# the almost perfect hinrich comparison...



## jc76ers (Feb 4, 2004)

is eric snow. the only difference is that hinrich has more range (can hit the 3), but snow is a better defender, and clutch (have yet to see hinrich do anything). 

now let me ask all of you, is snow really a player to build a team around (like hinrich)?

i think many of you would say no, but yet many of you glorify hinrich like he can do no wrong.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Never thought of Eric- but yeah, they are pretty similar


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

What you have to understand is this..

Hinrich came in with much less expectations than JC, EC, TC did and he has surprised everyone.

He is consistent with his effort, not necessarily his game, but his effort and he should be applauded for that.

A lot of people here though have inserted the "Hinrich is a star" syringe in their arms/asses too many times though, and that is because he's passed expectations and been one of the only bright spots on a pretty sorry team.

I disagree with the Snow comparison, but I do agree that I've never seen Hinrich dominate a game, especially in the clutch.

None of this takes away from his season, and the kind of player he is, but here if you're not saying he's the next Stockton, then you're a hater.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Hinrich is far more athletic, quicker with the ball, and has better handles. He is not just an efficient, smart, rugged ball player (Snow is all of those things, but not particularly quick nor is he athletic).

Snow is not a perfect comparison. Hinrich is a much better natural scorer, while Snow has had to learn how to make his stiff shot go in the hoop.

I like Snow as a player, but he's not Hinrich.

Hinrich looks a lot more like Nash than anyone else. Quick, good ball-handler, good passing vision, athletic for his size. Crafty defender with strength. Nash is more on the slippery side while Hinrich is more on the take-it-strong side a la Baron Davis (Hinrich isn't a LOT like Davis, but he is a strong player that will barrel through the lane like Baron).

But in the end, you're right. You don't build a team around Hinrich. Hinrich is a key piece; but we need a legit superstar to build around.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Hinrich is more on the take-it-strong side a la Baron Davis (Hinrich isn't a LOT like Davis, but he is a strong player that will barrel through the lane like Baron).


He doesn't get in the lane often, most of the time to do that you have to get by your man, which he doesn't do very easily or often.

I think this has to do with our offense as well, our offense leads to long 2s and 3s which is really all JC and Kirk shoot, which is a factor why they're %s are low...


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Hinrich actually reminds me more of Andre Miller than Snow .


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Hinrich is far more athletic, quicker with the ball, and has better handles. He is not just an efficient, smart, rugged ball player (Snow is all of those things, but not particularly quick nor is he athletic).
> 
> Snow is not a perfect comparison. Hinrich is a much better natural scorer, while Snow has had to learn how to make his stiff shot go in the hoop.
> ...


Agreed 100%.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

NBAdraft.net compares him to Sam Cassell.

I agree with Showtyme. Hinrich is closer to Nash than Snow.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> He doesn't get in the lane often, most of the time to do that you have to get by your man, which he doesn't do very easily or often.


Another thing I think that factors heavily into this is the amazing propensity for Kirk to get hammered and not have a foul called, especially in the lane. Skiles even said as much in regards to Kirk not driving/finishing as well as he could (should) be a few weeks ago.



> I think this has to do with our offense as well, our offense leads to long 2s and 3s which is really all JC and Kirk shoot, which is a factor why they're %s are low...


Exactly.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

Eric Snow never even became a mild factor until a good 5 years into his career, and even the last few years, the absolute best he'll ever be in his career, it's debatable whether he was as effective as Hinrich is already in his rookie season. I don't like the comparison, Hinrich's got a MUCH higher ceiling than Snow ever did.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

For the record, Eric Snow is shooting 5.9% from three point range this year.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

well at least this isn't a comparison to Derek "PGs who play me in the playoffs get the max" Fisher.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I'm still a fan of the Joe Dumars comparison, with a little Stockton mixed in there. Hinrich is his own player, but I think a Dumars who can pass better is the closest comparison.


----------



## jc76ers (Feb 4, 2004)

he can't be compared to guys like nash, davis, cassell, or dumars because he can't get his own shot off and create for himself. all those guys can. that is a HUGE difference. 

i still think eric snow is the best comparison. yeah, hinrich may be more athletic, but he's not that much more atheltic to the point where it makes a different on the court. you also have to discount eric snows first couple of years because he was riding the pine in seattle as paytons backup. when he actually got PT, he became the player we know today. hinrich does have a slightly higher ceiling though, but thats not saying much. definitely a good role player like snow, but with the way skiles raves about hinrich, you have to wonder if hinrich possibly knows some embarrassing secret about skiles or something.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Hinrich reminds me a lot of that kid who played guard for Kansas last season.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Snow is probably the most underrated point guard in the league. He is ultra-smart. Always plays with a ton of effort. And a terrific ball handler, with flash quickness.

I disagree that Kirk is quicker than Eric. Snow's quickness is the only reason he got to this level(cause he certainly couldn't shoot, and when he was a rookie he didn't know how to be a floor general like he is now). Eric Snow is kind of a poor man's Gary Payton who never developed the offensive game.


----------



## BSchmaranz (May 26, 2003)

For some reason, whenever I see Hinrich playing, it reminds me of Mark Price.


----------



## Natty Dreadlockz (Jul 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> I'm still a fan of the Joe Dumars comparison, with a little Stockton mixed in there. Hinrich is his own player, but I think a Dumars who can pass better is the closest comparison.


Nah, I don't see any similarities in their game's!.. To be honest with ya.. A better comparison for Dumars would be Ben Gordon of UCONN.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BSchmaranz</b>!
> For some reason, whenever I see Hinrich playing, it reminds me of Mark Price.


I kind of see what you're saying, but I still see Hornacek...

Not sure though, Hinrich isn't even close to those guys when it comes to shooting, hopefully he will get there...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Natty Dreadlockz</b>!
> 
> Nah, I don't see any similarities in their game's!.. To be honest with ya.. A better comparison for Dumars would be Ben Gordon of UCONN.


EXACTLY.

I'm still confused where people are seeing Stockton in his game...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I kind of see what you're saying, but I still see Hornacek...
> ...


Here's some interesting 3PT stats:

Kirk Hinrich: 38.2% his rookie season, will likely rise after his slump
Jeff Hornacek: 27.9% his rookie season, 40.3% career average
Mark Price: 32.9% his rookie season, 40.2% career average


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

a poor mans Gary Payton. He wont be as good as GP, but its quite clear he has patented his game after the Glove


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Natty Dreadlockz</b>!
> Nah, I don't see any similarities in their game's!.. To be honest with ya.. A better comparison for Dumars would be Ben Gordon of UCONN.


Dumars was a versatile guard who could play either 1 or 2, he was a lockdown defender. Michael Jordan said Dumars played him better than anyone throughout his whole career. Dumars was a tough hard nosed player who had a nice stroke. Thats the type of player I see Hinrich as, but with a little Stockton mixed in. The way Hinrich approaches the offense at times is very Stockton-esque but he has a completely different style of play.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

I see Hinrich with Jason Kidd like passing ability, Ron Artest type defense, Malbury like scoring potential, and an MJ like will to win.

Hinrich is untouchable. I wouldn't trade him for any other PG in the league. You can really get a feel that not only is he going to be a defensive ball hawk, but he's going to be a big time scorer and clutch difference maker. 

Hinrich can beat his man off the dribble and get to the hoop anytime he wants. He has the athetic ability to get his shot off against bigger defenders as he has proven many times. He already has a Ray Allen like 3-point shot and works the midrange like Rip Hamilton. I remember that game where Hinrich just took over in the 4th. He's so competitive...I swear comparing him to Eric Snow is an injury. One player is a decent PG and the other is a future Hall of Famer. The fact that Hinrich scored despite the double team is what tells me that he's going to be a top 10 player in the league. 





Oh ya, I'm just kidding.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> The way Hinrich approaches the offense at times is very Stockton-esque but he has a completely different style of play.


Does that make sense?

That's like saying my brother is just like me, he just looks and acts completely different.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Does that make sense?
> 
> That's like saying my brother is just like me, he just looks and acts completely different.


You can be similar in one aspect of someones game, and completely different in every other aspect.


----------



## hoops (Jan 29, 2003)

if i were to compare him to anyone, i'd say eric snow or a bob sura with less athletic ability. heck, as bad a shooter as sura s, he even has better fg% than hinrich. that just tells you how bad hinrich really is. :no:


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

Almost perfect comparison? I guess if Snow would develop some sort of offensive game then he would be comparable to Hinrich. Snow is throwing in 9-10 points a night in his prime, while Hinrich is pretty much doing the same thing as a rookie.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hoops</b>!
> if i were to compare him to anyone, i'd say eric snow or a bob sura with less athletic ability. heck, as bad a shooter as sura s, he even has better fg% than hinrich. that just tells you how bad hinrich really is. :no:



:laugh: 


good one. no really.


----------



## jamalcrawford01 (Feb 25, 2004)

i think i can see him as kidd with a little nash(because i havnt seen hinrich pick his dribble up much-thats it). hinrichs and kidds rookie numbers are very similar. i dont think he will get to kidds level but he'll be alright.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> He wont be as good as GP,


Why not?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Gary Payton's rookie stats:

27.4 mpg, 7.2 ppg, 6.4 apg, 3.0 rpg, 2.01 spg, 45% FG, 7.7% 3PT, 71% FT.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Why not?


There are too many reasons why not. But the biggest one is the law of averages. GP is a top 10 PG ALLTIME. He is a first ballot hall of famer. He is a multiple ALL NBA first and second team player. He is a defensive player of the year. He is been an all NBA first team defense for a decade. Rookie stats can be spouted all day. But the odds of Kirk accomplishing all this are 1 in 20. The odds are against him being as good as GP. But that doesnt matter. he will still be a heck of a player at 75% of what GP was/is. And considering their games are similar, that still puts him among the top dozen pgs in the game. 

While we are at it, can I ask why you think he will be as good as Gary Payton?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> While we are at it, can I ask why you think he will be as good as Gary Payton?


First off, I never said KH would be as good as Payton. I implied he _could_ be as good as Payton. Why? Why not?

Kirk isn't as flashy, but he's (almost) every bit the distributor Payton is, IMO. In a few years KH could very well be putting up 8/9 apg, which would be on par with GP in his prime. Kirk isn't the scorer GP is, but with experience I feel he could be _almost_ the scorer GP is (sans a post-up game, of course). Regarding scoring, KH is the better shooter between the two. And on defense, I feel Kirk has the distinct ability to be a perennial staple on the All-Defense team, like Payton in his prime. I'm sure there's more than a few high-ups around the league who'd agree. Last but not least, Kirk is the superior athlete of the two.

The main things that separate GP and KH are intelligence, experience and moxie. The first two are attainable in time with the right blend of natural talent and work ethic, which Kirk has. That rare breed of moxie is the wildcard -- Payton has that special blend of confidence and energy, the kind that separates stars from good players. Does Kirk have it? No, not now. But I think he has the _potential_ to have it as his NBA career progresses. We'll see.

Obviously, GP is LIGHT YEARS ahead of KH as a player. Will KH ever reach that level? Who knows. Can he? I think so.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> But the odds of Kirk accomplishing all this are 1 in 20. The odds are against him being as good as GP.


The odds of Kirk being the best player on the team before the season started were approximately 500 to 1.

Kid just keeps on busting through the stereotypes and limitations put upon him by the media and general (misinformed) concensus. He did it in high school, he did it in college, he's doing it in his rookie year. Why should I believe he's going to stop now?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> First off, I never said KH would be as good as Payton. I implied he _could_ be as good as Payton. Why? Why not?
> ...


i mean, anyone can techically get to a GP level. But the odds are so remote. lets look at Baron Davis for instance. He is one of the best players in the league right now. A dynamite player. Ask me if he will have a GP Like Career? My answer would be no. Statistically its so remote its funny. And if I cant say honestly that Baron Davis is going to be as good as GP, how can I say Kirk would be? So its not a slight on Kirk. But to even say Kirk will be in GPs league might be construed as a slight to GP. Again, his accomplishments are off the charts. technically Kirk is a nice player putting up nice stats on a terrible team. How will his stats or game translate as the team gets better? i dont know. But I can tell you for sure Kirk wouldnt be seeing court time on a team like Sacramento. So its just very hard for me to say that Kirk is in GPs league. I think Kirks game is similar to GPs game. But for total impact on a game? Id have to say somewhere below Stephon Marbury and somewhere above Nick Van Exel. Does that sound about right for impact?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

rlucas, I remember a discussion a few days ago in which you stated that a big thing that separates HOF players from mere stars is that of explosion towards the hoop. That said, and in the context of this thread, wouldn't you say Kirk has more explosion than Payton? I can't even remember seeing Payton throw down on an uncontested fast break, while Kirk (an inch shorter) throws down a dunk which lands at #2 on Sportscenter's plays of the day.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> But for total impact on a game? Id have to say somewhere below Stephon Marbury and somewhere above Nick Van Exel. Does that sound about right for impact?


Right now, sure.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> rlucas, I remember a discussion a few days ago in which you stated that a big thing that separates HOF players from mere stars is that of explosion towards the hoop. That said, and in the context of this thread, wouldn't you say Kirk has more explosion than Payton? I can't even remember seeing Payton throw down on an uncontested fast break, while Kirk (an inch shorter) throws down a dunk which lands at #2 on Sportscenter's plays of the day.


thats a good point. But its one dunk in a year. There arent 10 guys in this history of the league who are as good as Payton as getting to the rim. GP was able to finish plays and draw fouls. No, he didnt have that ability. And I am sure Kirk has more hops then GP. But getting to the rim? Not even close. GP rarely had to throw anything down because he was at the rim before teams could even adapt to his drive. Again, this one isnt close.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Right now, sure.


alltime. He will never be as good as Stephon (whose impact on the Knicks is just off the charts) but will be a better player then NVE. That sounds about right to me


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> alltime. He will never be as good as Stephon (whose impact on the Knicks is just off the charts) but will be a better player then NVE. That sounds about right to me


I have a hard time saying any player -- especially one with a track record of continually proving people wrong like Hinrich -- will *never* be as good as another player. For the most part, and within rational bounds, I think prognosticating a player's career is much the same as fortune telling.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> I have a hard time saying any player -- especially one with a track record of continually proving people wrong like Hinrich -- will *never* be as good as another player. For the most part, and within rational bounds, I think prognosticating a player's career is much the same as fortune telling.


true

But again, statistically speaking, it highly unlikely. How many next Jordans are there out there? It never happens? How many Baby Shaqs are there? Payton is a special player, very special. Will Kirk have atleast 10 All NBA first or second team seeds? Will he ever win a defensive player of the year award? Will he lead his team to a finals appearence? Will he be all NBA first team Defense at least 10 times? Is he going to be a top 50 player of alltime? The answer to all of these are extremely unlikely. And just to even be in the same league as GP, he has to accomplish atleast 1 one of thes things. So lets not overrate Kirk here yet. What he has accomplished this year has been good. But at the end of the day, he is a nice player, on a terrible team. I doubt he would have much of an impact on a team like Sacramento. hed essentially be riding pine. So lets let him join Bobby Jacksons or Mike Bibbys league before we start saying there is a shot of him getting to GP.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i see jeff horny they are cut out of the same mold sound sweet shooting guards


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I don't like comparisons for rookie players... but I'm bored.

Bobby Jackson. A little less explosiveness but better floor game. Both very good defenders.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

I see elements of Manu Ginobili and Jason Kidd 

Same defensive anticipation , hunger , feel for the game, floor vision , aggressiveness

Obviously all 3 have individual tangents that seperate them but they are the similarities I see


----------



## jc76ers (Feb 4, 2004)

vv,

anyone can say anyone can be as good as GP...hell, i can say that derek fisher can be as good as GP...why not? hard worker, intelligence (knows how to flop)...but the thing is, whats the probability that will happen....one in a million....

its so farfetched to think hinrich can have a career as good as GP. at the moment, there isn't one thing that hinrich can do better than GP...shoot? nope, Gp in the young days made a boat-load of threes and thats with the defense guarding him. hinrichs threes are WIDE open...the guy can't create his own shot, except for maybe off balance drives to the hoop that ends in an awkward shot. defense? GP was DPOY wasn't he? you think hinrich will ever be? don't think so. passing? hinrich could barely make an entry pass to the post sometimes. like i said, i view hinrich as a cross between snow/hornacek....thus, he would have an above average career, but in no way on the level of superstar like GP.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jc76ers</b>!
> at the moment, there isn't one thing that hinrich can do better than GP...shoot? nope, Gp in the young days made a boat-load of threes and thats with the defense guarding him.


Gary Payton's 3PT%
Rookie year: 7.7%
2nd year: 13.0%
3rd year: 20.6%
4th year: 27.8%
5th year: 30.2%
.............................
Career: 32.1%



> hinrichs threes are WIDE open...


Most of them are. This is a function of him taking good shots within the flow of the offense. Why don't you understand this?



> the guy can't create his own shot, except for maybe off balance drives to the hoop that ends in an awkward shot.


I disagree. Many others on this site do as well.



> defense? GP was DPOY wasn't he? you think hinrich will ever be? don't think so.


Probably not, but it could happen.



> passing? hinrich could barely make an entry pass to the post sometimes.


...yet he's 8th in the NBA in assists as a rookie playing on the worst-shooting team in the league.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jc76ers</b>!
> vv,
> 
> anyone can say anyone can be as good as GP...hell, i can say that derek fisher can be as good as GP...why not? hard worker, intelligence (knows how to flop)...but the thing is, whats the probability that will happen....one in a million....
> ...


but when Gary Payton came into the league, few knew that HE would become the Gary Payton he became. His rookie year was unexceptional. As VV pointed out, he wasn't a 3pt threat until much later. His defense was always good, but he didn't become "the glove" until he had been around a few years. Hinrich is accomplishing (a lot) more as a rookie than Payton did, so why is it "one in a million" that he'll be as good as Payton in the longer run? Payton became Payton after a less promising beginning. I'm not saying Kirk will be as good as GP and neither is VV - I mean, GP is a hall of famer -, but to utterly discount the possibility doesn't seem fair to Kirk. If I had to make odds, I'd put them at 1-20 to 1-50, not one in a million.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I would say Kirk Hinrich is more like Andre Miller with a 3 ball 


Miller rookie year 

*11ppg 5.8 apg *

2nd year 

*15 ppg 8 apg *

3rd year 

*16 ppg 10 apg *

4 th year (clipps)

*13 ppg 6 apg * 

5th year 

*15 ppg 6 apg *

I thinks its far more likely Kirk heads down a similar path .


----------



## 2cool4skool (Mar 30, 2003)

Hinrich rocks! He's the only player that should really be starting. And as the best player on a bad team, you're going to take a lot of criticism, but hopefully not from the fans that are supposed to be supporting you.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

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


I think the Stockton comparisons come from the fact that Hinrich is a good and, at times dirty, defender. Both were unheralded PG draft picks. But most of you already know that.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

bump for rlucas


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> bump for rlucas


Where is the criticism? Where is a rational point of view on the guy? i am reading both threads and have yet to see you point out a weakness in the kid. Maybe we should send him to HOF right now


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Where is the criticism? Where is a rational point of view on the guy? i am reading both threads and have yet to see you point out a weakness in the kid. Maybe we should send him to HOF right now


This isn't the only thread on BBB.net, you know.

I've openly criticized Kirk NUMEROUS times, specifically on shooting and decision-making (especially in the half-court) and, at the beginning of the year, turnovers. And if you don't think I'm being rational, I don't know what else I can say. Seriously.

Don't get hysterical, my man. I'm just defending what I know I said in light of a few small distortions.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> This isn't the only thread on BBB.net, you know.
> ...


I havent seen a criticism out of you in regards of him since his first game of the year. I am not hysterical but I am looking for one and I cant find it. Its not distorting at all. I just dont see it. Prove me wrong though. And ill fess up to it. I just dont think the kid is perfect, but I do think he will get better. Gary Payton good? Very, Very Very Unlikely


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> This isn't the only thread on BBB.net, you know.
> ...


I can't be bothered finding the threads, but I remember VV being critical of Kirk's shooting earlier in the season.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

there you go.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Prove me wrong though. And ill fess up to it.


Okay, now what?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*crickets*

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1204726#post1204726


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Okay, now what?


That was criticism? You said he hit the wall and that he was entitled. You can do better then that mate


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

How soon we forget.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=735367#post735367

That was at the very beginning of the season. Since then, I've said numerous times that Hinrich has glaring flaws in his game and needs to improve:

1. his shot, especially from midrange
2. his strength
3. his finishing ability
4. his ballhandling (especially at the beginning of the season)
5. his decision-making, especially in the halfcourt

Why you can't recall this is beyond me.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> How soon we forget.
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=735367#post735367
> ...


I have good memory, but even I cant remember one thread out of 4000 that you have written were you were marginally critical of him. Like I said earlier, I remember you criticizing him his first game of the year, other then that, I didnt remember. This was a marginal criticism. But criticism never the less, and I said I would fess up. My hats off to you.

Now lets get back to the real question. Will kirk hinrichs career be as good as Gary Payton? Yes or No will suffice.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I have good memory, but even I cant remember one thread out of 4000 that you have written were you were marginally critical of him.


Dude, you started a thread with my name in the title discussing Kirk's second game, a thread in which you stated you "could make me eat crow". You gave his performance a C+. *I gave it an F+.* Why don't you remember these things? Check it out:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=735459#post735459

Here's another doozy:

On Kirk: "Even the 2 most intelligent Kirk backers I know, RoyalNBA and Vincent Vega, admitted he stunk." 
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=737253#post737253



> Like I said earlier, I remember you criticizing him his first game of the year, other then that, I didnt remember.


Almost all of my subsequent criticism is in the game threads. I don't want to dig through 20-30 pages for each and every game to locate them again. I trust what I've linked, as well as DMD and others' opinions on the matter, make my side of the story evident to you.



> This was a marginal criticism.


Me giving Kirk a grade of F+ is "marginal"? Wow. I'd hate to see what "poor" is. Is it even a letter?



> But criticism never the less, and I said I would fess up. My hats off to you.


It's all good.



> Now lets get back to the real question. Will kirk hinrichs career be as good as Gary Payton? Yes or No will suffice.


If I had a gun to my head, I'd say no. And I'd say it without much thought. The reason being, the chances of Kirk actually fulfilling what I see as distinct potential to have a GP-like career are about 1 out of 5 in my opinion, _provided he's in a system that optimizes his strengths_, as Seattle did with Payton. A Ray Allen-type player or two wouldn't hurt either. Does this discredit what I've been saying all along? Absolutely not. Because all I've said is that Kirk has the distinct POTENTIAL to put up GP-like numbers.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Dude, you started a thread with my name in the title discussing Kirk's second game, a thread in which you stated you "could make me eat crow". You gave his performance a C+. *I gave it an F+.* Why don't you remember these things? Check it out:
> ...


Just for the record, is that a NO? no gun is being held to your head mate. I just want to know if you think in 10 years, will people say Kirk Hinrich was as good as a first ballot hall of famer in Gary Payton. I get confused sometimes. I read No, then I read a lot of stuff about the system and then he would have the potential to do it. And now I still dont know what you really think. Will he or wont he?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Just for the record, is that a NO? no gun is being held to your head mate. I just want to know if you think in 10 years, will people say Kirk Hinrich was as good as a first ballot hall of famer in Gary Payton. I get confused sometimes. I read No, then I read a lot of stuff about the system and then he would have the potential to do it. And now I still dont know what you really think. Will he or wont he?


*crickets*


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Just for the record, is that a NO? no gun is being held to your head mate. I just want to know if you think in 10 years, will people say Kirk Hinrich was as good as a first ballot hall of famer in Gary Payton. I get confused sometimes. I read No, then I read a lot of stuff about the system and then he would have the potential to do it. And now I still dont know what you really think. Will he or wont he?


Obviously I can't predict the future and obviously I can't make the definitive statement as you seek after one season, but you are correct, that's a NO. But now a question for you: would you have predicted Payton to be a HOF caliber player after his rookie season?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> *crickets*


I was watching the end of the Kings-Timberwolves, chief.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Obviously I can't predict the future and obviously I can't make the definitive statement as you seek after one season, but you are correct, that's a NO. But now a question for you: would you have predicted Payton to be a HOF caliber player after his rookie season?


I wouldn't have predicted he would be a HOF caliber player, but I wouldn't have compared him to HOF caliber players either.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Obviously I can't predict the future and obviously I can't make the definitive statement as you seek after one season, but you are correct, that's a NO. But now a question for you: would you have predicted Payton to be a HOF caliber player after his rookie season?


short answer, yes. Why? Cause pgs usually take 3 years to establish themselves. There are plenty of examples of guys who got off to slow starts in their career who have been fabulous players, and there isnt a spot in the NBA with more of those players then the PG spot. Look at this list of players who didnt have great rookie campaigns. Stockton, Bibby, Davis, Price, Nash, KJ all were considered busts early in their careers who grew into their roles. Payton was the same way. Sadly, I believe Jwill would have been the same as well. Ironically, the flip side as many PGs who have come out of the gate strong tend to flop later in their career. Usually those PGs are all out of NYC (Tinsley, Mark Jackson regressed, Kenny Anderson, etc)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> short answer, yes. Why? Cause pgs usually take 3 years to establish themselves. There are plenty of examples of guys who got off to slow starts in their career who have been fabulous players, and there isnt a spot in the NBA with more of those players then the PG spot. Look at this list of players who didnt have great rookie campaigns. Stockton, Bibby, Davis, Price, Nash, KJ all were considered busts early in their careers who grew into their roles. Payton was the same way. Sadly, I believe Jwill would have been the same as well. Ironically, the flip side as many PGs who have come out of the gate strong tend to flop later in their career. Usually those PGs are all out of NYC (Tinsley, Mark Jackson regressed, Kenny Anderson, etc)


Damon Stoudamire


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Damon Stoudamire


There are examples of PGs who come out the gate strong and stay good players as well. But there a ton of cases of guys, like Damon Stoudamire who look like world beaters early in their careers who fall flat on their face. The PG spot is one where there is a ton of progression or regression over the first 3 years in the NBA. Jamaal Tinsley was a phenomenon his first half of his career, and at this point, is basically a fringe starter. Then there is a guy like Chauncey Billups and his 5 teams who has taken time but is clearly now a top 10 PG.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> short answer, yes. Why? Cause pgs usually take 3 years to establish themselves. There are plenty of examples of guys who got off to slow starts in their career who have been fabulous players, and there isnt a spot in the NBA with more of those players then the PG spot. Look at this list of players who didnt have great rookie campaigns. Stockton, Bibby, Davis, Price, Nash, KJ all were considered busts early in their careers who grew into their roles. Payton was the same way. Sadly, I believe Jwill would have been the same as well. Ironically, the flip side as many PGs who have come out of the gate strong tend to flop later in their career. Usually those PGs are all out of NYC (Tinsley, Mark Jackson regressed, Kenny Anderson, etc)


kenny anderson's rookie year was not a strong one , so i'm not sure he fits the category of "come out the gate strong"


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> short answer, yes. Why? Cause pgs usually take 3 years to establish themselves. There are plenty of examples of guys who got off to slow starts in their career who have been fabulous players, and there isnt a spot in the NBA with more of those players then the PG spot. Look at this list of players who didnt have great rookie campaigns. Stockton, Bibby, Davis, Price, Nash, KJ all were considered busts early in their careers who grew into their roles. Payton was the same way. Sadly, I believe Jwill would have been the same as well. Ironically, the flip side as many PGs who have come out of the gate strong tend to flop later in their career. Usually those PGs are all out of NYC (Tinsley, Mark Jackson regressed, Kenny Anderson, etc)


Let me get this straight: you thought Gary Payton would be a HOF-caliber player after his rookie year (7.7 ppg, 6.4 apg, 7.7% 3PT) because point guards usually take three years to establish themselves, but you roll your eyes at anyone who thinks that Hinrich, after his rookie year (12.0 ppg, 6.8 apg, 39% 3PT), has an outside shot at putting up similar numbers to Payton? Isn't this stance a bit inconsistent?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight: you thought Gary Payton would be a HOF-caliber player after his rookie year (7.7 ppg, 6.4 apg, 7.7% 3PT) because point guards usually take three years to establish themselves, but you roll your eyes at anyone who thinks that Hinrich, after his rookie year (12.0 ppg, 6.8 apg, 39% 3PT), has an outside shot at putting up similar numbers to Payton? Isn't this stance a bit inconsistent?


actually no. I saw payton play in college, he was in the PAC10 with me. he was finishing his last year when I was a freshman SF for ASU. So I was able to be on the court ( i think I played 32 seconds against his team  ) with him and see the speed and intensity that he played with. One of my good friends, who played in the NBA, to this day claims he was the best player he ever played against. When he struggled as a rookie, it wasnt so much because of his "stats" that you pull out so much. They had a good PG there already in McMillan and they were easing him in. There was also reports that he was special in practice. And, this is a big thing, when he was on the floor as a rookie for Seattle, they played winning minutes. Sure, I can qualify a stat from 15 years ago, but again being on the west coast, I saw a ton of him. It was only a matter of time. Now, rookie stats dont mean much. Its what a guy does in year 3. I am sure youll find no one who thinks Darko will be a good player, but I am very confident he will emerge as one of the 4 best players out of this draft. Why? Cause I have seen what he can do when given minutes. Again, I just dont put the credence in stats that you do. The only stat worth looking at are, what is the record of the team, and how does that player contribute to the bottom line (+/- stats). Kirk I believe was a -4.4 for the Bulls. The good news is, without him they were a -10 so he technically can added 5 and change to the Bulls, So its positive. But then you look at some rookies, like my boy Pietrus for instance, when he was on the floor, GS was a +4. Not bad for a player who played for a sub 500 team.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> actually no. I saw payton play in college, he was in the PAC10 with me. he was finishing his last year when I was a freshman SF for ASU. So I was able to be on the court ( i think I played 32 seconds against his team  ) with him and see the speed and intensity that he played with. One of my good friends, who played in the NBA, to this day claims he was the best player he ever played against. When he struggled as a rookie, it wasnt so much because of his "stats" that you pull out so much. They had a good PG there already in McMillan and they were easing him in. There was also reports that he was special in practice. And, this is a big thing, when he was on the floor as a rookie for Seattle, they played winning minutes. Sure, I can qualify a stat from 15 years ago, but again being on the west coast, I saw a ton of him. It was only a matter of time. Now, rookie stats dont mean much. Its what a guy does in year 3. I am sure youll find no one who thinks Darko will be a good player, but I am very confident he will emerge as one of the 4 best players out of this draft. Why? Cause I have seen what he can do when given minutes. Again, I just dont put the credence in stats that you do. The only stat worth looking at are, what is the record of the team, and how does that player contribute to the bottom line (+/- stats). Kirk I believe was a -4.4 for the Bulls. The good news is, without him they were a -10 so he technically can added 5 and change to the Bulls, So its positive. But then you look at some rookies, like my boy Pietrus for instance, when he was on the floor, GS was a +4. Not bad for a player who played for a sub 500 team.


The thing I can't understand about Kirk's rookie year was how he shot 38%. His stroke is too pure and his college percentages were too good -- even his rookie ft % -- to have that low percentage continue. I think that Kirk has the potential to shoot 45%+ in his career, and when he does, his plus/minus numbers will go through the roof given that his D should improve too.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> The thing I can't understand about Kirk's rookie year was how he shot 38%. His stroke is too pure and his college percentages were too good -- even his rookie ft % -- to have that low percentage continue. I think that Kirk has the potential to shoot 45%+ in his career, and when he does, his plus/minus numbers will go through the roof given that his D should improve too.


I have a theory on why he was such a terrible shooter this year. He has been a 2 guard in college for the last 2 years. He was accostomed to a catch and shoot environment. As a guy shooting off the dribble, he looked really lost. However, when they ran some staggard baseline screens for him and had him shoot off the pass, I am willing to bet he shot in the mid to high 40s. But I think that number drops to the mid to low 30s for anything that required a dribble before the shot. Perhaps he isnt a true pg, inspite what the assists numbers say?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I have a theory on why he was such a terrible shooter this year. He has been a 2 guard in college for the last 2 years. He was accostomed to a catch and shoot environment. As a guy shooting off the dribble, he looked really lost. However, when they ran some staggard baseline screens for him and had him shoot off the pass, I am willing to bet he shot in the mid to high 40s. But I think that number drops to the mid to low 30s for anything that required a dribble before the shot. Perhaps he isnt a true pg, inspite what the assists numbers say?


I saw scouting reports from his college days that said he finished well at the rim, which is something he did terribly this year, as did Jay. Now Wade on the other hand just abused the rim this year. He looked like the 6'4" version of Amare. But I think a lot of small guards are initially intimidated with the trees in the lane they have to face in the league. I expected a big improvement in year 2 in this department from Jay and I expect it from Kirk in year 2. Shooting off the dribble should improve somewhat over time even if it never becomes his strong suit.

As good as Tony Parker is, he doesn't have any of the above the rim game that Jay had. Argh!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> actually no. I saw payton play in college, he was in the PAC10 with me. he was finishing his last year when I was a freshman SF for ASU. So I was able to be on the court ( i think I played 32 seconds against his team  ) with him and see the speed and intensity that he played with. One of my good friends, who played in the NBA, to this day claims he was the best player he ever played against.


Kind of sounds like my position on Hinrich.



> When he struggled as a rookie, it wasnt so much because of his "stats" that you pull out so much. They had a good PG there already in McMillan and they were easing him in. There was also reports that he was special in practice.


Kind of sounds like Hinrich's situation with Crawford.



> And, this is a big thing, when he was on the floor as a rookie for Seattle, they played winning minutes.


Sure, but the Sonics were already a playoff team three of the previoius four years. And they *should* have been playing winning ball considering the fact Shawn Kemp, Ricky Pierce, Dale Ellis, Eddie Johnson, Derrick McKey, Benoit Benjamin and Sam Perkins were on the squad. Seattle was literally oozing talent and experience:

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=SEA&lg=N&yr=1990



> Sure, I can qualify a stat from 15 years ago, but again being on the west coast, I saw a ton of him. It was only a matter of time.


...and I have seen a ton of Kirk Hinrich. I'm not sure how your situation differs from mine, logically speaking.



> Now, rookie stats dont mean much. Its what a guy does in year 3. I am sure youll find no one who thinks Darko will be a good player, but I am very confident he will emerge as one of the 4 best players out of this draft. Why? Cause I have seen what he can do when given minutes. Again, I just dont put the credence in stats that you do. The only stat worth looking at are, what is the record of the team, and how does that player contribute to the bottom line (+/- stats). Kirk I believe was a -4.4 for the Bulls. The good news is, without him they were a -10 so he technically can added 5 and change to the Bulls, So its positive. But then you look at some rookies, like my boy Pietrus for instance, when he was on the floor, GS was a +4. Not bad for a player who played for a sub 500 team.


Payton's numbers actually slightly regressed his second year, and his third year he put up 13.5 ppg, 4.9 apg, 3.4 rpg and shot 21% from three. I'm not sure those are projected superstar numbers after his third season in the league.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> The thing I can't understand about Kirk's rookie year was how he shot 38%. His stroke is too pure and his college percentages were too good -- even his rookie ft % -- to have that low percentage continue.


Well, I think a big reason is the fact that the Bulls had one of the least-imposing front lines in the NBA. Defenses keyed on Crawford and Hinrich all game, every game. Another big factor is Kirk isn't strong or experienced enough to take it to the hole and finish with regularity yet. He showed he could do it with greater efficiency towards the end of the year, but he still needs major work in this area.



> I think that Kirk has the potential to shoot 45%+ in his career, and when he does, his plus/minus numbers will go through the roof given that his D should improve too.


Agreed. I've said before that I'd be surprised if he wasn't shooting 45% from the field and 40% from downtown by his third year.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I have a theory on why he was such a terrible shooter this year. He has been a 2 guard in college for the last 2 years. He was accostomed to a catch and shoot environment. As a guy shooting off the dribble, he looked really lost. However, when they ran some staggard baseline screens for him and had him shoot off the pass, I am willing to bet he shot in the mid to high 40s. But I think that number drops to the mid to low 30s for anything that required a dribble before the shot. Perhaps he isnt a true pg, inspite what the assists numbers say?


You've just described how guys like John Stockton, Steve Nash and Jason Kidd get most of their points. Shots off screens or drives to the hole.

KH scores best in transition or off of screens, and I think he needs to improve his shot off the dribble to advance his game to the next level for next season.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> You've just described how guys like John Stockton, Steve Nash and Jason Kidd get most of their points. Shots off screens or drives to the hole.
> ...


Jason Kidd, John Stockton and Steve Nash are not catch and shoot types, they all could shoot off the dribble and all could finish at the rim with tricky shots. Hinrich is far closer to Reggie Miller in terms of his comfort level shooting the ball then these guys. Meaning he is a heck of a shooter, when he runs off some screens, catches the ball and shoots it. Shooting off the dribble is a different world. Look at John Paxson. He could shoot off the pass but couldnt off the dribble. It means that unless he gets better finishing and shooting Js off the dribble, the Bulls are going to have to find a point forward type to create stuff for him


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

rlucas,

I still think that your position on Payton is patently inconsistent with what you perceive as my position on Hinrich.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1206619#post1206619


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

And perhaps it will remain inconsistent without explanation.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> And perhaps it will remain inconsistent without explanation.


 I like Kirk. he will have a good career. But I refused to ride the jock of any player who comes in and the team actually gets worse year over year, significantly. I know its not Kirks fault. But I do think impact players, truly great players, find ways to improve a team. If you look at the other great rookies this year, everyone of thier teams got better. His team didnt. He is a cog, but not the center piece of this rebuilding project. and I have seen him, and I dont see a Hall of Fame career. I know your feeling is different, but thats my opinion. And I dont think its fair to Gary Payton to strongly insinuate that he might be as good as him. The odds of that are very small indeed. And I am glad you finally acknowledged it, though you fought it a long while

As for Gary Payton, again, during his time in Seattle as a rookie he played in winning circumstances where the team was better having him in the lineup. So we can spout stats all day to prove a point. But in the end, does anything else matter?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> But I refused to ride the jock of any player who comes in and the team actually gets worse year over year, significantly.


Kirk's only been with the Bulls one year, so this statement doesn't make sense. Moreover, Kirk didn't have half the talent and experience on his team that Payton had from Day One in Seattle.

rlucas, I appreciate your response, but I still think that your position on Payton is patently inconsistent with what you perceive as my position on Hinrich. I just see a breach of logic where you apparently don't.

P.S. I didn't "fight" anything. I've stated my opinion once, twice and a hundred times already, and I've never once wavered from it. Others have tried to twist it and misrepresent it, and that's what's so frustrating about this board sometimes. Just like I supposedly never criticized Kirk, etc..........revisionist history just gets so old sometimes.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Kirk's only been with the Bulls one year, so this statement doesn't make sense. Moreover, Kirk didn't have half the talent and experience on his team that Payton had from Day One in Seattle.
> ...


well VV, I am a fan of yours. But I think your expecatations are unrealistic. And you fought the Gary Payton thing tooth and nail before acknowledging it probably wasnt going to happen

As for inconsistency, I see it more in your response actually. Payton went to the Sonics, sure they had a better team, but a team that was significantly better for having him in the lineup. As for the Bulls, year over year, down about 30% in wins and with kirk in the lineup, a -4.4 a game. again, its not Kirks fault. But true impact players dont allow a team to finish down 30% in wins year over year, do they? But you want to say that he is an impact player? again, i ask, throw the stats out the window. Did the Bulls get better this year? No. Would they have been any worse with a healthy TJ Ford for an entire year? Prob not. The only thing that matters is W/Ls. Our values differ there. And Kirk didnt make us better there. as jim Ian wrote, if he is our best player, then shouldnt be taking the blame for this debacle? Ofcourse he should. I think we are guilty of hype. We all were last year with Curry and Crawford, myself more then anyone else. But I refused to get excited about anyone on a team down 30%. 

Also, when looking at the rookies this year, Lebrons teams had a huge jump in wins. Carmello had a huge impact on W/Ls, Wade had a huge impact on wins. Does anything else even matter?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

This is realgms take on the situation. I see Coldchi, one of the smartest most reasonable posters in the Bulls message board world, as having almost identically, my opinion. 

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=232302&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Also, when looking at the rookies this year, Lebrons teams had a huge jump in wins. Carmello had a huge impact on W/Ls, Wade had a huge impact on wins. Does anything else even matter?


You have to, with Denver and Miami at least. Denver added Andre Miller, Earl Boykins and John Barry as well. That's a big boost. Miami added the 'shoulda been an All Star' Lamar Odom. Miami lost a coach right before the season, so their improvement is even a bit more remarkable. Cleveland didn't really add anybody until McInnis, so I attribute most of their turnaround to LeBron, but they had a coach who was perfect for their team in Silas. We transfered coaches mid season and downgraded our talent to improve our attitude. 

Win/loss is not the only applicable judge of a rookie's value.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> well VV, I am a fan of yours. But I think your expecatations are unrealistic. And you fought the Gary Payton thing tooth and nail before acknowledging it probably wasnt going to happen


rlucas, I don't know how many times I can say this: I never said Kirk would have the career Payton has had. Not once. Such a definitive assumption is silly. I said he has the distinct potential to have as much. I think I've detailed my side of the argument well enough already. My main beef right now is how you think I'm being unrealistic with Hinrich while all I'm doing is essentially the same thing you did with Payton 14 years ago. And you haven't reallly addressed this issue.



> As for inconsistency, I see it more in your response actually. Payton went to the Sonics, sure they had a better team, but a team that was significantly better for having him in the lineup. As for the Bulls, year over year, down about 30% in wins and with kirk in the lineup, a -4.4 a game. again, its not Kirks fault.


So Payton's rookie numbers of 7.2 ppg, 6.4 apg and 7.7% 3PT would have made the Bulls better this year as opposed to Hinrich's 12.0 ppg, 6.8 apg and 39% 3PT? What about Payton's second year, a year in which his numbers actually went slightly _down_ commensurate with playing time (and were still less than Hinrich's numbers this year)?



> But true impact players dont allow a team to finish down 30% in wins year over year, do they?


They don't. But tell me, has Kirk played more than one year? And what was the talent level of the team like during his one year? T-Mac, Vince Carter, Marbury, Amare....they must not be impact players either. Under your classification, MJ wasn't until Pippen came to Chicago.



> Also, when looking at the rookies this year, Lebrons teams had a huge jump in wins. Carmello had a huge impact on W/Ls, Wade had a huge impact on wins. Does anything else even matter?


LeBron is a special player, and he'd make an impact anywhere. That said, the Chicago's overall talent level is patently below that of Cleveland and Miami. You'll notice those teams didn't have NBDL guys logging signicant minutes througout the entire year, and you'll also notice that their starting PF and main bench guy were injured virtually the entire year. And does thoroughly researched analysis like Dan Rosenbaum's work not mean anything to you when it comes to Carmelo? The Nuggets actually *did better when Carmelo was not in the game.*


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> You have to, with Denver and Miami at least. Denver added Andre Miller, Earl Boykins and John Barry as well. That's a big boost. Miami added the 'shoulda been an All Star' Lamar Odom. Miami lost a coach right before the season, so their improvement is even a bit more remarkable. Cleveland didn't really add anybody until McInnis, so I attribute most of their turnaround to LeBron, but they had a coach who was perfect for their team in Silas. We transfered coaches mid season and downgraded our talent to improve our attitude.
> ...


Miller was a good addition, as was Boykins. barry was a marginal addition. lenard was a great find. but still, Anthony was the single most responsible reason for their jump in wins. 

Wade was the second most important reason for Miamis jump. I agree, Odom helped them the most. but when Miami needs a bucket in the playoffs, they are giving the ball to Wade.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> You have to, with Denver and Miami at least. Denver added Andre Miller, Earl Boykins and John Barry as well. That's a big boost. Miami added the 'shoulda been an All Star' Lamar Odom. Miami lost a coach right before the season, so their improvement is even a bit more remarkable. Cleveland didn't really add anybody until McInnis, so I attribute most of their turnaround to LeBron, but they had a coach who was perfect for their team in Silas. We transfered coaches mid season and downgraded our talent to improve our attitude.
> ...


Chicago added Pippen, Gill, and a whole bunch of NBDL guys who you'd think just as highly of as you do Miller, Boykins, and Barry if the Bulls actually won a bunch more games.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> rlucas, I don't know how many times I can say this: I never said Kirk would have the career Payton has had. Not once. Such a definitive assumption is silly. I said he has the distinct potential to have as much. I think I've detailed my side of the argument well enough already. My main beef right now is how you think I'm being unrealistic with Hinrich while all I'm doing is essentially the same thing you did with Payton 14 years ago. And you haven't reallly addressed this issue.
> ...


You have set the record for using the word PATENTLY in a day. Lets get through a post without saying that

Again, look at the stats all you want. The one that matters is the W/L record. What was the stat there? 

As for Payton, how many times do I have to say that his impact was greater then Kirk without having the numbers? They were a significantly better team with him on the floor during his early years in the NBA. 

Again, I am saying you are entitled to your opinion. But your meits for saying that he and Payton could POTENTIALLY have the same career is based on stats. news alert. No one tried against the Bulls this year. Take those stats with a grain of salt


----------



## Jim Stack (Sep 4, 2003)

CLEVELAND 2004 35 47 
2003 17 65 + 18
LJ
DENVER 2004 43 39
2003 17 65 +26
CA
MIAMI 2004 42 40 
2003 25 57 +17
DW
CHICAGO 2004 23 59 
2003 30 52 -7
KIRK

how come all of the picks that are good from this draft improved there teams except for kirk..


----------



## Jim Stack (Sep 4, 2003)

Actually now that ive had some time to think abuot it what makes kirk anybetter then dan dickau. with more playing time. both were great shooters out of college both were combo gaurds in college projected to be pgs in the nba. i just looks like one has had playing time and one hasent


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I give up. I address what questions are asked of me, whereas questions I ask are ignored. In a word, I'm flabbergasted.

Wow.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Stack</b>!
> CLEVELAND 2004 35 47
> 2003 17 65 + 18
> LJ
> ...


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


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I give up. I address what questions are asked of me, whereas questions I ask are ignored. In a word, I'm flabbergasted.
> 
> Wow.


what questions were ignored? I answered your questions. Did someone else not answer them? 

I said your entitled to your opinion on Hinrich potentially being as good as Gary Payton. Notice I used the word potentially. Again, rereading your posts, I think its safe to say you think its probable. Again your entitled to it. But I dont see it. And how many times have I said, stats dont matter. What matters is the w/l's


----------



## Jim Stack (Sep 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.uncg.edu/bae/people/rosenbaum/NBA/st1t1.txt


ok just a link what are you tring to accomplish


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.uncg.edu/bae/people/rosenbaum/NBA/st1t1.txt


stats stats stats. and patently, more stats


----------



## Jim Stack (Sep 4, 2003)

what are these stats saying. i see nothing explaining why kirk team sucks and there teams dont.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Stack</b>!
> what are these stats saying. i see nothing explaining why kirk team sucks and there teams dont.


lol...


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Its obvious that Parker is the only reason the Spurs win, Duncan is just a product of Parkers unbelievable talent. Thats why the Bulls suck and the Spurs are so good.


----------



## Jim Stack (Sep 4, 2003)

well i was speaking of cleavland denver and miami and mill to be truthfull you know teams with rookies that made there teams much better then kirk made ours.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> what questions were ignored? I answered your questions. Did someone else not answer them?


rlucas,

1. Your logic regarding my stance on Hinrich and your stance on Payton is flawed. I sense a bit of intrinsic bias, just as you sense the same in me in regards to Hinrich. I've used numbers, stats and objective analysis to address my point of view. I feel I've illustrated my argument. I don't feel you have illustrated yours above and beyond the level of simple subjective statments like "numbers don't matter" and "I know a guy who said Payton was awesome in practice his rookie season".

2. I've discussed in multiple posts in the past how W/L's are an imprecise way of measuring a player's worth or effectiveness.

3. Comparing the success of the top rookies' teams and extrapolating that as a way to measure individual value is ludicrous and completely flies in the face of simple logic. Wade and LeBron had significantly better (and more consistent) talent than the Bulls (not to mention management and coaching). The Nuggets were actually a better team with Carmelo on the bench. His team and coaching was more responsible for the Nuggets making the playoffs than he was. You haven't addressed these points either.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> stats stats stats. and patently, more stats


Are you aware that these stats are identical to the ones that are purchased for large amounts or money and subsequently utilized by NBA teams? Come on, don't be naive.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you aware that these stats are identical to the ones that are purchased for large amounts or money and subsequently utilized by NBA teams? Come on, don't be naive.


Your reliance on stats is what is funny here. You can call me naive. But like i joked earlier, you can find any stat to support an argument. I guess since Kirk had better stats as a rookie then Stockton that we can fully expect him to smash the assists record in 14 years or so? stats can be manipulated. and you do a fine job at that

But what about the bottom line again? Its the question that you keep skirting. Bruce Bowen doesnt have great stats but he is a pretty good player.


----------



## Jim Stack (Sep 4, 2003)

there are lies da_n lies and there there stats


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

rlucas,

There comes a point where statistical evidence and objective analysis meet. Nothing is ever pure stats, and nothing is ever pure analytical supposition (taken in context, of course). I've detailed my point of view, my basis for stats, my analysis, my context. You haven't. 

You STILL haven't addressed any of my points detailed at the bottom of page 7.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> rlucas,
> 
> There comes a point where statistical evidence and objective analysis meet. Nothing is ever pure stats, and nothing is ever pure analytical supposition (taken in context, of course). I've detailed my point of view, my basis for stats, my analysis, my context. You haven't.
> ...


Your not reading then. you havent answered a big question. Why is Kirk nearly as good a player as some people you compare him too when he couldnt do anything to help this team get better? What about the W/Ls? This is the 12th time I am going to ask it. If he is such an impact player, why are we down 30% in wins?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> a poor mans Gary Payton. He wont be as good as GP, but its quite clear he has patented his game after the Glove


Just so we are clear VV, it was me who called him a poor mans GP, lets replay the discussion


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Why not?


Now here is your response, after I gave him a compliment


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Gary Payton's rookie stats:
> 
> 27.4 mpg, 7.2 ppg, 6.4 apg, 3.0 rpg, 2.01 spg, 45% FG, 7.7% 3PT, 71% FT.


and the first reference to stats to show that he COULD be as good as GP


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> There are too many reasons why not. But the biggest one is the law of averages. GP is a top 10 PG ALLTIME. He is a first ballot hall of famer. He is a multiple ALL NBA first and second team player. He is a defensive player of the year. He is been an all NBA first team defense for a decade. Rookie stats can be spouted all day. But the odds of Kirk accomplishing all this are 1 in 20. The odds are against him being as good as GP. But that doesnt matter. he will still be a heck of a player at 75% of what GP was/is. And considering their games are similar, that still puts him among the top dozen pgs in the game.
> ...


This was my response


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> First off, I never said KH would be as good as Payton. I implied he _could_ be as good as Payton. Why? Why not?
> ...


and read the last line. The one that says, in summary, can KH get to GPs level? "I think so" Now where are you saying that it wont happen. THis is you saying you think he will be at GPs level. So where am I twisting your words?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

rlucas 'ol pal, you're starting to get nutty.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> i mean, anyone can techically get to a GP level. But the odds are so remote. lets look at Baron Davis for instance. He is one of the best players in the league right now. A dynamite player. Ask me if he will have a GP Like Career? My answer would be no. Statistically its so remote its funny. And if I cant say honestly that Baron Davis is going to be as good as GP, how can I say Kirk would be? So its not a slight on Kirk. But to even say Kirk will be in GPs league might be construed as a slight to GP. Again, his accomplishments are off the charts. technically Kirk is a nice player putting up nice stats on a terrible team. How will his stats or game translate as the team gets better? i dont know. But I can tell you for sure Kirk wouldnt be seeing court time on a team like Sacramento. So its just very hard for me to say that Kirk is in GPs league. I think Kirks game is similar to GPs game. But for total impact on a game? Id have to say somewhere below Stephon Marbury and somewhere above Nick Van Exel. Does that sound about right for impact?


Just to show my response to a little debating from you. Pretty diplomatic if I say so myself


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Electric Slim</b>!
> rlucas 'ol pal, you're starting to get nutty.


I am just trying to show that I am not twisting his words. VV is a champ, I know he will fess up. I just dont want him pissed off at me.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Your reliance on stats is what is funny here. You can call me naive. But like i joked earlier, you can find any stat to support an argument. I guess since Kirk had better stats as a rookie then Stockton that we can fully expect him to smash the assists record in 14 years or so? stats can be manipulated. and you do a fine job at that
> ...


The thing you incessantly refuse to aknowledge is nobody is saying he'll be as good as Payton or Stockton. Flashback to Stockton's rookie year, if anybody made a claim that Stockton would finish his career demolishing the steals and assists record, they'd have been laughed at. 

What's being argued is that Hinrich may have the potential to reach the heights of the aforementioned players. Athletic ability, unselfishness, stroke, tenacity, fundamentals, work ethic......he's got all the tools in spades. 

If I were to make an educated guess I'd say Hinrich ends up a top 5 PG in this league, possibly as high as top 3, but won't approach the greatness that Payton and Stockton did. But that doesn't mean such a claim should be scoffed at. 

The W/L argument doesn't hold a lot of water. Case in point, I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt this Bulls team would've gone anywhere had Stockton been running the show as a rookie PG this year. Perhaps you disagree, but that's the way I see it. Lebron's the only player that significantly turned around his club this season, and he's a once in a generation type of talent. I think everyone is willing to concede that Lebron is and always will be a much better player than Hinrich. Melo's role in the Nuggets reemergance this year was exaggerated due to the obscene hype he had coming in. He had a very solid rookie season but if they had the same mold they had last year and he was placed on the squad, they wouldn't have done jack. Wade's a helluva player and was one of the main reasons Miami made the playoffs, but Lamar Odom was phenomenal this season as well.

There's only so much a rookie PG who's role, in a perfect world, would be as the second or third option on a contending team, can do to turn around the laughingstock of the league.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

You twisted my words in saying that you said I thought KH _would_ get to GP's level. This was in an effort to discredit my opinion on the matter of Hinrich and Parker. "Would" denotes an unequivocal statement of affirmation, which I did not give. You also twisted my previous statements (albeit ever so briefly) in saying that I'd never criticized Kirk. I don't like it when people say, as a fact, that something did or did not happen when in fact such an assumption is verifiably false. Something about not being honest, directly or indirectly, really irks me.

You still haven't reconciled what I perceive as your bias towards Payton (at the dawn of his pro career) in relation to what you perceive as my bias towards Hinrich (at the dawn of his pro career).


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> The thing you incessantly refuse to aknowledge is nobody is saying he'll be as good as Payton or Stockton. Flashback to Stockton's rookie year, if anybody made a claim that Stockton would finish his career demolishing the steals and assists record, they'd have been laughed at.
> ...


Careful, kc, or your objectivity will be misconstrued as blind allegiance to KU. Amazing how we haven't elevated Scot Pollard as the next Hakeem Olajuwan yet. Simply amazing.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> You twisted my words in saying that you said I thought KH _would_ get to GP's level. This was in an effort to discredit my opinion on the matter of Hinrich and Parker. "Would" denotes an unequivocal statement of affirmation, which I did not give. You also twisted my previous statements (albeit ever so briefly) in saying that I'd never criticized Kirk. I don't like it when people say, as a fact, that something did or did not happen when in fact such an assumption is verifiably false. Something about not being honest, directly or indirectly, really irks me.
> 
> You still haven't reconciled what I perceive as your bias towards Payton (at the dawn of his pro career) in relation to what you perceive as my bias towards Hinrich (at the dawn of his pro career).


i have many times. again I will answer it. Payton played meaningful minutes for Seattle during his first 2 years in which his team was significantly better with him on the floor then with him on the bench. ALSO, his team was winning and playing against competition that took him very seriously

For the 10th time, I fessed up and admitted that you could be critical of Kirk. Do I need to repost that as well? But read your criticisms sometime, it isnt overly critical. 

Let me repost this

"First off, I never said KH would be as good as Payton. I implied he could be as good as Payton. Why? Why not?

Kirk isn't as flashy, but he's (almost) every bit the distributor Payton is, IMO. In a few years KH could very well be putting up 8/9 apg, which would be on par with GP in his prime. Kirk isn't the scorer GP is, but with experience I feel he could be almost the scorer GP is (sans a post-up game, of course). Regarding scoring, KH is the better shooter between the two. And on defense, I feel Kirk has the distinct ability to be a perennial staple on the All-Defense team, like Payton in his prime. I'm sure there's more than a few high-ups around the league who'd agree. Last but not least, Kirk is the superior athlete of the two.

The main things that separate GP and KH are intelligence, experience and moxie. The first two are attainable in time with the right blend of natural talent and work ethic, which Kirk has. That rare breed of moxie is the wildcard -- Payton has that special blend of confidence and energy, the kind that separates stars from good players. Does Kirk have it? No, not now. But I think he has the potential to have it as his NBA career progresses. We'll see.

Obviously, GP is LIGHT YEARS ahead of KH as a player. Will KH ever reach that level? Who knows. Can he? I think so."

This is your exact response that I referred too. You clearly say you think KH will get to GPs level. And you are clearly entitled to your opinion, an opinion I respect. However, I am entitled to mine and think your reaching. You clearly said this and I am not twisting your words. Reread it again.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I have good memory, but even I cant remember one thread out of 4000 that you have written were you were marginally critical of him. Like I said earlier, I remember you criticizing him his first game of the year, other then that, I didnt remember. This was a marginal criticism. But criticism never the less, and I said I would fess up. My hats off to you.
> ...


Just to show you VV, that I Fessed up and acknowledged that you can be objective. Now please admit that your dishonest comment is way off


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> You clearly said this and I am not twisting your words. Reread it again.


Perhaps you should take another gander at VV's post regarding the differences between the words "could" and "would", or "can" and "will". He clearly says he THINKS he CAN get to Payton's level, not once does he say he WILL.


----------



## Jim Stack (Sep 4, 2003)

KH at the top of his game will be like nash. which is not that impressive to me


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i have many times. again I will answer it. Payton played meaningful minutes for Seattle during his first 2 years in which his team was significantly better with him on the floor then with him on the bench.


So did Hinrich.



> ALSO, his team was winning and playing against competition that took him very seriously


Okay, this is fun. Now we're getting to the point of teams not playing "seriously" against the Bulls. Who's to say teams didn't play harder against the Bulls in order to increase their own individual stats? And his "team was winning" because his team had roughly twice the talent and experience as the Bulls did this year. Shawn Kemp, Ricky Pierce, Benoit Benjamin, Sam Perkins, Eddie Johnson, Dale Ellis, Derrick McKey....they were far more than decent. The Bulls weren't.



> For the 10th time, I fessed up and admitted that you could be critical of Kirk. Do I need to repost that as well? But read your criticisms sometime, it isnt overly critical.


I realize this. I also realize you held me to it until I actually spent 15 minutes searching for combinations such as "hinrich + improve", "hinrich + finish", "hinrich + shoot" and "hinrich + needs work" in order to verify it, _which wasn't needed if you had just A.) been honest, B.) remembered recent history or C.) looked it up for yourself._ 

Let me repost this



> "First off, I never said KH would be as good as Payton. I implied he could be as good as Payton. Why? Why not?
> 
> Kirk isn't as flashy, but he's (almost) every bit the distributor Payton is, IMO. In a few years KH could very well be putting up 8/9 apg, which would be on par with GP in his prime. Kirk isn't the scorer GP is, but with experience I feel he could be almost the scorer GP is (sans a post-up game, of course). Regarding scoring, KH is the better shooter between the two. And on defense, I feel Kirk has the distinct ability to be a perennial staple on the All-Defense team, like Payton in his prime. I'm sure there's more than a few high-ups around the league who'd agree. Last but not least, Kirk is the superior athlete of the two.
> 
> ...


[

Yes, I remember writing this. BUT WHERE DID I SAY THAT KIRK *WOULD* BE AS GOOD AS PAYTON? Help me out here.



> This is your exact response that I referred too. You clearly say you think KH will get to GPs level.


No I don't. Now you're just lying. Re-read the last few sentences and try to get a grasp on what I was saying.

Like I said, you're twisting reality. I'm not sure how much more I can stress this.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Hmmm, I said that VV said GP would be as good as GP. Ok, so he sees he thinks he can. Maybe I should post a poll to see if anyone outside of the Bulls board thinks this is a distinct possibility? i said it was 1 in 20 of that happening. And I think I was being more then generous in saying that. Again, words werent twisted. Please read my posts were I say the word POSSIBILITY in all caps just so it was clear


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Just to show you VV, that I Fessed up and acknowledged that you can be objective. Now please admit that your dishonest comment is way off


You also recollected that my "marginal" criticism was that of giving Kirk a grade of *F+* (when you gave him a grade of C+). Like I said before, if an F+ is "marginal", I'd hate to see what real criticism is, and if a letter value could even be assigned to it.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> So did Hinrich.


We were -6.6 with Kirk on the floor, worse with him off, but either way we were still losing.

As far as I'm concerned Shaun Livingston could have been our PG this past season and the record wouldn't have been any worse.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> So did Hinrich.
> ...


last sentence, you say you think HE WILL BE. How much more clear is it? call me a liar mate, but its right there. And I have been very careful to say that you said their was a STRONG POSSIBILITY of him being as good as GP. You said it in plain ENGLISH for everyone to see. The only thing that is twisting is your defense mate


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Stack</b>!
> KH at the top of his game will be like nash. which is not that impressive to me


If anything, Ridnour is the next Nash...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Hmmm, I said that VV said GP would be as good as GP. Ok, so he sees he thinks he can. Maybe I should post a poll to see if anyone outside of the Bulls board thinks this is a distinct possibility?


Quit avoiding the issue.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> We were -6.6 with Kirk on the floor, worse with him off, but either way we were still losing.
> ...


You also think that Hinrich is the 5th best point guard in the '03 draft.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> We were -6.6 with Kirk on the floor, worse with him off, but either way we were still losing.
> ...


I'd disagree with that, but regardless, I don't think that's neccesarily a reflection on Hinrich's quality or potential. I also think we could've placed a rookie John Stockton or Gary Payton on the Bulls team and have fared no better.......


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> You also recollected that my "marginal" criticism was that of giving Kirk a grade of *F+* (when you gave him a grade of C+). Like I said before, if an F+ is "marginal", I'd hate to see what real criticism is, and if a letter value could even be assigned to it.


I read your criticisms. Lets put it this way, you would say something like this. 

Kirk played awful. the worst I have ever seen him. But he can still drive, he can still shoot, and alot of his TOs were his teammates faults. 

Mate, that is marginal. Do you want me to get those for you as well? The fact is, no one is twisting your words or "being dishonest"

Whats laughable is how your little comment that Troy Hudson isnt a superstar was your little dig on Parker over in the General thread. The one where Shanghai compares Parker to Hudson and your little dig was

And look at the super-super-superstar level Hudson is performing at today.

Well, Hudson is hurt. Maybe you can take that into account.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Quit avoiding the issue.


It seems to me that its you who is avoiding the issue.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd disagree with that, but regardless, I don't think that's neccesarily a reflection on Hinrich's quality or potential. I also think we could've placed a rookie John Stockton or Gary Payton on the Bulls team and have fared no better.......


i am not saying that the minus 7 is Kirks fault. but if you think we would be a minus 7 with Stockton or Payton, then well, we disagree big time


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> last sentence, you say you think HE WILL BE.


Dude, this is getting silly. This is what I said:



> Does Kirk have it? No, not now. But I think he has the potential to have it as his NBA career progresses. *We'll see.
> 
> Obviously, GP is LIGHT YEARS ahead of KH as a player. Will KH ever reach that level? Who knows. Can he? I think so.*


How you can infer that I thought KH would be as good as GP is beyond me. In all seriousness, I can't believe you're actually trying to defend your argument.



> How much more clear is it? call me a liar mate, but its right there. And I have been very careful to say that you said their was a STRONG POSSIBILITY of him being as good as GP.


Holy ****. Two different and contradictory statements in the same post. Above you say that I think KH "would be" as good as GP. Now you say that I think there's a "strong possiblity" (even though I've stated that there's roughly a 1 in 5 chance of that happening; thus, another twisting of words on your part).


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Whats laughable is how your little comment that Troy Hudson isnt a superstar was your little dig on Parker over in the General thread. The one where Shanghai compares Parker to Hudson and your little dig was
> 
> ...


Yet another evasion of topic. Hudson is not the issue here.

*sigh*


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Dude, this is getting silly. This is what I said:
> ...


So do you think he "can get to that level" or not? I think your quote was that you believe you can. So who is contradicting themself?


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i am not saying that the minus 7 is Kirks fault. but if you think we would be a minus 7 with Stockton or Payton, then well, we disagree big time


Careful pal, I never said the Bulls would still be a joke if Stockton or Payton, in their prime, were holding the reigns. However, in their rookie years, I seriously doubt Chicago would've made a dent in this league. If you beg to differ, then yes, we disagree big time.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Careful pal, I never said the Bulls would still be a joke if Stockton or Payton, in their prime, were holding the reigns. However, in their rookie years, I seriously doubt Chicago would've made a dent in this league. If you beg to differ, then yes, we disagree big time.


different league back then. They would have had a bigger impact in todays day and age then back then, pal


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> So do you think he "can get to that level" or not? I think your quote was that you believe you can. So who is contradicting themself?


It's not that hard to comprehend, bro. I didn't write the damn thing and I think it's pretty obvious what was implied. VV has already admitted numerous, numerous times he think he CAN get to that level, but that's a large deviance from your proclamation that he stated he thinks he will get to that level.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> It's not that hard to comprehend, bro. I didn't write the damn thing and I think it's pretty obvious what was implied. VV has already admitted numerous, numerous times he think he CAN get to that level, but that's a large deviance from your proclamation that he stated he thinks he will get to that level.



The question of the day is this, Does anyone think Hinrich WILL ACTUALLY GET TO GPs LEVEL? Lets settle it once and for all. WILL HE OR WONT HE?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i am not saying that the minus 7 is Kirks fault. but if you think we would be a minus 7 with Stockton or Payton, then well, we disagree big time


Why? Kirk had the clear cut better stats when comparing rookie campaigns. In fact, Kirk had better numbers than GP's second year in the league and roughly identical numbers to GP's THIRD year in the league.

And like I've said numerous times before, the current system in Chicago is FAR from what would be an optimal system for Hinrich to excel in. He didn't have Shawn Kemp, Ricky Pierce, Karl Malone, Adrian Dantley on the team when he arrived.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> different league back then. They would have had a bigger impact in todays day and age then back then, pal


Sure it was a different league, especially in Stock's rookie season. But as I've stated, I seriously doubt they would've done much to get this Bulls team to ascend any farther than what they were this year. We'll have to agree to disagree on the matter, I 'spose.....


----------



## Jim Stack (Sep 4, 2003)

payton or stocktan in there rookie years would have had us with 35 wins at least. not to mention that any number of pgs would have done as well lol even jay williams did it. the great kirk hindrich is not that great deal with it. the numbers prove it. comparison proves it what else do you need.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> The question of the day is this, Does anyone think Hinrich WILL ACTUALLY GET TO GPs LEVEL? Lets settle it once and for all. WILL HE OR WONT HE?


It's impossible to know such a thing, but I've already stated I don't THINK he will, and VV has said he thinks it's only a 1 in 5 chance. Thus, neither of us thinks he WILL, we think there's a distinct possibility that he CAN.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Why? Kirk had the clear cut better stats when comparing rookie campaigns. In fact, Kirk had better numbers than GP's second year in the league and roughly identical numbers to GP's THIRD year in the league.
> ...


forget the stats please. I am talking about playing winning minutes on the floor. Does Kirk have better stats then say Marquis Daniels? yes. Does that mean he is a better player? absolutely not


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> So do you think he "can get to that level" or not? I think your quote was that you believe you can. So who is contradicting themself?


I believe he can, but it's rougly a 1 in 5 shot, as I've stated numerous times already. I do not believe with 100% assurance he _will_, which is what you've been implying and explicity stating for page after page now.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Stack</b>!
> payton or stocktan in there rookie years would have had us with 35 wins at least. not to mention that any number of pgs would have done as well lol even jay williams did it. the great kirk hindrich is not that great deal with it. the numbers prove it. comparison proves it what else do you need.


Sweet analysis, I retract my previous position on the matter.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> It's impossible to know such a thing, but I've already stated I don't THINK he will, and VV has said he thinks it's only a 1 in 5 chance. Thus, neither of us thinks he WILL, we think there's a distinct possibility that he CAN.


thank you

Just so we are clear, I dont think Curry WILL have as good a career as Wilt but there is a distinct possibly that he CAN.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> different league back then. They would have had a bigger impact in todays day and age then back then, pal


Why? How? See, these are the types of statements I take issue with. No backing, no explanation, just didactic statments of "fact".


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> The question of the day is this, Does anyone think Hinrich WILL ACTUALLY GET TO GPs LEVEL? Lets settle it once and for all. WILL HE OR WONT HE?


Evasion #58. I've already said what I think of this on NUMEROUS posts.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Why? How? See, these are the types of statements I take issue with. No backing, no explanation, just didactic statments of "fact".


Then your too young to remember. The game in the late 80s and mid 80s wasnt as watered down as it is today. The NBA was so strong back then that guys like Payton and Stockton didnt start back then. But they were damn good players, as rookies, even if your beloved stats dont prove it.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> thank you
> ...


The difference is the possibility of Curry reaching Wilt's greatness is much, much further than the possibility that Hinrich will be as good as Payton.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> thank you
> ...


Curry is to Wilt what Hinrich is to Payton.

Nice.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> The difference is the possibility of Curry reaching Wilt's greatness is much, much further than the possibility that Hinrich will be as good as Payton.


agree

Curry getting to Wilts level is about 5000-1

Kirk getting to Paytons level is about 20-1

5-1 is VVs argument. I think that is way too optimistic.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Then your too young to remember. The game in the late 80s and mid 80s wasnt as watered down as it is today. The NBA was so strong back then that guys like Payton and Stockton didnt start back then. But they were damn good players, as rookies, even if your beloved stats dont prove it.


The game was also much faster paced and offense-oriented, yet neither Stockton nor Payton did a hell of a lot on that end at the same stages of their career as Hinrich is currently at.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

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


Well, that's difficult to argue, and I'm sure you guys have gone over every aspect of their respective games ad nauseum. We'll have to wait a decade or so and look back on this discussion with a grin on our face before we can make any more progress on the subject at hand.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> The game was also much faster paced and offense-oriented, yet neither Stockton nor Payton did a hell of a lot on that end at the same stages of their career as Hinrich is currently at.


The reasons for that were because it was hard for a rookie to crack a lineup. Both GP and Stockton walked into winning situations pretty much right away. The league was stronger then. And they learned the ropes on the bench. In this day and age, they would play because the league is watered down.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Then your too young to remember. The game in the late 80s and mid 80s wasnt as watered down as it is today. The NBA was so strong back then that guys like Payton and Stockton didnt start back then. But they were damn good players, as rookies, even if your beloved stats dont prove it.


...and you also had higher PPG, higher APG and higher FG% across the board. It would've been easier for Hinrich to be a standout defender, and it would've been easier to score more, get more dimes and, ultimately, post greater stats than what he did this year.

Believe it or not, rlucas, stats do mean a lot. Not everything, for sure, and sometimes they're seriously misleading. But people don't record stats (and teams don't pay major bucks to access the higher levels of them) for nothing. Let's be real here.

I like stats. I'm a science guy. Without stats, without categorization, we'd be screwed. I realize full well that context must be taken into consideration at every juncture and comparison is necessary. But to disregard stats readily and without considered opinion is simply not a logical thing to do.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> ...and you also had higher PPG, higher APG and higher FG% across the board. It would've been easier for Hinrich to be a standout defender, and it would've been easier to score more, get more dimes and, ultimately post greater stats than what he did this year.
> ...


You like stats? Nah (I hope you know I am kidding there)

But lets also realize something. The Bulls really stunk this year. Most teams didnt bring it against us (minus Toronto whom Kirk played GREAT against). I was lucky enough to be at 8 Bulls games this year. a couple on the road and a couple at home. And I can tell you that teams werent exerting a lot of energy against the club. I would take anyones stats on a team like ours, Atlanta, Orlando as sort of meaningless. Playoffs mean more, cause there is something on the line. And what has Parker done when the games actually count? His stat line is up across the board, both this year and I believe last year. Now that does mean something to me


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> The reasons for that were because it was hard for a rookie to crack a lineup. Both GP and Stockton walked into winning situations pretty much right away. The league was stronger then. And they learned the ropes on the bench. In this day and age, they would play because the league is watered down.


Payton more than cracked the lineup at around 27 mpg his rookie year and 31 or so minutes a pop his sophmore year. Still, he was relatively unspectacular.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> And what has Parker done when the games actually count? His stat line is up across the board, both this year and I believe last year. Now that does mean something to me


Parker's the flavor of the week due to his terrific play as of late. Last year in the Finals he was sitting on the bench due to his horrendous play watching Speedy Claxton light it up, wondering if he'd be in a Spurs uniform the subsequent year. He's cat-quick and is a very solid scoring PG but he's not the next great thing like many people have him pegged as. When you've got terrific lateral mobility and play with a guy named Tim Duncan, it's a bit easier to look halfway decent.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Payton more than cracked the lineup at around 27 mpg his rookie year and 31 or so minutes a pop his sophmore year. Still, he was relatively unspectacular.


Stats wise, maybe. But I distinctly remember watching him in the playoffs no less, and when he was in the game, Seattle would go on 10-2 runs etc. We can point to stats all day. But wasnt he already garnering ALL NBA defensive votes his second year in the NBA? again, I dont believe stats tell the entire story here. Look at Tony Parker and Kirk Hinrich. Their stats are very close. But youll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks its close between the 2 of them.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Parker's the flavor of the week due to his terrific play as of late. Last year in the Finals he was sitting on the bench due to his horrendous play watching Speedy Claxton light it up, wondering if he'd be in a Spurs uniform the subsequent year. He's cat-quick and is a very solid scoring PG but he's not the next great thing like many people have him pegged as. When you've got terrific lateral mobility and play with a guy named Tim Duncan, it's a bit easier to look halfway decent.


when Duncan went down, he stepped up his play and his team played over 500. Lets not credit Duncan for how good this kid is. He has done spectacular without him. 

Would you take Kirk over Parker?


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> when Duncan went down, he stepped up his play and his team played over 500. Lets not credit Duncan for how good this kid is. He has done spectacular without him.


Let's also not discredit the Spurs surrounding cast, a strong argument can be made that Ginobili is the second best player on that team. Any idea where the stats on the Duncan hiatus may be found at? 



> Would you take Kirk over Parker?


It depends on the situation. Parker is a perfect fit for the Spurs, because he's more of a scoring PG than someone who sets players up. He gets to play off Duncan and as a result is a solid contributor. I think Hinrich is the better distributor and defender of the two, but he's not near the all-around scorer.

If I want a pass-first PG, I take Hinrich. If I'm looking for a guy who can put some points on the board, you go with Parker. I'm more of an old-school, pass-first PG kinda guy


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Believe it or not, rlucas, stats do mean a lot. Not everything, for sure, and sometimes they're seriously misleading. But people don't record stats (and teams don't pay major bucks to access the higher levels of them) for nothing. Let's be real here.
> 
> I like stats. I'm a science guy.


If stats were the end all be all you make them out to be, Shareef Abdur-Rahim would be considered at top 10 NBA player.

You're arguing for Hinrich a guy who put up decent stats on the worst team in the league, a guy who hardly made a difference a floor, a guy who is touted for his defense more than anything yet didn't get 1 vote from any of the NBA coaches in the league for all defense.

You can compare his rookie stats to all these guys but you always leave out Minutes Per Game...

There's a lot of guys who would have put up just as good of stats if not better if they got 35 MPG for most of the season.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Let's also not discredit the Spurs surrounding cast, a strong argument can be made that Ginobili is the second best player on that team. Any idea where the stats on the Duncan hiatus may be found at?
> ...


fair enough


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> If stats were the end all be all you make them out to be, Shareef Abdur-Rahim would be considered at top 10 NBA player.
> ...


i could make some joke about SAR being a better player then Pippen but I wont


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> If I want a pass-first PG, I take Hinrich. If I'm looking for a guy who can put some points on the board, you go with Parker. I'm more of an old-school, pass-first PG kinda guy


I'd take Parker just because he can control the tempo of the game, he can set the tone for the game, Hinrich didn't do that once this past season.

Pass first PG, he shot 17 times less than Curry, what does that tell you?

Yes he averaged 6.8 APG, what were his assists?

Kick to JC, JC hits the J...

Dump to Eddy, Eddy lays it in...

You look at a guy like Dwayne Wade, his assists come off driving to the basket and kicking it out to a teammate for a wide open J that's an assists..

Look at TP's, his are the same, off that pick and roll how many times does he draw 2 men and kick to Duncan for that jumper he banks in.

Those are assists.

You guys can look at numbers all day, but you do pay attention to how they're achieved?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd take Parker just because he can control the tempo of the game, he can set the tone for the game, Hinrich didn't do that once this past season.


How well did Parker control the tempo his rookie year?



> Pass first PG, he shot 17 times less than Curry, what does that tell you?


It tells me:

A.) Curry, while posting pretty decent numbers, ultimately underachieved this season (although I have total faith in him for next season and believe trading him would be completely and utterly stupid)
B.) The Bulls' interior was amongst the most ineffective frontlines in the entire league



> Yes he averaged 6.8 APG, what were his assists?
> 
> Kick to JC, JC hits the J...
> 
> Dump to Eddy, Eddy lays it in...


What were Stockton's assists? Kick to Malone, kick to Hornacek, dump to Malone...

Don't be silly.



> You look at a guy like Dwayne Wade, his assists come off driving to the basket and kicking it out to a teammate for a wide open J that's an assists..


He also had a horrific A/TO ratio.



> You guys can look at numbers all day, but you do pay attention to how they're achieved?


You have a good point. Stats are nice, but how they're achieved is better. That said, are you trying to argue that KH wasn't effective at distributing the basketball?


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd take Parker just because he can control the tempo of the game, he can set the tone for the game, Hinrich didn't do that once this past season.
> ...


Parker plays with guys like Turkoglu, Duncan, and Ginobili, Hinrich plays with guys like Curry, Crawford, and Linton Johnson. However, Hinrich averages an assist and a half more than Parker.........

I assume you watch the games, but I think it's pretty obvious that Parker's main focus is him putting the ball in the basket. He's a very good penetrator and he can kick it out to one of the numerous terrific shooters on the team and get a dime, or dump it off to the best player in the world for an easy deuce. Hinrich has to work a little more at his assists. You can rationalize that he gets cheap assists all you want, but I find little substantial evidence of this, and I've been watching him for 5 years now. 

Hinrich played had a whirlwind of a season. He got off to a horrendous start, trying to adapt to the professional ranks while simulataneously trying to get into shape after missing the first 5 games of the season and losing 10 pounds due to illness. Parker knows his role, faced relatively no obstacles this year, and had a solid, if unspectacular, season. 

There's a reason everyone in the know in the Spurs organization wanted Jason Kidd last year, and there's also a reason that Parker was rendered all but useless during that series, save 1 game I believe, and Claxton performed at a higher level. Kidd got into his head. That's not a knock on Parker, but I have a hard time fathoming that he'll be nearly as good as a lot of people are trying to make him out to be right now, the same way I disagree with how bad you think Hinrich currently is.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Parker plays with guys like Turkoglu, Duncan, and Ginobili, Hinrich plays with guys like Curry, Crawford, and Linton Johnson. However, Hinrich averages an assist and a half more than Parker.........
> ...


Word.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> It tells me:
> 
> A.) Curry, while posting pretty decent numbers, ultimately underachieved this season (although I have total faith in him for next season and believe trading him would be completely and utterly stupid)
> ...


It tells me he was shooting just as much Curry, plus we know our perimeter guys dominated the ball, I don't know how many times we watched Kirk or JC dribble the ball from one side to the other running off most of the shot clock in the process...

If you think Stockton's assists were that simple, watch again...that pick and roll led 2 defenders on him then he kicked back for a J, that's creating an oppurtunity for someone else to score...

Passing the ball off to a guy coming off the screen like Hinrich did, we could have had Shirley do that and get 6 points off a score, it's one thing to get the ball to a wide open guy, it's another to make a play to get a guy open.

Wade might have had a terrible A/TO ratio, but I can live with that because the kid makes plays, all playmakers take risks because they have the ability to do so, Brett Favre throws a lot of interceptions, is he a bad quarterback?

No he has the ability to make a play, a play maybe the average guy can't make...

In this case Wade is trying to make plays or actually making plays that Hinrich simply can't....


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> It tells me he was shooting just as much Curry, plus we know our perimeter guys dominated the ball, I don't know how many times we watched Kirk or JC dribble the ball from one side to the other running off most of the shot clock in the process...


Is that KH and JC's problem, or is it Skiles'?



> If you think Stockton's assists were that simple, watch again...that pick and roll led 2 defenders on him then he kicked back for a J, that's creating an oppurtunity for someone else to score...


Sure. It also helps if you have one of the best PF's to ever play the game running that pick and roll with you.



> Wade might have had a terrible A/TO ratio, but I can live with that because the kid makes plays, all playmakers take risks because they have the ability to do so, Brett Favre throws a lot of interceptions, is he a bad quarterback?


Hmmm, that's funny. Seems to me you were pretty hard on Hinrich early in the year for the same exact thing.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Hmmm, that's funny. Seems to me you were pretty hard on Hinrich early in the year for the same exact thing.


Pretty true, i dont know if there is a bigger KH hatter then Arenas, dont even consider saying that KH is better then JC cause he will go nuts, But Hey Wade was drafted ahead of Hinrich so Wade should be better, There games are so different there isnt much for comparison. But Ill tell you that KH will be a better PG in the Future then a lot of guys out there.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

essentially there are 2 kinds of pgs those that run plays and those that make them. Stockton we'll say is the poster boy for the kind that runs them because he ran the pick and roll better than anyone in the last 30 years at least although he could if need be make a play happen out of nothing. And the ideal playmaker would be Magic Johnson because he consistently made plays no one else could.

Hinrich last season was a play runner and the plays were not particularly good. This is evidence by the fact the bulls had the worst offense during the year , they were the worst shooting team and kirk despite what others want to say didn't make the shots his teammates took any easier. And on the offensive side of the ball thats what it boils down to for a pg . Did he get his team good shots ? the bulls shooting % says no , the bulls record says no .

the 2 pgs in magic and stockton ran thier offenses and the they got their teammates easy shots , shots they made consistently , parker does this too for the spurs , does kirk do this really ?

i would say no . 

How often does kirk get into the lane and pressure a defense to commit to him so he can get a big man a lay up ? or a perimeter player an easy jumpshot ? Not nearly enough which is why the bulls more than any other reason struggled to score when they needed baskets most because the other teams pgs got their players easy baskets and the bulls didn't.

I dont see how Kirk can be judged favorably to any player who did accomplish this for his team , and that means a rookie payton , a 3rd year parker or even a rookie TJ ford who defintely did this for the bucks this year.

All that being said Kirk is a very good player he plays defense and he is unselfish . but lets not get ahead of ourselves , in this 13 page thread he has been compared to eric snow , steve nash nick vanexel john stockton kevin johnson and tony parker and he isn't any of them and he isn't close yet as a pg because they have all run offenses that are far superior to the one kirk ran last year and until that changes I dont see how these comparisons have any merit, least of all the one between parker and hirich seeing as in 2 of 3 playoff games parker has basically dominated the aforementioned payton and his team has won .


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

Of all the fans around the league, I would say some of poster here on Bulls forum are the only a few who were quite unhappy about having Kirk as their PG. As much as lots of peole were named as JC hater before, it sure looks like we have definite Kirk haters now.

Shame. Why can't we even enjoy one bright spot from this miserable season for its worth? Aren't we at least deserve that much of happiness?

Furthermore, I do think some of this hatrd toward Kirk is personal since most of Kirk haters are in fact JC lovers. Not all, but most. And they know who they are.

Again. Shame.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> How often does kirk get into the lane and pressure a defense to commit to him so he can get a big man a lay up ? or a perimeter player an easy jumpshot ? Not nearly enough which is why the bulls more than any other reason struggled to score when they needed baskets most because the other teams pgs got their players easy baskets and the bulls didn't.


Funny becuase this was exactly what Kirk has been doing all season. Only differnce was that he dished to big men around free throw line and they weren't making them. He wasn't dishing it out to 3 point line as you said, then we only have one 3 point weapon other Kirk. JC, who is freakishy inconsistent throught his career. So even this wasn't entirely Kirk's fault.

How come we both saw the exact same play and come out with totally different perspectives? I have no clue.

So at least for this point, I strongly disagree with you.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> essentially there are 2 kinds of pgs those that run plays and those that make them. Stockton we'll say is the poster boy for the kind that runs them because he ran the pick and roll better than anyone in the last 30 years at least although he could if need be make a play happen out of nothing. And the ideal playmaker would be Magic Johnson because he consistently made plays no one else could.
> 
> Hinrich last season was a play runner and the plays were not particularly good. This is evidence by the fact the bulls had the worst offense during the year , they were the worst shooting team and kirk despite what others want to say didn't make the shots his teammates took any easier. And on the offensive side of the ball thats what it boils down to for a pg . Did he get his team good shots ? the bulls shooting % says no , the bulls record says no .
> ...


No offense, but I don't really take anything you say seriously anymore after you blatantly lied and made up stats in order to downgrade Hinrich at the beginning of the year. "Hinrich never passes the ball to Jamal! I kept track on paper, and he only passed it to JC once the entire quarter!" Remember that? I do.

That's why I don't take anything you say seriously.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> No offense, but I don't really take anything you say seriously anymore after you blatantly lied and made up stats in order to downgrade Hinrich at the beginning of the year. "Hinrich never passes the ball to Jamal! I kept track on paper, and he only passed it to JC once the entire quarter!" Remember that? I do.
> ...


then why respond at all to me? and also i never said i counted it on paper i have always said i counted in my head ....for someone whom i've gone over this in the past with it would seem you are lying now.

just something to think about when we call the pot black mr. kettle


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)




----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> Funny becuase this was exactly what Kirk has been doing all season. Only differnce was that he dished to big men around free throw line and they weren't making them. He wasn't dishing it out to 3 point line as you said, then we only have one 3 point weapon other Kirk. JC, who is freakishy inconsistent throught his career. So even this wasn't entirely Kirk's fault.
> 
> ...


the funny thing about setting up shots for people is that in doing so you are supposed to set up shots they can hit , if they dont hit them nearly enough why are you setting up those shots?Kirks job as a pg is to get his teammates easier shots , its not like the players kirk was with cant convert if you do . Eddy Curry led the league in FG% the previous year with a guy whom you consider a horrible pg in crawford leading the way ,but with hinrich his the quality of the shots he was taking went down quite a bit because at least crawford got him a an extra dunk here and there . TC was 50 % fg shooter over his career prior to this past season , but with hinrich as his starting pg he shot in the neighborhood of 35% , now alot of that had nothing to do with kirk but some of it did because kirk really got no one the "easy ones" the ones that are supposed to separte his skill at pg from lets say rick brunson . Crawford has had career lows in his fg and 3pt % as did the other 2 C's in fact no one on the team shot a good % for themselves at some point you have to look at determining factors as to why this occurs .He didn't break down defenses in the halfcourt , did he get his teammates fast break baskets or early offense baskets by getting the ball downcourt fast before the defense set up? There are a lot of ways of doing it , he just didn't do any of them anywhere near on a consistent level

he just ran plays , and with the players he was running them with he needed to do more than he did to make the offense run smoother rather than dumping it off to antonio davis for a shot he will more than likely not make or sending the ball to kendall gill for a 22ft shot when his weakness as a player is as a shooter. Sometimes a player should press the defense into giving up shots they are not comfortable in giving up and i dont feel kirk did enough of that as its pg.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

Again. Shame.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> Again. Shame.


when did you say shame the 1st time?

must have been in a dream i'm thinking ... you need to wake up.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

Quit it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jsong , 
you are the one who needs to quit it , for instance putting out the little snooze icons whenever someone says something you dont like .

grow up


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

Look in the mirror and do the exact the same thing yourself, I must say.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> Look in the mirror and do the exact the same thing yourself, I must say.


"i know you are but what am I?"

are you serious ? when have i hit little snooze icons because i didn't i like what someone else said ? you have done it to 2 people in the last 3 pages alone.

grow up and accept it.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> "i know you are but what am I?"
> ...


Well, I'm not sure if you've hit the little snooze icons, but I do know that you made up numbers and flat-out lied when you didn't like what someone else said.

Grow up and accept it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not sure if you've hit the little snooze icons, but I do know that you made up numbers and flat-out lied when you didn't like what someone else said.
> ...


when was this?

of course when you fail to come up with a valid answer i'm going to say you lied and made this up because you dont like what i say


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> when was this?


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=857456#post857456

If you "forgot" about this little dandy, be sure and read the part where I took out some simple stats and refuted your "observation": http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=857799#post857799



> of course when you fail to come up with a valid answer i'm going to say you lied and made this up because you dont like what i say


You keep telling yourself that, killer.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=857456#post857456
> ...


i cant help but think at kansas university they must not have remedial reading class because i remember your premise being that I act a certain way in response to things i didn't like from other posters .

i started that thread so it was in response to no one at all ...so try again VV ...and this time remember reading is fundamental.

unless of course you knew this all along and you can read ...and are just lying.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i cant help but think at kansas university they must not have remedial reading class because i remember your premise being that I act a certain way in response to things i didn't like from other posters .


Nice try, but you're wrong. My premise is that you deliberately lied and manipulated stats and thus have no credibility with me. I added the "...when you didn't like what someone else said" as a catchy/mocking response to one of your posts above. However, that part of my message was incidental to the main point, and you know it. I figured a point I've reiterated over numerous posts over the last few days would be readily apparent to those who aren't trying their damndest to evade it.

Face the facts, bud. You lied trying to further your agenda and got caught red-handed doing it. Don't act like Donald Rumsfeld tossing out B.S. excuses in an attempt to spin reality and avoid the subject. Be a man, sac up, and quit trying to squirm out of this. You're starting to look silly.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

vincent vega-"grinch, you lie when read things you dont like."

grinch -"no i dont ...prove it."

vincent vega "o.k. blah blah blah(meanwhile not proving a thing) "

grinch " that was wrong you proved nothing, can you read?."

vincent vega " yes i know it was wrong i was trying to prove something else, that i had not mentioned at all in the post that started this whole thing ...your word means nothing to me because you say things i dont like and though i actually proved nothing that i said i was going to, i am just going to backtrack now and act like i did something when i did nothing at all"

hey buddy, when you say something you should actually try to back it up ...i admitted i was wrong and miscounted before ...you however dare to comment on me and produce this crud ...all the while saying my word means nothing yet you continue to comment on what i say ,I liken this to the 6 year old boy who hates girls and yet cant leave one in particular alone.

i think you care about what i say too much pal . let it go and grow up .


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sorry guys, but you're both great posters and these last bunch of posts are moronic.

No offense.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

No offense taken.

I feel like I've just played a game of hoops with a one-armed monkey on angel dust.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> No offense taken.
> 
> I feel like I've just played a game of hoops with a one-armed monkey on angel dust.


And you didn't see me coming when I slipped the mickey in your drink. Angel beat the crap out of you btw.


----------

