# Hinrich Sucks



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

He has only shot above 50% in a game 3 times this season. That was against New Jersey, New Orleans, and the Lakers. He only shoots above 50% from the field in 7 percent of his games. He stinks.

He has the 12th worst field goal percentage in the league out of qualified players. 

On top of this, the worst part is, that Hinrich takes the most shots per a game for the Bulls at 14. So the average night for Hinrich is 5-14 shooting. That is just wonderful.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

He's back to being just an above average player(at best).

There's no excuse for the way he's shooting. Its amazing how many wide open shots he misses. Didn't he come out of Kansas known as a 'great' shooter? What happened? Sheesh..


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Yeah he's playing like garbage now. So much for a bull reppin' us at the all-star game.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

6-19(31%) tonight. 5th straight absolute sh*tty shooting game.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

Since when is FG% the biggest stat in basketball. Basketball is so much more than stats. Lets also remember that it's his second year, and consistency is still tough for second year players.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jsimo12</b>!
> Since when is FG% the biggest stat in basketball. Basketball is so much more than stats. Lets also remember that it's his second year, and consistency is still tough for second year players.


The problem is that Kirk takes the most shots on this team, and he is one of the worst shooters in the league. Do you really want to have one of the worst shooters in the league taking the most shots for your team. Jamal Crawford is even better then Kirk by .001 fg %.


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

While he is shooting very poorly right now, he is counted on to do a lot more than just score. And, for the most part, he has continued to play well defensively, distribute the ball, rebound, etc. His shooting woes, while a problem, would be much more of a concern if that was the only thing he could (or was supposed to) do.

He should probably look to shoot less, but my feeling is that he thinks he has to try and carry the team offensively if Eddy doesn't get of to a good start and/or Ben isn't hitting his shots (or has gotten benched for poor defense).


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

The thing is message boarders nitpick about guys who shoot to much or to little or this and that. You never really know whats going on unless your in team meetings and practices and in the huddle or on the bench. You can just look at stat-sheets. Who else do you want shooting? Hinrich is probably the best overall player on the squad. All shooters experience a slump and if you yank the player or tell him to quit shooting it can hurt confidence. You shoot out of a slump.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Has not played nearly as well in the last few games as we've gotten used to him playing. Knowing how hard he is on himself, here's hoping he turns it around. Right now, Skiles needs to be finding some alternative to Kirk for these type of games. When Kirk doesn't bring it, we REALLY suck. Normally that's okay, because Kirk has been on more than off, but his effect on the game is becoming very clear during his slump.

Unlike Jamal, who's stats have almost no correlation with his team's win/loss record, Kirk's bad games directly reflect our record.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jsimo12</b>!
> All shooters experience a slump and if you yank the player or tell him to quit shooting it can hurt confidence. You shoot out of a slump.


According to the stats, Hinrich has been in a shooting 'slump' his whole NBA career.


----------



## Pure Scorer (Jul 20, 2002)

This has got to be a joke. Everytime a player has a bad game you can't just say he sucks. If you're gonna have an opinion on someone, make sure it's based on what he can do, not his stats. Hinrich adds a lot to this team, and even though i think they should eventually trade him, at this point he's damn valuable to them. And he definitely doesn't suck. He's one of the top 10-15 pg's in the league, and it's only his second year. 

There's a lot more to the game than just stats.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Hinrich does alot of things well, including shooting the ball, but it's hard to see that when he's forced to be the Bulls' leading scorer. Over the next few years, I guarentee you'll see Gordon and Deng take on more of a scoring role, allowing Kirk to focus more on being a playmaker first and a scorer second. That's when his FG% will go up. This is a young team, and unfortunately Hinrich has no choice but to hoist up the most shots.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

It's time to move Ben to starting lineup. We need to take some pressure off of Kirk b/c he is being counted on for too much offense.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Tonight was not a good night for him. I'm not sure what it is. He has that SG mentality of if it's not going in, it'll go in next time. Or it could be the added stress of making plays or defending well. I, however, don't think we should be kicking him while he's down.

His floor game is still good but we have to realize that *Kirk isn't and shouldn't be the primary scorer. *. That means he shouldn't take be taking the 19 shots he did tonight. He set up Eddy well a few times and I so wished that continued to do that. When Kirk realizes that he's better as table setter than a scorer, he'll get better. Payton shoots .463 We need Kirk around 440's


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Simply put, Kirk's shots should be going to Ben. Kirk should defer at least 5 attempts to Ben and be at the PG spot. 

Damnit Pax/Skiles, Ben is their most talented offensive player and they still have him coming off the bench. WTF?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> According to the stats, Hinrich has been in a shooting 'slump' his whole NBA career.


damn, you beat me to it.

This isn't just a bad shooting night for Kirk. This is a bad shooting career for him.

He was suppose to be a great shooter when he was coming out of college, what happened?


----------



## hoops (Jan 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> According to the stats, Hinrich has been in a shooting 'slump' his whole NBA career.




Bingo! you took the words right out of my mouth. :laugh:


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> Unlike Jamal, who's stats have almost no correlation with his team's win/loss record, Kirk's bad games directly reflect our record.


Not really. The most common thing abt our victories last season was JC having a big night. That wasn't the case with Kirk's good games.

The Knicks too are so obviously better when JC plays well.

Bottomline: There's no excuse for Kirk's play the last 2 weeks. He simply needs to do MUCH better. Currently he's no better then JC on his bad days.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> 
> The Knicks too are so obviously better when JC plays well.


The link to Jamal's game-by-game stats would suggest otherwise.

I'm no statistician, but I'm guessing that any correlation between Jamal's good nights and the KNICK winning is statistically insignificant. His big nights and his horrible nights appear to have absolutely no effect in the win column.

_Yes, *kukoc4ever!*, this is me officialy stating that it is NOT Crawdaddy's fault. Kind of sad, really, because the kid appears to have no effect whatsoever on his team's record._


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> The link to Jamal's game-by-game stats would suggest otherwise.
> ...


Actually, the Knicks are 10-4 in games Jamal scored 22+ points.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Other players who suck:

Duhon
Deng
AD
Curry
Tyson
NOC
Gordon
Othella
Pike
Griffin
Pargo
Reiner


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Actually, the Knicks are 10-4 in games Jamal scored 22+ points.


Where do you get this info? 

As far as I can tell, they are 8-7 when he scores 22+ points. Better than their over-all record, but not enough to be ruled anything other than statistical deviation. I recall you being rather a bear last year about "arbitrary" data points last season, so allow me to call you on that, now. Wouldn't 20+ points be a lot less "arbitrary"? In games where Jamal has scored 20+ the KNICK is record is 8-9, even less of a statistical significance.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Holy ****!!!!

I just noticed this: Kirk Hinrich is WHITE!

How did I not see this before? :no: 

Send the scrub to Europe. What the heck were we thinking?

Kirk Hinrich. Puheh. :sour:

-------------------------

Kirk, in his second year in the league, asked almost from day 1, rookie year to be something akin to "The Man" is doing pretty damn well. His percentage isn't where it should be, he fouls too much and turns it over too frequently.

Lets loosen up the nooses until at least year 4. Then we can call a jack a jack. Or not.

He is asked to do too much, too soon. We'll see if he catches up tot he necessary learning curve. 

Same could have, and was, said of Jamal "he of the many torchbearing riders" Crawford.

CrawFish did not and has not closed those flaws in his game, especially if the criteria is any consistency.

I am hopeful that Kirk is not in that same rut. Time will tell. He cretainly seems to be more aware of the situation than J 'And1" C used to be on here - or in his new home, for that matter.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> Holy ****!!!!
> 
> I just noticed this: Kirk Hinrich is WHITE!


???

Where is this coming from? Did I miss a post where someone brought in the relevance of race? The kid's not playing well in the last three or four games, white, black, other....


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Hate to be the voice of reason, but is this maybe "Bulls organization sucks?

Hinrich is struggling, but he doesn't suck. He is playing way out of position. Guarding the top back court opposing player each night while being teamed with Duhon who runs away from open shots.

I'd love to say Gordon is the answer, but the real answer is that the organization will have to choose between Hinrich and Gordon. The backcourt just doesn't win out over time. Too easy to exploit the smurf back court.

Me, I'll take Gordon, even though Hinrich is currently the better all-around player. Gordon can flat out dominate, while Hinrich can flat out hang with the other teams guy.

I'm also in favor of trading Hinrich because he has more trade value in my opinion.

Lakers, among other teams, would love a PG like Hinrich.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> ???
> ...


He was being sarcastic.

Sar-kas-tick

Definition: Being punctual.


Well, per Wynn's usual way of defining things....just make up some random definition or using a different definition from a different word.

Go Bull


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> ???
> ...



No. Of course I was just being facetious about the "white" thing.

It just appears that with the recent "market correction" in the Bulls schedule, everyone is getting down on Kirk, unnecessarily.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> Hate to be the voice of reason, but is this maybe "Bulls organization sucks?
> 
> Hinrich is struggling, but he doesn't suck. He is playing way out of position. Guarding the top back court opposing player each night while being teamed with Duhon who runs away from open shots.
> ...


I am beginning to wonder that too.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> Hate to be the voice of reason, but is this maybe "Bulls organization sucks?
> 
> Hinrich is struggling, but he doesn't suck. He is playing way out of position. Guarding the top back court opposing player each night while being teamed with Duhon who runs away from open shots.
> ...


Playing out of position or not, that is no excuse for missing a countless number of wide open shots for his entire career.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> 
> Sar-kas-tick
> 
> ...


I understand Sarka's tick, don't get me wrong it annoys me, too. How did Sarka even get that annoying spasm?! But back to the point -- why is the race issue involved? I could understand a "polka-dotted boxer-short wearing" comment, or a "he likes puppies" reference as being a tsarkaztick remark pointing out the over-analyzation of Kirk's game. Those would clearly be off-the-wall references to clue us into the czahrchahschick nature of the post. Maybe I just don't get it.

No harm, though. *TB#1* is still among the best in my book. Would take more than one "over my head" reference to change that opinion.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> No. Of course I was just being facetious about the "white" thing.
> 
> It just appears that with the recent "market correction" in the Bulls schedule, everyone is getting down on Kirk, unnecessarily.


As stated above, no harm, no foul.

Market correction aside, Kirk has looked bad recently, you've got to admit. I'm not in the "Kirk sucks" club, but rather in the "let's find some help while Kirk finds his way out of this phase" club. A much more reasonable club, methinks. Likely you are also a member?


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Jsimo12</b>!
> Since when is FG% the biggest stat in basketball. Basketball is so much more than stats. Lets also remember that it's his second year, and consistency is still tough for second year players.


Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler had open season for media hatred on them from day one. Stop approaching Kirk with the presumption that if you can grasp onto even ONE thing good, that means the bad doesn't matter.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

I've heard people in this thread say "Well kirk is only bad at thing A, thing B, thing C and thing D, but let's loosen the noose." Isn't that hypocritical in light of the way Curry is treated?


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

I'll add that Hinrich doesn't suck, but he needs to do better. I only wish that fans would approach Curry this way about his weakness, but they don't.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Curry's only weakness now is rebounding, he took care of the Defensive weakness and made it into something he can do well. Yet he is almost crucified for his rebounding. Yet we are suppose to right off, on a team that needs a shooter desperately, the guy that takes the most shots and has only made more shots then he has missed 3 times this year, a scorer is more important to this team then a rebounder is in Curry.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler had open season for media hatred on them from day one. Stop approaching Kirk with the presumption that if you can grasp onto even ONE thing good, that means the bad doesn't matter.



Your very correct. But check the title of this thread. This thread suggests because he has shot 39% from the field for his career that he sucks. I just find FG % to be sometimes useless especially in teams that dont have consistent leaders in scoring from game to game, or consistent leadership. If this is Dirk Nowitzki were talking about here I can see the poor FG% becomes more of an issue because he is the leader and scorer on an established team.


----------



## svanacore (Nov 21, 2004)

Kirk pisses me off.

I've always been an adamant Jamal supporter and to see Kirk play like this makes me mad.

This is his second year. He's no longer a rookie. No more excuses.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Jsimo12</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Your very correct. But check the title of this thread. This thread suggests because he has shot 39% from the field for his career that he sucks. I just find FG % to be sometimes useless especially in teams that dont have consistent leaders in scoring from game to game, or consistent leadership. If this is Dirk Nowitzki were talking about here I can see the poor FG% becomes more of an issue because he is the leader and scorer on an established team.


He doesn't suck. We all know that. My beef with you is not saying he doesn't suck, but rather acting like we should just write this off....when nothing negative has ever been excused about Curry or even Chandler.


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

if only the heat took hinrich as there 4th pick:uhoh:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Where do you get this info?
> ...


I was counting the pre-season games, too. And counted wrong.

YOU were the one who was writing about Jamal playing _well_ having an effect on his team's winning games. 22+ points is ~10% over his _average_ of ~19 PPG.

If you consider his average playing well, then he's played well all season.

8-7 (.533) is considerably better than the team's overall record (.391)


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Curry and Chandler are roleplayers on this team, and there are people on this board that act like they're the franchise. Hinrich does literally everything for this team (pts, asts, not too far from rebs) and people look at him like a roleplayer. 

But I swear, people need to have perspective. Talk about Jeckel and Hyde.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> Curry and Chandler are roleplayers on this team, and there are people on this board that act like they're the franchise. Hinrich does literally everything for this team (pts, asts, not too far from rebs) and people look at him like a roleplayer.
> 
> But I swear, people need to have perspective. Talk about Jeckel and Hyde.


Curry is so much more talented than Kirk it's sick. This team without Curry, or without Skiles gameplanning the ball to Curry is a jumpshot taking joke. LOL @ Hinrich is the team and Curry is a role player. We'll see what Hinrich demands on the open market when he's a free agent. People in Chicago have a VERY skewed perception of what people around the country think is happening in Chicago. Everywhere else it's "Eddy Curry and the Bulls"


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> 
> 
> He doesn't suck. We all know that. My beef with you is not saying he doesn't suck, but rather acting like we should just write this off....when nothing negative has ever been excused about Curry or even Chandler.



Yeah but you apparently have "beef" with me about something to do with Eddy and Chandler when I didnt even mention Eddy and Chandler...So Im a little confused. 

Hinrich looks to be your best player and his FG% sucks...take him off your team and your lottery bound with not shot out of it, be happy with the 39% and say hey we might make the playoffs this year! If he can get his FG% up around 45% the Bulls will be damn good. Im not giving him a free pass Im just saying the dude doesnt suck because he shots 39%. If he shot 39% and averaged 4ppg and 1asts and the team hated him then...yeah he sucks. Percentages can be tricky anyway ppg, rpg, apg are more important.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> Curry is so much more talented than Kirk it's sick. This team without Curry, or without Skiles gameplanning the ball to Curry is a jumpshot taking joke. LOL @ Hinrich is the team and Curry is a role player. We'll see what Hinrich demands on the open market when he's a free agent. People in Chicago have a VERY skewed perception of what people around the country think is happening in Chicago. Everywhere else it's "Eddy Curry and the Bulls"


Curry is one dimensional. I like what he brings, he gives us a scoring punch and keeps things balanced with an inside-outside game, but don't get it twisted. It's a team thing, Curry is not nearly good enough to be a franchise player, neither is Hinrich. 

As far as the "people in Chicago" comment, I'm in LA, and it's a "team" thing going on. Infact, the local announcers for the Clippers and Lakers, as well as all the radio shows and stuff, have consistently said (this year too) that Curry and Chandler have been a disappointment. 

People are far more impressed with the new faces like Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni and Duhon coming in and changing the mentality of the team. They also mention Paxson and Skiles doing a great job. *That* is the consensus *outside* of Chicago. Curry isn't seen as some franchise player lifting his team like you say he is, not even close..


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sir Patchwork</b>!
> 
> 
> Curry is one dimensional. I like what he brings, he gives us a scoring punch and keeps things balanced with an inside-outside game, but don't get it twisted. It's a team thing, Curry is not nearly good enough to be a franchise player, neither is Hinrich.
> ...


LOL you just referenced Stu Lantz. Like he or anybody from LA has any idea. It's generally known that while there are smart fans pretty much everywhere.....LA is not known for anything of the sort.

Face it....you're a Kirk jocker. He's not as good as Curry. Eddy has become one of the top probably 10-15 defensive centers in the NBA (and remember a lot of top "defensive" centers come off the bench/have come off the bench in the history of the game.

Eddy can do well but rebound. You aren't bringing the ball into this Eddy without him making you think twice. Hinrich's shot sucks, he rotates for crap on defense, he can't get through a screen to save his life, he feeds the post like my uncle Walt and did I mention his shot sucks. 

Eddy is going to demand the max. Hinrich will never come close to that. 

ROFL @ "Oh yeah well I'm in LA and they said..."


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> LOL you just referenced Stu Lantz. Like he or anybody from LA has any idea. It's generally known that while there are smart fans pretty much everywhere.....LA is not known for anything of the sort.


Ironic. A childish response about a city as a whole lacking knowledge. You get angry too easily, you should settle down and realize that this isn't life or death. I like Eddy, I like Hinrich, I like everyone on this team. I assume you do too. 



> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> Face it....you're a Kirk jocker. He's not as good as Curry. Eddy has become one of the top probably 10-15 defensive centers in the NBA (and remember a lot of top "defensive" centers come off the bench/have come off the bench in the history of the game.


"Face it...you're an Eddy jocker" 

That aside, I like Eddy's progress this year. 



> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> Eddy can do well but rebound. You aren't bringing the ball into this Eddy without him making you think twice. Hinrich's shot sucks, he rotates for crap on defense, he can't get through a screen to save his life, he feeds the post like my uncle Walt and did I mention his shot sucks.


I disagree, and so does Scott Skiles. It's called balance. 



> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> Eddy is going to demand the max. Hinrich will never come close to that.


Hinrich will never come close to the max, you're right, and if Curry gets the max (it won't be the Bulls who gives it to him), then that team will regret it. 



> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> ROFL @ "Oh yeah well I'm in LA and they said..."


ROFL LA SuxX0rZ D00D!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*there is definitely a double standard going on with kirk.*

people overlook his shooting woes like it doesn't matter.

he's the bulls leading scorer ...of course it matters , in fact it matters alot.

but with kirk perception matters less than reality.

case in point jamal is considered to have extremely bad shot selection...while kirk supposedly has good shot selection ....and kirk is considered a better pure shooter.

yet jamal has a better fg% 3pt% efg% and ft%...how does that happen if that is true?

crawford is critized for being lets say an inefficient scorer but he is more efficient than kirk, yet kirk gets no where near the flack.

crawford is considered somewhat of a wuss because he doesn't draw enough fouls(or at least that is supposedly part of the reason) ...yet kirk is tough as nails...in reality per their shots attempted and per game, jamal gets to the line more. 

does that really make more sense?

now to curry he actually holds opposing centers to an effective field goal % of .413.

while kirk hold opposing pg to .473 and shooting guards to .432

yet kirk is praised for his defense and curry is trashed for it ...and before anyone bring up team impact , the bulls defensive effective field goal % actually goes down when kirk is off the court and up when curry is off the court.

doesn't seem fair at all.

i am not saying curry and crawford deserve no flack for their shortcomings , far from it, but if people are going to spend so much time building up certain players while tearing down others they should be asked what their motives are , especially when there seems to be a pretty serious double standard, and when the actual facts of the situation say much of what they are posting about is not really accurate..


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

If people are still holding Curry's defense against him, then it is a double standard. As far as I've seen, Curry has recieved his due for his defense this year. It's his rebounding that people hold against him, and that is justified. 

I don't see how it can be a double standard though, since Kirk is the center of all criticism in this forum. There is countless "Bench Hinrich" and "Hinrich sucks" threads in the forum, while Curry hasn't been getting much criticism for his rebounding this year.

I think that the Hinrich deserves to be questioned, because he *should* be shooting better than he is. I don't think Curry can rebound much better than he does now, so we might as well accept it and stop criticizing. 

But with Hinrich being criticized for the aspect of his game that should be getting criticized right now, and Curry getting a pass for what we've all accepted, there is no double standard. It's just about how it should be around here, except ya'll are quick to go back and forth. This forum is night and day after wins and losses, it's crazy.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

If we are somehow going to make the playoffs this season w/ our current roster Kirk will have to play much better. The fact is, when Kirk plays well we win...When he doesnt we dont.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

Kirk should facilitate the offense through EC first, Ben second. I think Skiles is behind this.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

some things never change.

kirk vs. jamal

now it's eddy vs. kirk? huh? 

how about reiner vs. kirk. 

or the towel boy vs. kirk.

(hey gip? - why does _literally everything you post_ somehow become about eddy?)

hinrich's going through a shooting slump right now - nothing like what he went through last year with the rookie wall - this is different. last night his shot selection was questionable, and his attempts to shoot the bulls back into it, ill-advised. 

but let's not, for lack of a better word, crucify him.

he doesn't *suck*. 

i think it's since he changed his shoes a few games back. ok, probably has nothing to do with the shoes, but still. 

*tb#1* said it best, so i will requote him:



> Kirk, in his second year in the league, asked almost from day 1, rookie year to be something akin to "The Man" is doing pretty damn well. His percentage isn't where it should be, he fouls too much and turns it over too frequently.
> 
> Lets loosen up the nooses until at least year 4. Then we can call a jack a jack. Or not.


whether he is asked to do too much, or he takes it upon himself to do too much, i don't really know.

i do know that after losing another game last night i come on here to threads titled "hinrich sucks" or dabullz' "hinrich v. wade" vote.

we live in a "what have you done for me lately world" so of course this applies to your favorite team. and way to kick a team member when he is down guys. yeah! that's constructive. feel better? 

:no:


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

*unbelievable*

It seems like people like it more when the bulls lose so they can rip all the players on the team. During their hot streak we didnt have this many posts, now the bulls lose 3 games in a row and now its SHIP OUT ALL THE PLAYERS. This is the biggest group of fair weather fans that I have ever seen (i am only speaking to those that enjoy ripping on the bulls squad). Why don't you stick with the team and actually have faith in whats going on?


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> some things never change.
> 
> kirk vs. jamal
> ...


Welcome to the world of Jamal Crawford fandom. Just substitute Jamal Crawford every time you say Hinrich ! :sigh: :|


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> Welcome to the world of Jamal Crawford fandom. Just substitute Jamal Crawford every time you say Hinrich ! :sigh: :|


lol. point made. but, no thanks. i have it in perspective.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> "He has a John Stockton way about him. If something goes wrong, you don't see emotion on his face. He just keeps playing. Kirk is a wonderful young player."
> 
> Jerry Sloan





> "What I love about Kirk is that he doesn't force anything. What did he have, like three points at the half? Then he just comes out, passes the ball and starts to score. I really enjoy watching him play.
> 
> He is the reason, to me, that they're playing so good. With his passion and grit, he's the perfect guy to play for Scotty (Skiles).''
> 
> Doc Rivers


I don't think Sloan or Rivers think Kirk sucks. I'm with those guys.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Every defense the Kirksters on this thread use the Jamalites (like me) have already done 20x time over: using quotes from other coaches, citing interesting statistics, showing how Kirk's stats correlate to wins.

If Kirk showing up is a reason we win, then Kirk not showing up is a reason we lose. So then some of the blame like some of the blame went to Jamal right ? 

However, I don't just blame players for their shortcomings because I know there are more things at work so I don't blame Kirk. That rhymes.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Gipper</b>!
> I've heard people in this thread say "Well kirk is only bad at thing A, thing B, thing C and thing D, but let's loosen the noose." Isn't that hypocritical in light of the way Curry is treated?


It's not like he's being mistreated on this board. I think a lot of it is what Skiles says and then it is reflected on the boards concerning Hinrich and Curry and others.



> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> Curry's only weakness now is rebounding, he took care of the Defensive weakness and made it into something he can do well. Yet he is almost crucified for his rebounding. Yet we are suppose to right off, on a team that needs a shooter desperately, the guy that takes the most shots and has only made more shots then he has missed 3 times this year, a scorer is more important to this team then a rebounder is in Curry.


Curry's "only" weakness isn't just rebounding. 4.85 turnovers per 48. no. 5 in the league. That's unacceptable for a big man


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The premise of this thread is a bunch of fair weather nonsense.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron Cey</b>!
> The premise of this thread is a bunch of fair weather nonsense.



Fair weather nonsense? The lights out shooting wonder from Kansas, goes from one of the best shooters in college to one of the worst in the NBA. He has been a crappy scoring player throughout his NBA career. The main point of this, is that Kirk takes the most shots per a game for the Bulls, and that is inexcusable for a player as crappy as he is right now. Kirk Hinrich and Jamal Crawford are basically the same player. Both are defensive liabilities, good passers and control the ball well, but are both gunners and take ill-advised shots. I can't count the number of times that Kirk Hinrich has ended a hot streak during a game by taking a three right when he gets down the court, and the same thing was with Jamal Crawford last year. Kirk needs to shoot less if he can't make a shot.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Hinrich's play has certainly been off the past handful of games. That said, next time he goes off for 30+ points and/or a near triple-double, will there be a thread titled "Hinrich Is Awesome"?

A lot (5+) of the shots Kirk takes should be given to Ben Gordon. When Kirk's looking to score instead of looking to do other things (distribute, defend, call plays, etc) and exploiting opportunities to score, he's not nearly as effective as what he could be. No way in hell he should be a team's primary scorer.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> Kirk Hinrich and Jamal Crawford are basically the same player.




Slugga, you have to realize that a lot of players -- in all sports -- aren't going to be good or bad, or great or terrible, every night of their careers. Sports are not static. Players, like the teams they play for, have streaks, they have learning curves, they have times when they're out of sorts, they have times when they just flat out have bad games. It happens. 

Don't let knee-jerkery haunt your head.


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

Jamal Crawford is NOT a bull, so if you want to talk about him go to the Knicks forum. Get over it. WE sucked with him, and i'm not saying we are great without him but we are more competitive without him thats for sure. Paxson put together a team that will give their 100 percent effort on both sides of th ecourt. We are still young so we will have our losing streaks still but quit saying the bulls suck just because we are in a 3 game losing streak!

The bulls are fatigued right now and rightfully so, we had a long stretch in january and will regroup after the all star break. Hopefully we can get a couple of wins this week and shut all these fair weather fans up. Hienrich is nothing like crawford by the way. Hinrich plays defense and defends against the other teams top guards.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> Curry's "only" weakness isn't just rebounding. 4.85 turnovers per 48. no. 5 in the league. That's unacceptable for a big man


This is true. The Curry lovers on this board disregard this and some of his other problems (small or otherwise). Curry's a good scorer, but this doesn't mean you can put a check next to the category and excuse it from discussion as a problem that he has. Same goes for defense. Sure, he's gotten better, but that doesn't mean as much as BabyBlue and the Gipper make it out to. He can get better as a player in a variety of areas - rebounding is only the largest of these. Curry is a good player, Hinrich is a good player. Get over it. 

As for the actual topic of this thread, Hinrich does not suck. Just like (hopefully) everyone else on this board, I love to see the Bulls win and I hate to see them lose. Hinrich hasn't played too well the last few games, sure, but he shouldn't be public enemy #1 all of a sudden. As far as I'm concerned, the bulls are a *team*. When we lose, everyone's to blame. When we win, everyone gets credit. This is how it should be, as i can't recall too many games this year where one player on this team was the only reason we won. Sheesh...:no:


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Hinrich's play has certainly been off the past handful of games. That said, next time he goes off for 30+ points and/or a near triple-double, will there be a thread titled "Hinrich Is Awesome"?


Look I'm not with the crew that says "Kirk sucks." I'm a Kirk fan, though a mild one. All I'm saying is if Eddy's rebounding can be treated like Eddy is the antichrist himself and if Eddy can be trashed like he has been on this board, then merely noting Kirk's weaknesses and talking about what he can do better should be acceptable and the response of "well he only does 4 things bad but look at all the good things he does." Eddy only does 2 things bad and there are a group of posters on this and every Bulls board who rip him daily. I'm just advocating equal time....but please Kirksters....I HATE HATE HATE Jamal Crawford and am not a Kirk hater......I merely like reality and also I like not having my intelligence insulted by someone else trying to ask me to accept a false portrayal of reality. Not talking about Kirk's faults, or writing them off/minimizing them when Eddy didn't receive the same treatment is a false portrayal of reality....period. 

If you subbed Kirk for Jamal, Deng, Greg Anthony or whoever and someone tried to be like "Well he only does 4 things wrong, so what." I'd be all over that player too.


----------



## The Gipper (Dec 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>King Joseus</b>!
> 
> This is true. The Curry lovers on this board disregard this and some of his other problems (small or otherwise). Curry's a good scorer, but this doesn't mean you can put a check next to the category and excuse it from discussion as a problem that he has. Same goes for defense. Sure, he's gotten better, but that doesn't mean as much as BabyBlue and the Gipper make it out to. He can get better as a player in a variety of areas - rebounding is only the largest of these.


See.... If you talk about Eddy like this....then people should be able to write the same paragraph but sub "Kirk" and "poor shot selection" "low fg%" "bad defensive rotation" "bad at fighting through screens" and "bad at feeding the post" without YOU writing it off. That's my only point. I never said Kirk sucked, of course there I agree with you that that is taking it too far.

Point is if we're gonna be in the business of pointing fingers then the guy who points it at Eddy....his favorite player, whether it be Kirk, Noce or whoever is not immune from the same criticisms.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

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


Kirk is too inconsistent. He has 3 bad games for every 1 good one.

No crap Kirk Hinrich doesn't suck. I think thats pretty obvious. The title was just to draw in the masses, because obviously I know that people are going to come to a thread that says he sucks, they want to defend him, just like how people would flock to a thread titled Curry sucks to bash him.

The point of this thread is that Kirk is hurting are offense. He needs to step up, and make these shots. The bad part of this is most of them are misses of wide open shots. There are the few ill advised 3 point shots with 20 seconds left on the shotclock, but the majority of his misses are wide open shots. It is really frustrating to have the guy that takes the most shots on your team to be the one who is one of the worst percentage shooters in the league. I think the problem with this is Chris Duhon. Duhon is a bench player and he should be treated like it. Kirk Hinrich should be in the point guard spot in the position to create for others and not be the scorer.

With that said the following should be our new starting lineup.

PG-Kirk Hinrich
SG-Luol Deng
SF-Andres Nocioni
PF-Tyson Chandler
C- Eddy Curry

Just like our starting lineup in the preseason.

I am tired of all the babysteps Skiles is taking with this team. Limiting Curry and other players minutes for no reason. Its time to let these 5 guys all play over 30 minutes a game. We have become overly dependant on scrubs playing well. The matter of fact is we got 6 really talented players- Gordon, Hinrich, Nocioni, Deng, Curry, Chandler. These 6 need to be playing the most, no more baby steps. Curry and Chandler for the first time in their career are playing well together at the same time on the court. Nocioni brings toughness. With that lineup, we are good defensively at every position. With our current starting lineup, we are only good defensively at the small forward and center spot.

PG- Chris Duhon (an average defender)
SG- Kirk Hinrich (can't guard shooting guards)
SF- Deng 
PF- Antonio Davis (just too old)/Othello Harrington (just not good at D)
C- Curry

Eddy Curry has played good defense this year, there is no disputing that. Tyson Chandler too is a good defender. Kirk Hinrich has played good defense on point guards. Deng and Nocioni are tough as nails. This is our best defensive and offensive lineup that we can have in a game. This is our best starting lineup. We have to start using it that way.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

The problem for Kirk isn't missing the wide open shots. It's the 5 or 6 bad shots he's forced to take with the shot clock winding down because no one on the team (with the exception of Gordon) can create for themselves.

It's very clear that Hinrich isn't a number one option for a good team. But the guy is still plays a very good floor game, solid defense, and is an above average offensive player. To say that he sucks is beyond stupid.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Frankensteiner</b>!
> To say that he sucks is beyond stupid.


People say things out of anger or frustration some times.

Hinrich clearly doesn't suck. He's our best player unless one of Gordon, Curry, Chandler, or Deng develop considerably next season.

In spite of his poor statistical (shooting) showing, the Bulls were playing pretty good with him getting a lot of minutes. I think it's fair to say he's contributed, and significantly, to our improved play.

If a guy like QRich can be a huge contributor to a very impressive team like Phoenix, then I have every reason to believe that Hinrich can be an equal contributor. Shooting-wise, they're not all that different, statistically, though QRich takes way more 3 pointers.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

Kirk's a good player and, like DaBullz said, probably our best right now. He's shooting a low % and, while I'm surprised about that, it's not totally his fault. Put a little blame on Skiles for practically begging him to shoot more. Remember before the season when he kept harping on him to be more aggressive and take more shots? He put it in his head that he needs to. Now, he is and he's not shooting a good %.

Kirk's a very good spot-up shooter. If he keeps off-the-dribble shots down to a minimum, his percentage will go up. I also don't like his Pippen-esque threes on fast breaks because he rarely makes them.

Regardless, he brings it on defense every night and is a good PG overall. He's just trying to do too much.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Kirk will be just fine. He is going through a slump and is a little worn out being asked to guard taller and more atheletic players every night. But, after all star break he should be ready to go again. This team DOES really need a solid defensive 2 guard though.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

The fact that someone starts a thread called "Hinrich Sucks" makes it difficult for me to ever take anything he has to say seriously ever again. If you're going to base this assertion on his shooting percentage only or scoring, that shows how little you understand about the game of basketball and all of the things that go into being a good all around player. :sigh:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Kirk Hinrich isn't our best player. I would have to say Luol Deng is our best player. He plays great defense, and is a very efficient offensive player. I don't know why the Bulls don't go to him more often.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> Kirk Hinrich isn't our best player. I would have to say Luol Deng is our best player. He plays great defense, and is a very efficient offensive player. I don't know why the Bulls don't go to him more often.


More self proclaimed nonsense to keep your thread alive and well? 

You've already admitted that was the point of your _insightful_ title, I'm guessing this analysis is just more of the same.


----------



## Killuminati (Jul 30, 2002)

:sigh: 

So quick to jump of Kirk's back. It isn't his fault that no else (outside of Ben) can create their own shot. Often I see the other players just standing around waiting for Kirk to do something. Ideally I'd like to see the offense run through Curry, but until he learns how to pass (effectively!) out of double-team, it's Hinrich's and BG's job to spark the offense.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The quintessential Bulls board thread over the last seven years. Our team isn't very good, and therefore our best player must not be very good.

Uh, no. He's good, there's just not enough of him to go around. Most every player has bad games and bad stretches. On teams with too few good players, having your best guy have a bad game generally means a loss. 

It's not rocket science.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> The quintessential Bulls board thread over the last seven years. Our team isn't very good, and therefore our best player must not be very good.
> 
> Uh, no. He's good, there's just not enough of him to go around. Most every player has bad games and bad stretches. On teams with too few good players, having your best guy have a bad game generally means a loss.
> ...


Exactly. :grinning: 

But, what if it was rocket science? 

Is Captain Kirk good enough to beam us up to the next level?

Will the Bulls be crying foul?

Will Knick Bavetta swallow his whistle?

Does Knick have something stuck in his nose and he can't get it out? :laugh:


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

LOL @ this ghey thread. j00 sux0rs


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Honestly, I think Kirk gets a lot of benefit of a doubt from Skiles. Had Jamal been shooting like he had, he would have been benched, we would lose, and these characteristics that he supposedly has would've been blamed.

This all reminds me of when I used to play NHL 96 and always left my favorite players in, no matter how good other players were doing just so they specifically could meet my quota of goals.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I already said earlier in the thread he doesn't suck.

It is disturbing that one of the worst percentage shooters in the league shoots the most shots per a game on your team.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> Honestly, I think Kirk gets a lot of benefit of a doubt from Skiles.


That's because outside of scoring (at an almost identical FG%), Crawford doesn't do jack compared to Hinrich. Defense, rebounding, distribution, leadership, etc...

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140281&forumid=27



> Had Jamal been shooting like he had, he would have been benched, we would lose, and these characteristics that he supposedly has would've been blamed.


Apples to oranges.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

The thing that infuriates me seemingly every saturday night (the only night I am certain to see a bulls game live), is not so much his poor shooting %, but rather his shot selection. Lately, I've found that he can be counted on for at least 3 ill-advised shots a game, which at roughly 20-22% of his total average, represents far too many bad decisions for a guy who both leads our team in FG attemps, and is among the worst in FG%.

Our "floor general" (no disrespect to Duhon...but all of the "Hinrich does so much more crowd" love to tout his other attributes), should be headier than that. The miami game was one infuriating example, as I watched KH, run down the court with the ball force a 3pt fga with nobody under the basket, and his teammates WAAAYYY out of position, and then FAIL to get back to cover his defender, who sprinted down the court right past him for the outlet from the long rebound from KH's BRICK.

Lately, I count on at least 2 of these types of "episodes" per game from our man captain kirk. And often times, its in critical situations when it occurs (like when we are trying to prevent a run by the other team)....

His shot selection has been far worse than his FG% IMHO.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> That's because outside of scoring (at an almost identical FG%), Crawford doesn't do jack compared to Hinrich. Defense, rebounding, distribution, leadership, etc...


Defense and leadership --- some very pretty subjective categories. I think if you start to use all that, it says more about the poster than it does about the actual player.

Anyways, would you not agree that you would have a lot more confidence in yourself and what you'd do if your coach left you in despite your bad games ?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> I already said earlier in the thread he doesn't suck.
> 
> It is disturbing that one of the worst percentage shooters in the league shoots the most shots per a game on your team.


Kobe only hits 40.6% of his field goals.

McGrady only hits 42.3% of his FGs playing alongside a 7'5" All-Star.

Iverson hits 41.2% of his shots (and an abysmal 28.7% from deep).

Steve Francis hits 42.3% of his shots (and an even more abysmal 28.2% from deep).

Billups hits only 41.4% of his shots.

Apparently the whole league is pretty disturbing.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Kobe only hits 40.6% of his field goals.
> ...


What do all these guys have in common? They have a team that goes through them first and not the bigmen. That is why Eddy Curry is so important to the Bulls. He is the factor that will make this team the championship team or the 8th seed. If Curry can run the offense through him, and cut down the turnovers some, the Bulls are a dangerous team. He already has proven he can score in the post, and pass out of a double team. So once he controls the ball better, that is when the Bulls start moving up in the elite in the league. Kobe's field goal percentage was up to mid 40's with Shaq. If he had better shot selection, he could easily have been a 60% shooter with Shaq. More proof that making Curry the man the offense goes through in the half court, will help everyone including Kirk's field goal percentage go up.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> 
> Defense and leadership --- some very pretty subjective categories.


I think if you polled 100 NBA coaches and execs, you'd get 100 who'd state without much hesitation that Hinrich is the better defender and leader of the two. How you can excuse such glaring facets of each player's games as "subjective" is more than a little mindboggling.



> I think if you start to use all that, it says more about the poster than it does about the actual player.


Um...no comment.



> Anyways, would you not agree that you would have a lot more confidence in yourself and what you'd do if your coach left you in despite your bad games ?


Depends on if you needed to be told everything was okay and reinforced constantly with lures of PT, or if you were good enough to play through your bad games and help the team win in other ways besides scoring. This isn't junior league tee-ball.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> 
> 
> What do all these guys have in common?


Nothing extraordinarily correlative or revolutionary (except for the fact that one of them was the MVP of last season's national champions -- as the first/second option on offense, shooting 39.4% from the field).


----------

