you are and in one game (and a win no less) it's "open season" on your boy. Bad time to be a Hinrich-fanatic.

As I'm sure you know, here's the deal. Hinrich is a very good player. He's proven it in the regular season and in the playoffs. In one game, he lost his ****. It happens. 

While I read that the Bulls are in serious trouble because in this series because Shaq and Wade didn't really have great games, as I see it, the Bulls are looking good because the Bulls won despite the fact that one of their best players had _no game at all_. 

Your boy is the goods, and he'll show it to the rest of the basketball-watching-world as this series goes on.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

transplant said:


> Your boy is the goods, and he'll show it to the rest of the basketball-watching-world as this series goes on.



i know. and you know what, bottom line - i am happy they won. no cryin' over spilt milk chez miz. heck, jon barry continues to trash hinrich today on the halftime show of lakers/suns. 

whatever. 

oh, and a shout out to ben gordon, if i may be permitted, who had his first CAREER double double yesterday. 

one would think, being the best player on the team and all, that he would have had more by now, but...

oh wait, now i'm just being snarky.


:cheer:

go bulls!!


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I was very disappointed with how easily Kirk allowed the refs to get into his head. He's had more than enough games over his career where he's picked up early foul trouble and he still allows those games to affect him mentally. This is his _third_ year in the playoffs and he's supposed to be one of the leaders on this team. Youth is not an acceptable excuse anymore, especially in regards to Hinrich. He's been here the longest out of everyone in the "core."

When he launched his mouthpiece into the stands I was disgusted. What made it worse was when he was walking towards the bench he kept mouthing off, and when the camera followed him after he took a seat he was still complaining. He could have easily received a second "T" and cost us the game. I would have thought to myself "There goes our best defender on Wade for the rest of the game" but thankfully for us Thabo played surprisingly well. 

I like Hinrich and we're definitely going to need him to play better to win this series, but when those familiar names come up again at next year's trade deadline (J O'Neal, Gasol, KG etc.) and we don't have PJ's deal to match salaries, the first guy I look to deal is Hinrich. Not that I'm looking to deal Kirk asap, but maybe Memphis' next GM will grant Pau's wish or Larry Bird jumps at the chance to add Kirk and gives up on O'Neal due to his salary and injury history. By next year Kirk's deal should be easier to move and combining his salary with with one or two spare parts (a re-signed Malik or PJ, Viktor, Duhon etc.) could possibly net us that low-post presence we're looking for, and Kirk isn't untouchable enough IMO for us to consider it.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

These articles get written any time a Bull has a bad game. There was that blowout win at Detroit a couple weeks ago where Gordon played like 10 minutes and he was trashed, kinda, by Sam Smith. People have gone after Wallace as well. It's completely meaningless. 

Hinrich gets a ton of credit and gets mentioned a lot so it's only natural that the backlash (from the media and on this board) will be a lot stronger when he has a poor game. 

And yeah I like Gordon more and would rather have him but I don't think any of _those_ arguments are productive.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> oh, and a shout out to ben gordon, if i may be permitted, who had his first CAREER double double yesterday.
> 
> one would think, being the best player on the team and all, that he would have had more by now, but...
> 
> ...



the fact that ben gordon has never had a career double is very misleading noting that he has never been the league guard. he just hasn't had an opporunity to rack up those assist numbers..... 

anyways we'd be making a mistake judging kirk based on his last two performances, but the fact does remain that he may be a bit overrated due to the overlap of talent on this team

it really is a testment to the depth of the team, but saying he's the fourth or fifth player on the team is no more outlandish that saying he's the best. 

the fact is that a lot of the things he does well, can be done nearly as well as other players on the team. for instance i think that duhon and thabo are comparable defenders, and luol and gordon are superior shooters. duhon is think is a superior pass first point guard. gordon, luol, and noci could be beter scorers all around. 

crouch attacks are unfair, but proably not misguided.

this is not to say that kirk is a bad player. but i really feel that the bulls could certainly get you a win over the heat and generally be a decent team without significant contribution from kirk.

i think thats a much harder case to make for ben, luol, and the 15 million dollar mistake.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Arguing Hinrich vs. Gordon will only make Hinrich fans dislike Gordon and vice versa. Better to just avoid it.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

joehoo said:


> Bulls message board fans have lived off of conjecture and opinion for years now.
> 
> Deng is a better player at a younger age if you just look at the statline. And yes, I know stats are imperfect, but I'll take stats all day and night over your opinion. I realize you *like Kirk*, but that doesn't make him better.
> 
> ...


Reputation has been added for such a sensational post. I too, get tired of people overrating this guy.

Time to let Gordon become that scoring PG. He needs to have the ball in his hands the most. With his superior slashing ability, he's able to create and dish more than Hinrich. We already have a defensive specialist on the rise with Sefalosha, so I have no problem with these two as the backcourt of the future. Hinrich does have a big contract, and IMO should be moved in order to improve other areas of need on the team (*COUGH* Gasol *COUGH)


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Seems to me Gordon showed what he'd do as PG for the team.
> 
> 11 assists and the team built a double-digit lead with Kirk on the bench in foul trouble. After Kirk returned, the game became close and Gordon's scoring and assist output declined to near zero. Really, how many PGs are going to give you 24 points and 11 assists?
> 
> Hinrich is a terrific player, and I'm glad he's a Bull. I just wish Skiles and the organization would figure out his best role.



You think Gordon's first double double of his career typifies what he'd do every night if he were playing PG? I don't think that's an argument that can be supported. There are plenty of other nights where BG plays point for good stretches of time and does not dish out dimes like yesterday. He's a good, but not great, passer, but is too careless with the ball to play point full-time, IMO.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

joehoo said:


> There isn't a player on our roster I'd take over Horace Grant.



Holy crap. Really? I'd likely take all 5 starters and maybe Nocioni.


EDIT: I misspoke. I would not take PJ over Horace.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> You think Gordon's first double double of his career typifies what he'd do every night if he were playing PG? I don't think that's an argument that can be supported. There are plenty of other nights where BG plays point for good stretches of time and does not dish out dimes like yesterday. He's a good, but not great, passer, but is too careless with the ball to play point full-time, IMO.


YES. He got the minutes, and he put up the expected numbers.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> YES. He got the minutes, and he put up the expected numbers.



I don't see why one game outweighs all of the previous PG time he has logged. I mean, it's not like yesterday was the first time we've seen him play the 1. He plays it quite a bit. If you notice, when Duhon is on the floor there are significant stretches (surprisingly, IMO) where Ben handles bringing the ball up the court and distributing.

I think he's a decent PG, but 24/11 are his "expected" numbers? Geez. I know he's your boy, but he'd be a better point guard than Steve Nash? That strikes me as exaggeration.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't see why one game outweighs all of the previous PG time he has logged. I mean, it's not like yesterday was the first time we've seen him play the 1. He plays it quite a bit. If you notice, when Duhon is on the floor there are significant stretches (surprisingly, IMO) where Ben handles bringing the ball up the court and distributing.
> 
> I think he's a decent PG, but 24/11 are his "expected" numbers? Geez. I know he's your boy, but he'd be a better point guard than Steve Nash? That strikes me as exaggeration.


Yeah, look at his game log and you'll see which games he played a lot of PG.

17 games with 6 or more assists.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Yeah, look at his game log and you'll see which games he played a lot of PG.
> 
> 17 games with 6 or more assists.



Sure, but 6 is not 11.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't see why one game outweighs all of the previous PG time he has logged. I mean, it's not like yesterday was the first time we've seen him play the 1. He plays it quite a bit. If you notice, when Duhon is on the floor there are significant stretches (surprisingly, IMO) where Ben handles bringing the ball up the court and distributing.
> 
> I think he's a decent PG, but 24/11 are his "expected" numbers? Geez. I know he's your boy, but he'd be a better point guard than Steve Nash? That strikes me as exaggeration.


I doubt Dabullz is guaranteeing 24-11. Of course, even if he was, it wouldn't matter much, 'cause it ain't gonna happen. That dog Hinrich will continue to stand in the way of Gordon's superstardom.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't see why one game outweighs all of the previous PG time he has logged. I mean, it's not like yesterday was the first time we've seen him play the 1. He plays it quite a bit. If you notice, when Duhon is on the floor there are significant stretches (surprisingly, IMO) where Ben handles bringing the ball up the court and distributing.
> 
> I think he's a decent PG, but 24/11 are his "expected" numbers? Geez. I know *he's your boy*, but he'd be a better point guard than Steve Nash? That strikes me as exaggeration.


Come on man, you're smarter than that. Any person who has a normal set of working eyes will tell you that Gordon has superior talent to Hinrich. His ceiling is very high, and as a scoring PG, could become our own "AI". But I'm sure you will disagree and try to rip apart this opinion.

The fact of the matter is, Kirk Hinrich is expendable. Where are his assists? What kind of PG making the money he makes, selected in the position he was in the draft, has those substandard statistics? He also shoots it much more than his % justifies. He's an overpaid, and overrated player. Is he a stud on D? He's very good. But with Thabo, you now have a bigger backcourt, and potentially better defense so you could afford to have Gordon as your scoring PG. Gordon needs to have the ball in his hands as much as possible, because he can create the most on offense. Will BG remain a liability on D? Probably, since most of his energy will be used on O, but that's why we have Duhon.

On draft day or before, I hope the Bulls come to their senses and trade Hinrich, the pick and either move up or get someone that the Bulls need.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Sure, but 6 is not 11.


6 is hinrich's numbers as far more the full-time PG.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Bulldozer said:


> Come on man, you're smarter than that. Any person who has a normal set of working eyes will tell you that Gordon has superior talent to Hinrich. His ceiling is very high, and as a scoring PG, could become our own "AI". But I'm sure you will disagree and try to rip apart this opinion.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, Kirk Hinrich is expendable. Where are his assists? What kind of PG making the money he makes, selected in the position he was in the draft, has those substandard statistics? He also shoots it much more than his % justifies. He's an overpaid, and overrated player. Is he a stud on D? He's very good. But with Thabo, you now have a bigger backcourt, and potentially better defense so you could afford to have Gordon as your scoring PG. Gordon needs to have the ball in his hands as much as possible, because he can create the most on offense. Will BG remain a liability on D? Probably, since most of his energy will be used on O, but that's why we have Duhon.
> 
> On draft day or before, I hope the Bulls come to their senses and trade Hinrich, the pick and either move up or get someone that the Bulls need.



I don't think you understand me. I think Gordon is clearly the better offensive player. He's a much worse defender. Overall, if I had to give up one, though, I'd give up Kirk. I just view Gordon as a shooting guard, where DaBullz views him as a point guard.

I'm not trying to talk about who is the better player, just where each player fits properly.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> 6 is hinrich's numbers as far more the full-time PG.


But he's not a full-time PG because he shares those duties with Duhon and Gordon.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Gordon falls down too much, doesn't handle double teams well, gets called for carrying more than anyone I've seen, and still makes terrible passes. Just watching the game I wouldn't have known he had a career high in assists. 

If you made a highlight-reel of Gordon playing PG you could make him look like a star, but watching him over his career I'm not comfortable at all with him being the primary ball-handler. He's being used just fine the way he is, IMO. 

When either Gordon or Hinrich dominate the ball we're in trouble. I like when our offense goes through multiple passes/players before someone launches a shot, when we have Gordon/Hinrich overdribbling they're not good enough to create easy shots for others. We still need a perimeter player who can penetrate and wreak havoc on defenses, because none of our guards have shown a consistent ability to finish or draw fouls once they get in the paint.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> 6 is hinrich's numbers as far more the full-time PG.



That really doesn't address my point. I agree that Hinrich's assist numbers are lower than I'd like to see. I still think, though, that his A/T ratio and lack of a shoot-first mentality make him a better point guard, even though Ben is the overall better player.

Both players, though, are troublingly inconsistent at this point in their careers.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I like both guys and generally agree with how Skiles uses them.

I know, I'm boring.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't think you understand me. I think Gordon is clearly the better offensive player. He's a much worse defender. Overall, if I had to give up one, though, I'd give up Kirk. *I just view Gordon as a shooting guard, where DaBullz views him as a point guard.*
> 
> I'm not trying to talk about who is the better player, *just where each player fits properly.*


I believe Gordon will wreak most havoc on teams if he's running the point. He's simply too much of a threat to score which D's have to account for, and has proven himself as a player that can create for his teammates. With Skiles as coach though, unless his 3rd stiff leg for Hinrich subsides I'm not sure if me and Dabulls will ever get our wish to see BG running point.

The money that Hinrich makes should go to Gordon. As he matures, I can see BG running this offense, while still getting his, as a "T-Mac deferring type". He's quicker, faster, more explosive than Hinrich and that slashing ability is what puts him over the top because of that ability to dish at the end. Hinrich doesn't even have enough assists to justify his PG position, and he certainly doesn't deserve the pay. So again, if he's being paid for the D and we have it with Thabo...he is expendable even as a PG. BG/Duhon can run the PG and I'd be comfortable with that.


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

jnrjr79 said:


> Holy crap. Really? I'd likely take all 5 starters and maybe Nocioni.
> 
> 
> EDIT: I misspoke. I would not take PJ over Horace.


Interesting you'd say that. You hold these current Bulls players in a lot higher esteem than they'll be viewed by NBA history. The myth that Grant wouldn't be the best Bull now is almost as rich as the myth that Rodman from ages 35-37 was markedly better than a young Grant.

Let's look at Grant's youngest season without playing with either the stat-gobbling duo of Pippen-Jordan or O'neal-Hardaway, 1994, when he was an ALL STAR, unlike Deng, Noce, Hinrich, Gordon. Wallace was an All Star and was better, but I wouldn't call him better than Grant in his prime.

Horace Grant 1994
15.1 PPG 11.0 RPG 3.4 APG 1.06 SPG 1.2 BPG 52.4% FG 59.6% FT

Deng will be better one day, Wallace was better. No current Bull is better than Horace in his prime. And there isn't one Bull who will ever be close to Scottie Pippen in his prime. Not close. What you have is a bunch of guys who MIGHT be the third best player on the 92 Bulls. I'll just have to take a shot to the face if that doesn't get me all giddy.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I don't think either of them is a full time PG. Duhon's the best we've got as far as pure PG skills, but he's obviously the third best player overall and not a particularly great fit with either of the other two (Gordon doesn't have the size to defend SG's against him and Hinrich's not a good enough scorer to play off the ball full time).

So in reality the best it is going to get with Hinrich and Gordon together. Over time, Gordon will play more and more point- he certainly took a leap this year, but my guess is it's another year or two before he can be trusted to do it full time. I always bring up Jason Terry as an example and I think it's still a good one for Gordon. At that point, Hinrich will need to play better off the ball, and yeah, ideally we might be better off with a guy like Brandon Roy who like Kirk can play the point but has better size and a better set of scoring tools. But that type of guy is very rare, and I also wouldn't assume just any old SG could fit well next to Gordon.


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

JeremyB0001 said:


> So in other words, the team that led the league in defensive efficiency doesn't defend well enough to win a championship?


No. Look man, the overall quality of defense in the league isn't what it was. Being the "best in defensive efficiency" doesn't mean what it once did. This isn't 1990-93. Also, they don't defend well enough to make up for glaring inadequacies inside both in regards to size and back-to-the-basket scoring. The Bulls play good team defense, they play solid basketball and they play hard. And that's about the best you can say about them. Teams who do those things with 6'9" forwards and 6'11" stiffs on their front line, don't come close to the O'Brien Trophy. Master NBA Championship History like you've mastered efficiency stats.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

Good Hope said:


> Man, what are you talking about?
> 
> 90% of the games like garbage? In a 49 win season, as the third leading scorer, first in assists, 45% shooting, etc.
> 
> Is there anything you'd like to say about what is going on in the real world?


Calm down, man. I didn't mean he played poorly in 90% of the games. I meant that in the games where in 90% of them he plays poor, Skiles leaves him in or puts him back in, in crunch time. He's done nothing to warrant the star treatment he receives from the organization. As the Bulls starting point guard, Kirk Hinrich has never led them out of the first round of the playoffs, and he had nothing to do with their win yesterday. When Thabo reaches his prime the team will have very little use for him. That's why I don't believe he fits into their long-term plans.


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

transplant said:


> Clearly, you are wrong. Things on the Bulls are very above average.
> 
> I also watched Michael and Scottie. They were over-the-top GREAT. If we set our middle line at the dynasty years, we might as well give up on the Bulls and save ourselves the disappointment. That was then, this is now.
> 
> ...


That's a Bulls message board fan. Tell someone they are definitively wrong based on nothing other than your own opinion. 

Yeah but there's nobody on this team as good as Grant, I didn't say MJ and Scottie. Usually in today's crap league, where 92 Pippen would probably be the best all-around player in the league, you only need one player near Pippen's caliber to contend. But you have to have at least that. You aren't gonna do it with 6'9" forwards, 6'11" stiffs, a bunch above average forwards and guards, and Luol Deng, who is cementing himself as a star, but not some superstar some want to believe he is.

In today's league, the Bulls aren't even what the Cleveland Cavaliers were in that league. Talentwise, they're probably short of the 92 New Jersey Nets. No one on this team jumps out to me as much better than Drazen Petrovic. In fact, I know no Bull is better. 

Look these guys aren't bad, but the illusion that they are going to contend this year, or add Spencer Hawes or Brendan Wright and contend, are just false. This Bulls team needn't hang their head in shame. Miami probably should, because they are just outhouse stew-ish. Man.


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

JeremyB0001 said:


> As others have commented, I don't think it's a knock on Kirk if BG and Lu are better players. Furthermore, you're skewing things towards Lu if you just go by straight FG% because he doesn't take three pointers while Ben and Kirk take plenty. If you look at TS% which accounts for three point shooting and free throws, the big four are all pretty close: Noc (57.8%), BG (57.2%), Lu (56.0%), Kirk (55.9%). Kirk's previous career high was 52.8% so I'm constantly baffled that people are starting to attack him during what is by far his best season.


If I can count, looks like Kirk is fourth on that list, which changes what? Man, Kirk Hinrich fans just wreak of that hole "I'm a Florida fan who started posting on the Bears board when Chicago drafted Grossman." You just showed me something that says that Deng is still better. 

It's not about attacking him. He doesn't suck. But he shouldn't be the centerpiece of anything, he should probably be one of the first guys we look to deal if we end up staring down the barrel at WRIGHT and HAWES as our best big men options in the draft, he's not as good as a lot think he is, and I'll personally take 4-5 Bulls over him. 

The best you hear in return is "you're wrong, because I think Kirk has a big role" or "look what happens when I talk about adjusted FG% and Kirk still finishes fourth."

Also, adjusted FG% is something a lot of jumpshot fans like to talk about. The problem with relying on a jumper is that at some point they stop falling. Your statistical variance is much greater than when you can score inside. So you may hit a ton of jumpers in one game and win big, and then when you miss your jumpers, if that is what you rely on, teams that can score inside will kill you. 

It's like comparing Kobe to Jordan. If you talk adjusted FG%, Kobe STILL loses, but it ignores that he'll have games like today where he hits every jumper, and then he'll get to a crucial game and have a bad day with the jumpshot. Whereas with Jordan, you could peg his FG% a lot closer to the middle because of his greater ability to take it straight to the hole on multiple defenders for dunks and easy layups.


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

I am shocked at the mood here. I don't come here very often anymore because of the extreme negativity, but I figured I was safe after a terrific playoff start. Wrong, again. Here's two things to think about.

1- Things are looking pretty good in Bulls land. One guy, who even if he were the 4th best player on the team is still incredibly valuable to it (last time I checked it takes more than three guys to play basketball in the NBA,) had a bad game and evryone else stepped up. That's a good thing.

2- The Chicago sports media is about the worst I've ever seen. If you think the refs like to make themselves the story, they got nothing on the sports witers. This team is a focused team and they don't generally cause alot of off court drama, so there isn't enough to go around for all the writers. All the Gordon stuff from last year is a good example that someone brought up, the Wallace has taken his lumps, and Tyrus, too. Give it a few days and they'll move on to somebody else. 

They way posters here continue wait around for a bad game or MINOR incident to post select quotes from some of the worst writers in history to justify whatever argument they feel like making as if it actually validates them is really funny. It's a game, and they are good, and they all wear the same jersey, and if you can't enjoy that for even a single game then you have a bigger problem than a point guard who threw his mouthpiece.

I'm off to go enjoy a really fun team with some terrific players who like playing with each other, and who are going to make waves this year along with a couple of awesome rookies one of whom can really spark things up. Consider this me throwing my mouthpiece at you.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> That really doesn't address my point. I agree that Hinrich's assist numbers are lower than I'd like to see. I still think, though, that his A/T ratio and lack of a shoot-first mentality make him a better point guard, even though Ben is the overall better player.
> 
> Both players, though, are troublingly inconsistent at this point in their careers.


I don't think you understand me.

Hinrich is a B+ PG and a B+ SG.

Gordon is a B+ SG and an A+ PG

So why play Gordon at SG?

Your choices are B+/B+ and A+/B+

Now to address the TO issue. Give him the ball, his TO will go down. Why? Because he'll get better at handling the ball.

In spite of that, assume he gets 5 TO per game, while scoring 25 points and dishing out near 10 assists. Assume those 5 TO turn into baskets - a minus 10 points. The 45 points (25 plus 20 on the assists) vs. his man is a huge net positive.

I'm not dissing Hinrich in the least. His shooting/scoring, assists, and defense on SGs make him hugely valuable in the SG role. He's worth his contract, too.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

4th and 5th is a stretch. He's the 3rd best player on the team and anybody who follows the Bulls knows that.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

joehoo said:


> That's a Bulls message board fan. Tell someone they are definitively wrong based on nothing other than your own opinion.
> 
> Yeah but there's nobody on this team as good as Grant, I didn't say MJ and Scottie. Usually in today's crap league, where 92 Pippen would probably be the best all-around player in the league, you only need one player near Pippen's caliber to contend. But you have to have at least that. You aren't gonna do it with 6'9" forwards, 6'11" stiffs, a bunch above average forwards and guards, and Luol Deng, who is cementing himself as a star, but not some superstar some want to believe he is.
> 
> ...


OK, I like your style. You swing for the fences, and that ain't all bad.

However, the basis of my "opinion" that things on the Bulls are "above average" is based on nothing more than a statistic...something you profess to embrace...and the most important statistic there is...namely that they played the season at 49-33. That ain't mediocre. Mediocre is 41-41 or less in my book.

As for the rest of your post, I need a translator.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I agree with SPMJ. To add to my previous post:

http://www.82games.com/0607/06CHI4C.HTM

Gordon played 5% of the team's minutes at PG.

His PER is a whopping 31.8 at the position. The man he guarded? 6.6 for a net, net, net PER of +25.2. Look at his stat line at PG:

*Player 48-Minute Production by Position*
<table bgcolor="#cccccc" border="0" cellspacing="1" width="720"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#33cc33"> <td width="80"><center>*Position*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*FGA*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*eFG%*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*FTA*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*iFG*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*Reb*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*Ast*</center></td> <td width="50"><center>*T/O*</center></td> <td width="50"><center>*Blk*</center></td> <td width="50"><center>*PF*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*Pts*</center></td> <td width="50"><center>*PER**</center></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td><center>PG</center></td> <td align="right"> 25.9 </td> <td align="right">0.608 </td> <td align="right"> 9.6 </td> <td align="right"> 13% </td> <td align="right"> 4.0 </td> <td align="right"> 10.0 </td> <td align="right"> 5.1 </td> <td align="right"> 0.0 </td> <td align="right"> 3.3 </td> <td align="right"> 39.7 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#99ff00">31.8 </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td><center>SG</center></td> <td align="right"> 23.4 </td> <td align="right">0.511 </td> <td align="right"> 6.6 </td> <td align="right"> 14% </td> <td align="right"> 4.6 </td> <td align="right"> 5.0 </td> <td align="right"> 4.4 </td> <td align="right"> 0.3 </td> <td align="right"> 4.7 </td> <td align="right"> 29.7 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#99ff00">18.4 </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td><center>SF</center></td> <td align="right"> 24.7 </td> <td align="right">0.424 </td> <td align="right"> 18.3 </td> <td align="right"> 16% </td> <td align="right"> 5.1 </td> <td align="right"> 3.5 </td> <td align="right"> 4.2 </td> <td align="right"> 0.4 </td> <td align="right"> 2.9 </td> <td align="right"> 37.2 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#99ff00">23.0 </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td><center>PF</center></td> <td align="right"> 81.1 </td> <td align="right">1.000 </td> <td align="right"> 0.0 </td> <td align="right"> 50% </td> <td align="right"> 0.0 </td> <td align="right"> 0.0 </td> <td align="right"> 0.0 </td> <td align="right"> 0.0 </td> <td align="right"> 40.6 </td> <td align="right">162.3 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#99ff00">50.0 </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td><center>C</center></td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Compared to Hinrich (45% of the team's minutes at PG):

Net PER of +6.2

*Player 48-Minute Production by Position*
<table bgcolor="#cccccc" border="0" cellspacing="1" width="720"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#33cc33"> <td width="80"><center>*Position*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*FGA*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*eFG%*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*FTA*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*iFG*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*Reb*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*Ast*</center></td> <td width="50"><center>*T/O*</center></td> <td width="50"><center>*Blk*</center></td> <td width="50"><center>*PF*</center></td> <td width="60"><center>*Pts*</center></td> <td width="50"><center>*PER**</center></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td><center>PG</center></td> <td align="right"> 17.6 </td> <td align="right">0.541 </td> <td align="right"> 4.4 </td> <td align="right"> 17% </td> <td align="right"> 5.1 </td> <td align="right"> 9.4 </td> <td align="right"> 3.2 </td> <td align="right"> 0.3 </td> <td align="right"> 4.5 </td> <td align="right"> 22.7 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#99ff00">20.0 </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td><center>SG</center></td> <td align="right"> 18.6 </td> <td align="right">0.472 </td> <td align="right"> 5.4 </td> <td align="right"> 21% </td> <td align="right"> 3.9 </td> <td align="right"> 6.8 </td> <td align="right"> 3.2 </td> <td align="right"> 0.5 </td> <td align="right"> 4.9 </td> <td align="right"> 22.1 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#99ff00">16.3 </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td><center>SF</center></td> <td align="right"> 0.0 </td> <td align="right">0.000 </td> <td align="right"> 0.0 </td> <td align="right"> 0% </td> <td align="right"> 0.0 </td> <td align="right"> 40.6 </td> <td align="right"> 0.0 </td> <td align="right"> 0.0 </td> <td align="right"> 0.0 </td> <td align="right"> 0.0 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#99ff00"> 0.0 </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td><center>PF</center></td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td><center>C</center></td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

transplant said:


> OK, I like your style. You swing for the fences, and that ain't all bad.
> 
> However, the basis of my "opinion" that things on the Bulls are "above average" is based on nothing more than a statistic...something you profess to embrace...and the most important statistic there is...namely that they played the season at 49-33. That ain't mediocre. Mediocre is 41-41 or less in my book.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, I need a translator.


Oh teams like the Bulls are built to win a lot of regular season games. Hell in today's crapheap league, there are FAR too many teams that you can beat by being competent, playing hard, and playing good defense. 

I have a fact for you. If you don't have a backboard eraser or a back to the basket dominator in the frontcourt (And we have neither), you better have Michael Jordan, or you aren't contending for crap in this league.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

You actually think Gordon is an A+ point guard? Wow. Based on his infinitley worse assist to turnover ratio? Oh wait, he has a high assist to turnover ratio, so we need to give him the ball more.

Based on his defensive capabilities? Let Gordon guard the other teams top guard every game, and see how he does? When Hinrich went out yesterday, they used Sefalosha to guard Wade, not Gordon? But if we let him get sorched more on defense, he would develop into an NBA first team All-Defense player.

Gordon is a great scorer, but if his shot is off, he does not provide as much help as Hinrich can when his shot is off.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

LIBlue said:


> You actually think Gordon is an A+ point guard? Wow. Based on his infinitley worse assist to turnover ratio? Oh wait, he has a high assist to turnover ratio, so we need to give him the ball more.
> 
> Based on his defensive capabilities? Let Gordon guard the other teams top guard every game, and see how he does? When Hinrich went out yesterday, they used Sefalosha to guard Wade, not Gordon? But if we let him get sorched more on defense, he would develop into an NBA first team All-Defense player.
> 
> Gordon is a great scorer, but if his shot is off, he does not provide as much help as Hinrich can when his shot is off.


It's not an either/or proposition. I would play Hinrich 40 minutes at SG every night.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. Explain this information to me, becuase I am confused.

Does this actually imply that Ben Gordon's worst position is a Shooting Guard? And that his best position is a Power Forward, followed by Point Guard, then Small Forward, and finally Shooting Guard?

Does Gordon play PG with the second unit, against the other teams 2nd unit?

Why did Team USA select Hinrich over Gordon?

Can you explain the rating system, because it does not make sense.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I don't think you understand me.
> 
> Hinrich is a B+ PG and a B+ SG.
> 
> ...



I understand you just fine. We just disagree about what Ben is best suited to do. You have a rosier view of his ball handling and distribution potential than I do. 

I also think Kirk is a B+ PG, but only a B or B- shooting guard in many ways due to the streaky nature of his jump shot.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

LIBlue said:


> Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. Explain this information to me, becuase I am confused.
> 
> Does this actually imply that Ben Gordon's worst position is a Shooting Guard? And that his best position is a Power Forward, followed by Point Guard, then Small Forward, and finally Shooting Guard?
> 
> ...


He played a tiny fraction of the team's total minutes at PF, I don't think the numbers are that meaningful.

5% is a pretty significant chunk of PT.

Gordon played PG with the 1st unit against the defending NBA champs yesterday. You saw how he did.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I understand you just fine. We just disagree about what Ben is best suited to do. You have a rosier view of his ball handling and distribution potential than I do.
> 
> I also think Kirk is a B+ PG, but only a B or B- shooting guard in many ways due to the streaky nature of his jump shot.


The 82games.com numbers support how I see things. So does yesterday's game, and his 37 point/9 assist game earlier in the season, and all those 6+ assist games (and a lot more 5 assist games).

You may be right about Kirk being a B or B- SG. I rate him higher than that, though, because he can defend the SG position, and he'd still get around 6 assists from the spot, along with his 16-ish PPG. He's also better at shooting off screens in the Bulls' scheme of things, while Gordon is clearly better at creating for himself and getting to the line when he gets the ball at the PG position (top of the key).

Every team that has a top wing player gets him the ball at the top of they key as much as possible...


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

thebullybully said:


> I am shocked at the mood here. I don't come here very often anymore because of the extreme negativity, but I figured I was safe after a terrific playoff start. Wrong, again.


The longtime posters with reputations that they only have negative things to say have been quite positive and optimistic. It's a couple of people who haven't consistently posted here before that are taking a couple bad games as an opportunity to blast a good player who's done a lot for this team.



joehoo said:


> No. Look man, the overall quality of defense in the league isn't what it was. Being the "best in defensive efficiency" doesn't mean what it once did. This isn't 1990-93.


Ok. So no one plays defense as well as the old days. Is your argument then that no team in the league plays defense well enough to win the Championship? Cause someone's going to win it. If you want to pick apart the Bulls offense or playoff experience and say they're not good enough to win a championship that's fine. I haven't seen one person on this board project that the Bulls will even reach the Finals, so I don't think you'd encounter much disagreement. However, arguing that the most successful defensive team in the league during an 82 game season doesn't defend well enough to win a championship really destroys any credibility you might have had. 



joehoo said:


> Man, Kirk Hinrich fans just wreak of that hole "I'm a Florida fan who started posting on the Bears board when Chicago drafted Grossman."


I don't really know why you'd think it's acceptable to insult me like that. I've been posting on this board a lot longer than the week that you have and I've been a Bulls fan my entire life.



joehoo said:


> If I can count, looks like Kirk is fourth on that list, which changes what? You just showed me something that says that Deng is still better.


You seem to have some trouble reading so I'll help you out by bolding the post that you quoted and responded to:



> As others have commented, *I don't think it's a knock on Kirk if BG and Lu are better players*. Furthermore, you're skewing things towards Lu if you just go by straight FG% because he doesn't take three pointers while Ben and Kirk take plenty. If you look at TS% which accounts for three point shooting and free throws, *the big four are all pretty close*: Noc (57.8%), BG (57.2%), Lu (56.0%), Kirk (55.9%).


You sure made me look like an idiot by pointing out that the numbers I provided _support_ my suggestion that Gordon and Deng are better than Hinrich. The numbers would also seem to support my claim that since Hinrich is within a tenth of a percentage point of Deng, he's probably a damn good player.



joehoo said:


> It's not about attacking him. He doesn't suck. But he shouldn't be the centerpiece of anything, he should probably be one of the first guys we look to deal if we end up staring down the barrel at WRIGHT and HAWES as our best big men options in the draft,


Again, you don't really seem to be contradicting what I posted in this thread:



> Would I move him if he could bring back a big time post scorer? Yeah, but I don't think his value is that high.


However, I think that acquiring three players under 21 in addition to Wallace to shore up the frontcourt is major overkill.



joehoo said:


> he's not as good as a lot think he is, and I'll personally take 4-5 Bulls over him.


He's also better than a lot of people think he is. Are you talking long term or short term? I don't think you can make a very good argument that you'd rather have the 32 year old Ben Wallace in the long term instead of Kirk who's 26. I also don't think you can make a very good argument that Tyrus, who had serious foul and turnover problems, was a better player than Kirk this season. 



joehoo said:


> The best you hear in return is "you're wrong, because I think Kirk has a big role" or "look what happens when I talk about adjusted FG% and Kirk still finishes fourth."


I offered some concrete support for my position which is a lot more than you've done in this thread.



joehoo said:


> Also, adjusted FG% is something a lot of jumpshot fans like to talk about. The problem with relying on a jumper is that at some point they stop falling. Your statistical variance is much greater than when you can score inside. So you may hit a ton of jumpers in one game and win big, and then when you miss your jumpers, if that is what you rely on, teams that can score inside will kill you.


Well, with a team full of jump shooters we still managed to win 49 games somehow.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> He played a tiny fraction of the team's total minutes at PF, I don't think the numbers are that meaningful.
> 
> 5% is a pretty significant chunk of PT.


I have to disagree. 5% of the team's minutes is just over 4 games which is a pretty tiny sample size. Putting a lot of faith in those numbers is like putting a lot of faith in the leaderboards or won loss totals four games into the season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I have to disagree. 5% of the team's minutes is just over 4 games which is a pretty tiny sample size. Putting a lot of faith in those numbers is like putting a lot of faith in the leaderboards or won loss totals four games into the season.


would you turn down a 5% pay raise?


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

joehoo said:


> Oh teams like the Bulls are built to win a lot of regular season games. Hell in today's crapheap league, there are FAR too many teams that you can beat by being competent, playing hard, and playing good defense.
> 
> I have a fact for you. If you don't have a backboard eraser or a back to the basket dominator in the frontcourt (And we have neither), you better have Michael Jordan, or you aren't contending for crap in this league.


No, actually, that's an opinion (important note: just because it's _your opinion_ _doesn't make it a fact_, and while you're new, I've come to understand that you HATE opinions. The Pistons won a championship with Ben Wallace (who we now have) and no Jordan. It can be done.

Statistics or opinion. Pick a lane. No offense, but you appear to lack discipline.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

joehoo said:


> Man, Kirk Hinrich fans just wreak of that hole "I'm a Florida fan who started posting on the Bears board when Chicago drafted Grossman."


hey joehoo, Jeremy already noticed this, but try to avoid baiting people like this. The people who are arguing in Kirk's defense are big Bulls fans too and there's no need to question their motivations.


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

LIBlue said:


> Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. Explain this information to me, becuase I am confused.
> 
> Does this actually imply that Ben Gordon's worst position is a Shooting Guard? And that his best position is a Power Forward, followed by Point Guard, then Small Forward, and finally Shooting Guard?
> 
> ...


Statistics are imperfect, but they're better than someone's unbridled opinion any day of the week. Kobe Bryant fans love to marginalize statistics. The sales pitch is always the same. "Stats aren't important, not as important as MY opinion."


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

So if Hinrich plays only 45% of the team's minutes at PG, wouldn't that go to reason his assist numbers would be much better if he played, say, 65-70% of the team's minutes at PG (a percentage closer to what guys ahead of him in assists are probably playing at the position)?


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Ok. So no one plays defense as well as the old days. Is your argument then that no team in the league plays defense well enough to win the Championship? Cause someone's going to win it. If you want to pick apart the Bulls offense or playoff experience and say they're not good enough to win a championship that's fine. I haven't seen one person on this board project that the Bulls will even reach the Finals, so I don't think you'd encounter much disagreement. However, arguing that the most successful defensive team in the league during an 82 game season doesn't defend well enough to win a championship really destroys any credibility you might have had.


No one plays defense well enough today to win a title with 6'9" forwards and 6'11" stiffs comprising a front line. So before you get to "destruction of credibility" decipher a point correctly. The Bulls play good enough defense to win a title, with championship caliber offense lol. Nothing about their defense makes up for alarming inadequacies in interior offense, interior size and like you said lack of experience. Nor is this team "only a Brendan Wright away." And I wasn't necessarily only barring them from the finals. I'll put their chances to exit round 2 at 10-90. 

If you interpretted my point to be anything other than "They don't play defense well enough to win in light of their inadequacies in other areas" we weren't on the same page. 

At the same time, if you're calling this the best defensive team in the league, the league has taken 3 steps back defensively.



> You seem to have some trouble reading so I'll help you out by bolding the post that you quoted and responded to:


And this is not a bait/insult/whatever victim move it is you're trying to play?



> You sure made me look like an idiot by pointing out that the numbers I provided _support_ my suggestion that Gordon and Deng are better than Hinrich. The numbers would also seem to support my claim that since Hinrich is within a tenth of a percentage point of Deng, he's probably a damn good player.


Ok, Deng is good. He's a young star. I wouldn't call being within anything of Deng anything too special when you're a PG that doesn't average a lot of assists and isn't spectacular at anything. Now. Don't misunderstand me. I never said Kirk sucks or even that I don't like him, just that he's probably about 4th or 5th and he's very expendable IMO. 



> Well, with a team full of jump shooters we still managed to win 49 games somehow.


Jumpshooting teams that play defense and play hard in this league can post a lot of wins. Just like Cleveland did during the Jordan years. And you saw what happened to them. They were a lot better at it than we were and actually had a center.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

OK, back to the original point for a second... the mouthpiece throwing thing. No, it's not the end of the world or anything, but Salo was dead on in his post. It was pretty disgusting. Hey, Kirk's a Bull and I'll cheer for the Bulls no matter what. I cheered for Dennis Rodman who blatantly kicked a guy for doing nothing but getting run into by him. And no, I doubt Kirk would injury anyone, but it's just plain freaking gross to start slinging around something covered with your spit. Not a classy thing and he ought not to have done it. If he was on another team, how would you feel about it? 

A couple of bad games or an isolated incident, who cares, I don't want to see that kind of **** again.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> So if Hinrich plays only 45% of the team's minutes at PG, wouldn't that go to reason his assist numbers would be much better if he played, say, 65-70% of the team's minutes at PG (a percentage closer to what guys ahead of him in assists are probably playing at the position)?


his per 48 minute assist numbers are lower than Gordon's at PG.

But yeah, you'd think he'd get more assists, period, passing to Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

I would say that if Kirk Hinrich is your SG then you should probably trade him. As a SG, he's only average in just about everything that is meaningful for the position (well, he's a good shooter, but starting shooting guards have more requirements), and his value would be better as a trading chip. I just don't think Gordon can handle the PG position full-time.

I don't mind the way Skiles is using Hinrich, Gordon, and Duhon, with PG by committee. But, obviously, the 45% of PG minutes should get brought up when Kirk is getting knocked for what are perceived to be low assist numbers.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

joehoo said:


> And this is not a bait/insult/whatever victim move it is you're trying to play?


I missed that the first time, but you're right to mention it. It's also not needed.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> In time, Ben Gordon and Thabo Selofosha should play the majority of the minutes forming a big, athletic, explosive backcourt.


All of your copmlaints about Kirk apply to Thabo and most of them apply to Gordon.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I would say that if Kirk Hinrich is your SG then you should probably trade him. As a SG, he's only average in just about everything that is meaningful for the position (well, he's a good shooter, but starting shooting guards have more requirements), and his value would be better as a trading chip. I just don't think Gordon can handle the PG position full-time.
> 
> I don't mind the way Skiles is using Hinrich, Gordon, and Duhon, with PG by committee. But, obviously, the 45% of PG minutes should get brought up when Kirk is getting knocked for what are perceived to be low assist numbers.


As a SG, he's better than the average by a decent amount. Again, considering all the things he brings to the position.

And, FWIW, the 45% of the team's minutes at PG translates to about 2/3 of HIS total minutes.

An interesting exercise would be to figure out which SG you'd rather have.
Vince Carter
Iggy
Rip
Wade
Joe Johnson
Ginobili
TMac
Allen
Barbosa
Kobe
JRich
Kevin Martin

And that's being somewhat generous. I'd probably take Kirk over Rip, Ginobili, and JRich. I don't see us being able to trade for anyone else on the list.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

As a side note Hinrich very well might be the 4th or 5th best player on the team. I could buy into the idea that Deng and Gordon are better. You could argue Wallace as well. 

I don't see how you could drop Kirk to 5th though. I personally would rather have Kirk than Wallace myself, but I could at least see the case for Wallace. 

However, the real key here is, how many players are _significantly_ better than Kirk. I'd say the answer to that right now is zero. Maybe Gordon or Deng will elevate their game enough that you can say that about them, or maybe not.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Even Jalen Rose?
> :yay:



Jalen Rose wasn't a Bull.

Oh, he wore the uniform. He showed up to games.

But he wasn't a Bull.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> As a side note Hinrich very well might be the 4th or 5th best player on the team. I could buy into the idea that Deng and Gordon are better. You could argue Wallace as well.
> 
> I don't see how you could drop Kirk to 5th though. I personally would rather have Kirk than Wallace myself, but I could at least see the case for Wallace.
> 
> However, the real key here is, how many players are _significantly_ better than Kirk. I'd say the answer to that right now is zero. Maybe Gordon or Deng will elevate their game enough that you can say that about them, or maybe not.


Taking the thread way off topic, I'd take a healthy Noc over Hinrich. I can see people placing him fifth best on the team. Not that there's anything wrong with that. He can play guard for me any day of the week.


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

transplant said:


> No, actually, that's an opinion (important note: just because it's _your opinion_ _doesn't make it a fact_, and while you're new, I've come to understand that you HATE opinions. The Pistons won a championship with Ben Wallace (who we now have) and no Jordan. It can be done.
> 
> Statistics or opinion. Pick a lane. No offense, but you appear to lack discipline.


Here is a fact. Not an opinion. A fact. 

Teams with a dominant power forward- or very good center, back-to-the-basket scorer have won 25 championships since 1956. Of the remainder, teams with a dominant backboard eraser in the low post have won 16 championships. Of the remaining teams, the most common denominator has been having a superstar SG that could take multiple defenders to the basket for high percentage finishes seemingly at will. This would include Michael Jordan six times, and a very healthy Dwyane Wade. 

And then there were the two teams we most closely resemble, the 75 Warriors and 79 Supersonics. Ok so the FACT is, we're not as close as you think. It's a fact that if the best thing you are is a good defensive team, a solid team that plays hard, and you play the best team defense in the league, you are more geared toward high regular season wins (since a team like that usually always a good record) than you are toward winning a championship. The qualifications this team has don't bring you that close.

By the mere numbers, that is a fact. A fact you may not like, or a fact you may want to call "my opinion." But it's a fact nonetheless. 

*Ben Wallace fit that characteristic when the Pistons won. He almost fit the bill the following season. Since then he just hasn't. Nobody was confusing Wallace for a defensive paint dominator this year.*

You say it can be done. Even if you include Wallace, who I will maintain is not close to what he was (his statistics have dropped since then), then you must get to this point:

We have no one as good as Rasheed Wallace, let alone Richard Hamilton and Chauncey Billups. Just because something is required of you, doesn't mean that having it alone puts you in a class. The Spurs had David Robinson, and until they got Tim Duncan, nothing.


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

dougthonus said:


> As a side note Hinrich very well might be the 4th or 5th best player on the team. I could buy into the idea that Deng and Gordon are better. You could argue Wallace as well.
> 
> I don't see how you could drop Kirk to 5th though. I personally would rather have Kirk than Wallace myself, but I could at least see the case for Wallace.
> 
> ...


That just tells me that at this point, nobody on the team is THAT good. Just because they are all grouped together doesn't mean we should be all happy. This is a team full of GOOD players. That's where it ends. The Cleveland Cavaliers had a bunch of players who weren't that much better than Kirk. Well, actually check that. I'll take Harper, Daugherty and Nance all over Kirk in a landslide, and maybe even Price, and they still didn't win. They won a lot of regular season games like us. But teams built like these two teams don't excel beyond a certain point.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)




----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

This thread reminds me of a few years ago when I was sitting at a Gothenburg train station watching a German and a Spaniard arguing in English.

First and foremost, Hinrich should have never thrown his mouthpiece. He lost his cool at a time he had no business doing so. However, the call he was reacting to was absolute BS (in favor of Wade...shocker!), one of many calls that he's been getting screwed on for years now. I can see why Kirk reacted the way he did, but I don't excuse it. He should be called out for it in the media.

Secondly, Ben Gordon isn't a point guard. Sorry to break it to some of you, but he just isn't. He's an average ballhandler and makes nice passes from time to time, but he turns the ball over when he's double-teamed and is far too often out of control when driving the lane. He has difficulty making things happen for other players and is often careless with the ball, especially when trying to make things happen for other players. He's not very good a driving and kicking, a crucial skill all NBA point guards utilize on a regular basis. DaBullz, Gordon "won't get better at handling the ball" in time. He tried playing PG at UCONN. Calhoun learned from that experiment. You can't just "become" a full-time NBA point guard with added minutes at the position. Maybe in a video game, maybe on a fantasy team, but not in real life. It just doesn't happen that way.

With regard to Hinrich's inconsistent shooting, both he and Gordon shot at or above 50% from the field 33 times this season (Hinrich in 80 games, Gordon in 82 games). Just something to ponder for a few seconds.

With regard to Hinrich's passing, he's 13th in the league in assists, but he plays only about 2/3 of his minutes at PG. *Of the 12 players who average more assists, only one has fewer turnovers* (that would be Billups, who is fairly similar to Hinrich from a statistical standpoint). Among the top 13, Kirk is 4th in FG% and 2nd in 3PT%. So, what you've got here is a good passer with a great A/TO ratio who also shoots the ball very well and is deadly from long range. Additionally, he's one of the best perimeter defenders in the league and is versatile, as he can effectively play (and guard) two positions. So, to the objective observer, the bulk of this thread is merely knee-jerk reactionism and really, really shortsighted (and really, really didactic) opinion.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> would you turn down a 5% pay raise?


Hehe. I wouldn't turn down a 0.0000000000000000001% pay raise but I don't think it makes for a relevant sample size under these circumstances.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

joehoo likes stats, so I'll throw a metric his way.

I think it's safe to say that if a player does multiple things at a top-30 rate and a few more things at a top-60 rate, then that player is probably pretty good at what he does and a key part of his team. Good PGs should rank the top 30 in assists, A/TO and/or steals, good SGs should rank in the top 30 in points and at least one other core stat, and good post players should rank in the top 30 in either points or blocks as well as rebounds. A well-rounded player will also rank in the top 60 in a few other categories. Throwing out minutes per game, minutes played, FG made, FGA and focusing solely on stats that measure production per game (PPG, RPG, APG, SPT, BPG, A/TO, steals per turnover, FTA, etc), and also keeping in mind defensive impact isn't accurately measured with stats, here's where Hinrich stands.

*Top 30*
APG (13th)
A/TO (22nd)
3PT% (15th)
SPG (26th)

*Top 60*
FT% (33rd)
Steals per turnover (34th)
PPG (41st)
Efficiency Ranking (50th)
USG-r (59th)

4 top 30 rankings, 5 more in the top 60. Not bad.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

joehoo said:


> Key words: I don't think


What happened to that focus on the post not the poster thing?

[edit - OT -vf] 

This thread takes me back to the "good" ole days when it was normal fare around here to throw your least favorite Bull under the bus after a bad game. The USA Today reported that within hours of the Virginia Tech shootings that each side of the gun control lobby was already out making their play. The Bulls are up 1-0 and instead of enjoying things the anti-Hinrich lobby is out in force. That's a shame.

I think Hinrich did get screwed by the officiating. I didn't see foul three on Payton as a foul and it was laughable for Wade to get that call on foul number four. Wade was clearly moving into his path. Perhaps instead of throwing his mouthpiece into the crowd he should have just waited until after the game and offered a "*what Shaq said*" comment.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> With regard to Hinrich's passing, he's 13th in the league in assists, but he plays only about 2/3 of his minutes at PG.


Even if he played 40 minutes per game solely at PG, his assist total would still be pretty good. People don't seem to realize that in today's NBA most teams don't have a PG average 8-10 assists per game.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I missed that the first time, but you're right to mention it. It's also not needed.


Apologies. I should've done a better job of turning the other cheek. I wouldn't have reacted in that fashion to someone who has a history on the board.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Billups
*17.0 ppg, 7.2 apg (2.0 TO),* 1.2 spg, 0.2 bpg, 3.4 rpg, 43% FG, 35% 3PT, *88% FT.*

Hinrich
16.6 ppg, 6.3 apg (2.4 TO), *1.3 spg, 0.3 bpg,* 3.4 rpg, *45% FG, 42% 3PT,* 84% FT.

Defense probably goes to Hinrich.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Billups
> *17.0 ppg, 7.2 apg (2.0 TO),* 1.2 spg, 0.2 bpg, 3.4 rpg, 43% FG, 35% 3PT, *88% FT.*
> 
> Hinrich
> ...



How about stats like PER? How do Billups and Hinrich compare?

Are you saying you would be indifferent between Billups/ Hinrich on the Bulls? Or would you just flat out rather have Hinrich?


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

Geez, I'm not the biggest Kirk fan, but he has one bad game in the playoffs (lest we forget, we WON the frickin' game) that warrants an 8 page thread. Overkill, people. Just because a hack writer from the not so bright one writes a crap piece, we don't have to wallow in it, for Pete's sake. 


We have a very peculiar way of clutching defeat from the jaws of victory, n'est pa??


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I love Kirk and I dislike Kirk. Depends what type of game he is having, but I know that I want to keep Kirk unless we can upgrade the PG position to a much superior player. Given his age and who would be available at the trade deadline/FA (and the price we'd pay), I'm very content with Kirk. Is he perfect? No. I can point out tons of his mistakes. But I can point out tons of great things. He had one bad game. He's shown he can play in the playoffs. 

He has impressed me this year. Lets give the kid a break this game.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> How about stats like PER? How do Billups and Hinrich compare?


The difference in PER (Billups is 21.53, Hinrich is 17.42) is roughly tantamount to the advantage Hinrich has over Billups in terms of defense and versatility. Billups has the better TS%, Hinrich has the better eFG%. USG-r is almost identical between the two.



> Are you saying you would be indifferent between Billups and Hinrich on the Bulls?


No. I'm saying that Hinrich is far better than the "overrated", "mediocre" 6th-man some are describing him as in this thread. I figured a straight-up statistical comparison to Billups may provide some needed context.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> Geez, I'm not the biggest Kirk fan, but he has one bad game in the playoffs (lest we forget, we WON the frickin' game) that warrants an 8 page thread. Overkill, people. Just because a hack writer from the not so bright one writes a crap piece, we don't have to wallow in it, for Pete's sake.
> 
> 
> We have a very peculiar way of clutching defeat from the jaws of victory, n'est pa??


i blame the schedule makers. no need for 3 days in between games. I can't believe we have to wait until tuesday. Threads like this are going to get bumped theres nothing else to talk about


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm giddy with the fact that people are now caliing Hinrich the 4th or 5th best player on the Bulls. Says more about the Bulls than Kirk Hinrich. Here's to the hope he becomes 6th or 7th best.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I'm giddy with the fact that people are now caliing Hinrich the 4th or 5th best player on the Bulls. Says more about the Bulls than Kirk Hinrich. Here's to the hope he becomes 6th or 7th best.


Do you think the Bulls would still announce Hinrich last if they brought him off the bench?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think the Bulls would still announce Hinrich last if they brought him off the bench?


Presumably, he wouldn't be announced at all, considering they only announce the starters and all.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> Presumably, he wouldn't be announced at all, considering they only announce the starters and all.


Well, yah, normally, but we're talking about Captain Kirk coming off the bench, not one of the other players.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Well, yah, normally, but we're talking about Captain Kirk coming off the bench, not one of the other players.


Ah. My answer remains a no. He would not be announced if he weren't starting.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think the Bulls would still announce Hinrich last if they brought him off the bench?


He's white, so probably.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Who's this Hinrich guy? He plays for the Bulls? The ought to announce him at every game, I seem to have missed him all season.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

The Bulls' biggest blunder was giving up on Khalid El-Amin and Dedric Willoughby so quickly. Those guys could run circles around this Hinrich clown.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I'm giddy with the fact that people are now caliing Hinrich the 4th or 5th best player on the Bulls. Says more about the Bulls than Kirk Hinrich. Here's to the hope he becomes 6th or 7th best.


It'd be quite awesome if he became the 1st best.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> It'd be quite awesome if he became the 1st best.


Reality is a [edit].


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I'm not sure that Gordon should play PG, but I do think he should have the ball in his hands *much* more frequently. I think the ball should be controlled by the best offensive player the majority of the time. Yes, Gordon has decision-making and turnover problems, but I think many of the mental errors would be eliminated if he was involved more often. He's the only player on the team who can create his own shot effectively, and he's also the best shooter. He's recently begun to draw double teams, especially off pick and rolls. 

Excuse the extreme example, but look at the Heat. Jason Williams is a better ball-handler and decision maker than Wade (check out A/T ratios), but the ball is obviously in Wade's hands a lot more. That's because he can create his own shot and draw double teams and score a lot more easily than Williams. Wade is just as prone to turnovers as Gordon but the benefits outweigh the negatives. I think the same would be true for Gordon on the Bulls but to a lesser degree.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Wade has a lot more PG instincts than Gordon does. Gordon's obviously a much better shooter than Wade, and as such he gets a lot of his points off of screens and set plays (as good shooters usually do). Wade gets the bulk of his points off of isolations and creative drives as opposed to shots off of screens and set plays, so it's natural that Wade has the ball in his hands all the time.

I think your general point is valid, however. Gordon is an elite scorer. He's very efficient when he shoots the ball, be it on jumpers or drives. The more touches he gets, the better the Bulls are likely to be.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I think Deng and Gordon have arguably passed Hinrich this season, so 3rd best is fine with me. If he goes from best to 3rd best, that means the team is getting better. It's hard to say who is the best though, because they do different things, and really, Nocioni should be in the discussion. I will say that Hinrich's game 1 was terrible, but he has also been our best playoff performer the past two seasons. He has almost played Wade and Arenas to a standstill by stepping up his offensive game and limiting theirs. He is a really good player.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Wade has a lot more PG instincts than Gordon does. Gordon's obviously a much better shooter than Wade, and as such he gets a lot of his points off of screens and set plays (as good shooters usually do). Wade gets the bulk of his points off of isolations and creative drives as opposed to shots off of screens and set plays, so it's natural that Wade has the ball in his hands all the time.


Gordon shoots off screens and set plays because that's his role in the offense. I think his improvement in the past year has been great enough that he can likely do a lot more successfully. I think he is pretty excellent at taking his man off the dribble. I admit he's average at finishing in the paint, but I think he could instead hit a 10 foot jumpshot very efficiently. We rarely see that happen though because Skiles doesn't allow isolations (which is something I'm okay with most of the time). It is pretty frustrating to watch his deadly midrange game disappear because he gets double-teamed on every single pick-and-roll. 

I don't really agree that Wade has more PG instincts. Gordon doesn't pass the ball because he doesn't have the ball very often or receives it in positions where a shot is a better decision than a pass. I also think he distrusts his teammates slightly- Deng is the only one he willingly passes to and actively looks for.


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

VincentVega said:


> joehoo likes stats, so I'll throw a metric his way.
> 
> I think it's safe to say that if a player does multiple things at a top-30 rate and a few more things at a top-60 rate, *then that player is probably pretty good at what he does and a key part of his team.* Good PGs should rank the top 30 in assists, A/TO and/or steals, good SGs should rank in the top 30 in points and at least one other core stat, and good post players should rank in the top 30 in either points or blocks as well as rebounds. A well-rounded player will also rank in the top 60 in a few other categories. Throwing out minutes per game, minutes played, FG made, FGA and focusing solely on stats that measure production per game (PPG, RPG, APG, SPT, BPG, A/TO, steals per turnover, FTA, etc), and also keeping in mind defensive impact isn't accurately measured with stats, here's where Hinrich stands.
> 
> ...


Word to your mother. Hinrich is pretty good. No doubt. And I don't dislike him. I also think that Couch sucks, the Chicago media sucks, and anybody really trying to rip him for one bad game or for throwing a plastic mouthpiece, is a huge idiot. But that's what the Chicago media does. I'm convinced they all sit around drinking at Mike North's house, and then when someone does something that they can get moral about, they all yell "someone did something bad, now my non-creative butt has something to write about!" What's Scottie remembered for in Chicago? After a hall of fame career that Jordan haters in other cities tend to worship (I've met Celtic and Laker fans who think Scottie is the best all-around SF all-time), he's remembered most in Chicago for sitting out in game 6 against the Knicks in 94. A season in which he led the team to two less wins than the 93 team despite having MJ subbed out for Pete Myers.

Hinrich is a good player, but look beyond that. Once you get past the point that there is nothing he should be ashamed of, what does it all mean? It's one thing to say he's good, but when someone thinks he's the best on the team, or top 3, or not expendable, isn't that pushing it a tad? 

Put it this way. I think Tyson Chandler is a crappy basketball player. By this I mean, if he were 6'4", even if that meant he'd have better balance and agility, he wouldn't be in the NBA. Because from a technical standpoint, he's ****ty on so many levels. So someone says "but he's 7'1" and athletic in a league starved of true centers. Ok, even then, assume it is 1990. They had a word for Tyson Chandler back then. John Hot Rod Williams. But today, due simply to a lack of players of his caliber at his position with his physical profile, he becomes a better commodity than Kirk Hinrich. No different than a real commodity becomes more expensive, all other things equal, relative to another commodity the more rare that the former is. 

True centers and point guards can fall much shorter than Hinrich or Deng or even Gordon on the technical scale, because of the relative supply. Solid coachable 6'3" tweeners are as easy to find as good small forwards and frontcourt tweeners like Tyrus Thomas. Tyrus is good too, but if he were 7'0" 245 and everything else was the same, they have a name for that too: Greg Oden. 

All I'm saying, is that I think Couch's article sucks, I think he has no talent, I think Kirk did nothing wrong, I don't think it's appropriate to react to anything that happened on Saturday, I think Kirk IS a good player, but:

1) He's not better than Deng, Gordon, Nocioni and Wallace (and there is NOTHING wrong with that)
2) He's very expendable
3) Let's have some proper perspective and not overstate how good he is in reaction to some moron trying to paint an exaggerated picture of how bad he is

If there is no disagreement on those 3 points, there is no disagreement.

BTW has anyone read "A Confederacy of Dunces"..? I'm reading it now, on page 22, and it is a very pleasurable text. Would be curious to get ratings from such a well-spoken and verbose crowd.


----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

VincentVega said:


> Wade has a lot more PG instincts than Gordon does. Gordon's obviously a much better shooter than Wade, and as such he gets a lot of his points off of screens and set plays (as good shooters usually do). Wade gets the bulk of his points off of isolations and creative drives as opposed to shots off of screens and set plays, so it's natural that Wade has the ball in his hands all the time.
> 
> I think your general point is valid, however. Gordon is an elite scorer. He's very efficient when he shoots the ball, be it on jumpers or drives. The more touches he gets, the better the Bulls are likely to be.


In years, I've seen the differences and preferences between two players be a violent debate. Truth is, one's passion for the Chicago Bulls could have realistically been so strong during the Jordan years, that even afterward, many, including myself, could have made the mistake of losing perspective on life in favor of analyzing the Bulls. People can ridicule this, but growing up in this city when I did was like growing up across from the House that Ruth built.. when Babe Ruth played there!

As violent and ugly and nonsensical as those debates used to get on every Bulls message board, and there's like 40 of them, it seems to have turned into a "discussion" these days. Balanced, perspective-oriented opinions are now welcome, and that's a good thing. 

The funny thing is, I've told myself a million times that this team just doesn't have the tools, that no team like this has ever won it. I still root for them more crazy than ever. I've said a million bad things about a Bulls player in between games, but when that ball is in the air, oh man! This team, to me, doesn't have the tools, and they won't with Spencer Hawes or Brendan Wright either. But, the great thing is, they don't know that. If they somehow scrapped past Detroit, I don't think the Cavs would have any idea what hit them, and in the Finals, against a Western team that must survive a dogfight just to GET to the Finals (which is how the Pistons and Heat both won, as underdogs, btw), this team might just not listen all the way to a ring.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)




----------



## joehoo (Apr 17, 2007)

Electric Slim said:


> I'm giddy with the fact that people are now caliing Hinrich the 4th or 5th best player on the Bulls. Says more about the Bulls than Kirk Hinrich. Here's to the hope he becomes 6th or 7th best.


My wish is that some Bull becomes BETTER THAN DENG. Now THAT would be progress. Maybe for my birthday


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

joehoo said:


> BTW has anyone read "A Confederacy of Dunces"..? I'm reading it now, on page 22, and it is a very pleasurable text. Would be curious to get ratings from such a well-spoken and verbose crowd.


It's one of my favorite books. A frickin riot from start to finish.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> It's one of my favorite books. A frickin riot from start to finish.


I agree. It's a wonderful book.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jbulls said:


> I agree. It's a wonderful book.


Ditto.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Reality is a [edit].


I think your comment is both unfair and uncalled for.

The concensus here seems to be that Kirk is about our 3rd best player. I was agreeing with you that to say he is our 3rd best player says a lot about the team that we have two players better. My comment, "it'd be awesome if he was our 1st best player" is merely saying that as good as Deng and Gordon are, we'd be that much better.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I think your comment is both unfair and uncalled for.
> 
> The concensus here seems to be that Kirk is about our 3rd best player. I was agreeing with you that to say he is our 3rd best player says a lot about the team that we have two players better. My comment, "it'd be awesome if he was our 1st best player" is merely saying that as good as Deng and Gordon are, we'd be that much better.


I was actually agreeing with you, maybe you just misunderstood.


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

joehoo said:


> Word to your mother. Hinrich is pretty good. No doubt. And I don't dislike him. I also think that Couch sucks, the Chicago media sucks, and anybody really trying to rip him for one bad game or for throwing a plastic mouthpiece, is a huge idiot. But that's what the Chicago media does. I'm convinced they all sit around drinking at Mike North's house, and then when someone does something that they can get moral about, they all yell "someone did something bad, now my non-creative butt has something to write about!" What's Scottie remembered for in Chicago? After a hall of fame career that Jordan haters in other cities tend to worship (I've met Celtic and Laker fans who think Scottie is the best all-around SF all-time), he's remembered most in Chicago for sitting out in game 6 against the Knicks in 94. A season in which he led the team to two less wins than the 93 team despite having MJ subbed out for Pete Myers.
> 
> Hinrich is a good player, but look beyond that. Once you get past the point that there is nothing he should be ashamed of, what does it all mean? It's one thing to say he's good, but when someone thinks he's the best on the team, or top 3, or not expendable, isn't that pushing it a tad?
> 
> ...



good post! negative criticism from Couch aside -- I too think it's fine and dandy that Hinrich is our 5th best player -- if that means that Gordon, Wallace, Deng, Nocioni -- and probably Tyrus in a little bit are all better than Hinrich, but Hinrich is still providing what he does... that means the Bulls are a serious team, and possible title contender.

oh - and funny that you mention Confederacy of Dunces -- I just got that book as a birthday present. I'm on page 50-something, and also finding it quite enjoyable thus far. abosolutely love Ignatius' dialogue


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Wade has a lot more PG instincts than Gordon does. Gordon's obviously a much better shooter than Wade, and as such he gets a lot of his points off of screens and set plays (as good shooters usually do). Wade gets the bulk of his points off of isolations and creative drives as opposed to shots off of screens and set plays, so it's natural that Wade has the ball in his hands all the time.


I lost a lot of respect for Wade after the game we played against them without Shaq and Riley. In the second half, they just isolated him on one side of the court while the other four Heat players just stood around on the other side. He'd try to take his man off the dribble and then either shoot or pass to a teammate who would shoot almost immediately regardless of the quality of the shot since the shot clock was lower. Naturally, he ended up with plenty of assists because every shot taken by a Heat player other than him came off one of his passes. I'm not sure the Heat play like this often - as I said, Shaq and Riley were both out - but it led me to believe that his assist totals are rather inflated.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Hey, remember last year how hard the press tried to make an issue between Ben Gordon and Skiles, and it just fizzled?
> 
> They're sharks. They'll scream blood and everyone will rush over and chomp and bite and maybe end up biting each other the most.
> 
> ...


As a follow-up, Barry Rozner is joining in the fray with his article, implying that Kirk freezes up the offense and freezes out our real stars:



> The Bulls have made it clear over the years that the team belongs to Hinrich.
> 
> Maybe that was true, and maybe it still is, but it wasn’t Saturday when Deng and Gordon got a chance to show what they could do without one person standing out on top dribbling away the shot clock.
> 
> ...


Rozner is the one who tried his hardest to drum up the Skiles Gordon feud last year. 

I don't know. I just have some difficulties seeing what was so bad about our offense this year.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> I don't know. I just have some difficulties seeing what was so bad about our offense this year.


We don't have an offensive superstar, therefore we don't have a 30ppg scorer, therefore we need to make up 30ppg every game we play against a team with a superstar.

That seems to be the logic (albeit exaggerated)


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> We don't have an offensive superstar, therefore we don't have a 30ppg scorer, therefore we need to make up 30ppg every game we play against a team with a superstar.
> 
> That seems to be the logic (albeit exaggerated)


Our offensive rating sunk pretty harshly once teams started double-teaming and trapping the pick and roll. We ended up ranked 20th.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> That just tells me that at this point, nobody on the team is THAT good. Just because they are all grouped together doesn't mean we should be all happy. This is a team full of GOOD players. That's where it ends. The Cleveland Cavaliers had a bunch of players who weren't that much better than Kirk. Well, actually check that. I'll take Harper, Daugherty and Nance all over Kirk in a landslide, and maybe even Price, and they still didn't win. They won a lot of regular season games like us. But teams built like these two teams don't excel beyond a certain point.


So don't be happy. 

The vast majority of title teams have multiple hall of famers on them. Do you have a method to get multiple hall of fame players on the Bulls? I don't. So until then, I'll be happy with building a good team that at least has a chance to win by getting lucky one year even if htey don't have dynasty potential.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Our offensive rating sunk pretty harshly once teams started double-teaming and trapping the pick and roll. We ended up ranked 20th.


I have our offense ranked 14th in the league.

If you are referring to the KnickerBlogger site, offensive efficiency is simply points per 100 possessions. I think that overweights FT drawing ability as too important. The Bulls averaged 1.7 FTs less than their opponents in the regular season, so their points/100 possessions takes a hit. I value things such as pace, eFG%, FT%, and AFG% to evaluate offenses.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> So don't be happy.
> 
> The vast majority of title teams have multiple hall of famers on them. Do you have a method to get multiple hall of fame players on the Bulls? I don't. So until then, I'll be happy with building a good team that at least has a chance to win by getting lucky one year even if they don't have dynasty potential.


I think the important question is the relationship between the two extremes. You want to be good but not to the extent it hampers acquiring hall-of-fame players. Put it this way, I think the Post-MJ Bulls represent the opposite extreme from what you describe, and I don't want to go that far either, but there has to be some boldness, rather than complacency if you're going to get those sort of guys.

I don't think there's a proven "method" in either case. It depends on making a whole series of really good decisions and a willingness to make some really hard ones. Obviously that's very hard to do, and to some extent it will rely on some luck.

It's actually very simple, just hard to do. If there were a method, anyone could do it. But all that's really required is to identify the players early and then be willing to get them when they're obtainable. Dwyane Wade, for example, is obviously not obtainable at any price now. But He was when he was drafted. So was Gasol, etc.

Looking through the top players in the league, only a very few - Lebron, Duncan, Yao, Howard were completely a matter of positioning.

Most of the other top guys were obtainable if you were willing to give up something in order to buy in on the ground floor. And while you might have to give up a lot, most of those guys are ungettable at any price now, which is the point. 

Identify these guys and do what it takes, no matter how painful it is to get them. If you're smart enough to do this, you'll also be smart enough to fill in around them later.


----------



## furious styles (Mar 31, 2006)

can really think Ben could be a staring point with his handles, is it just me or does BG looks awkward while dribbling? Ben being a starting point is a pipe dream and deep down you know it. give it up man!!!!


----------



## furious styles (Mar 31, 2006)

Bulldozer said:


> I believe Gordon will wreak most havoc on teams if he's running the point. He's simply too much of a threat to score which D's have to account for, and has proven himself as a player that can create for his teammates. With Skiles as coach though, unless his 3rd stiff leg for Hinrich subsides I'm not sure if me and Dabulls will ever get our wish to see BG running point.
> 
> The money that Hinrich makes should go to Gordon. As he matures, I can see BG running this offense, while still getting his, as a "T-Mac deferring type". He's quicker, faster, more explosive than Hinrich and that slashing ability is what puts him over the top because of that ability to dish at the end. Hinrich doesn't even have enough assists to justify his PG position, and he certainly doesn't deserve the pay. So again, if he's being paid for the D and we have it with Thabo...he is expendable even as a PG. BG/Duhon can run the PG and I'd be comfortable with that.




Gordan does not slash enough for me agree with that,i mean, he has the ability, but from what I've seen he perfers to shoot jumpers.


----------



## furious styles (Mar 31, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> I don't think you understand me.
> 
> Hinrich is a B+ PG and a B+ SG.
> 
> ...


BG A+ PG with his handles, you must not take into account defense Either, No need for that, thanks.


----------

