# Just how badly does Pax overrate Hinrich?



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

Let me start off by saying this is not a thread bashing Hinrich and I'm definitely not blaming our record on him. I'm merely curious as to how much Pax overrates him as a player. I think it's pretty clear, based on his past comments, that his love for the golden child is sometimes over-the-top. I have yet to hear Pax talk about any player in nearly the same light as he does with Hinrich, which is somewhat disturbing, considering he really hasn't shown he's anything more than a good PG. Does he look like he'll ever be an all-star? Not to me, which is fine, but I digress for sake of this thread. Granted, Pax isn't the only one who has unfairly annointed Kirk as the chosen one; the convolution seems to have carried over to a good portion of the fan-base as well.

I think a good way to measure this is by finding out what players, and more specifically PGs, he would trade him for straight-up. I don't want to take salary into account here. Let's pretend that doesn't matter. The reason being that I want to keep the emphasis on Hinrich's talent being overrated, without regards to him being younger and cheaper than most others. Here's what I've come up with:

PGs Pax *WOULD* trade Hinrich for:

*Steve Nash
Dwyane Wade*

PGs Pax *SHOULD* obvoiusly trade Hinrich for, but I seriously question whether he actually would:

*Gilbert Arenas
Mike Bibby
Chauncey Billups
Baron Davis
Steve Francis
Allen Iverson
Jason Kidd*

PGs that I'd trade Hinrich for, but are pretty much a toss-up and I wouldn't be too upset if Pax wouldn't:

*Carlos Arroyo
Bobby Jackson
Marko Jaric
Stephon Marbury
Jeff McInnis
Andre Miller
Tony Parker
Jason Terry
Jamaal Tinsley
Jason Williams*

Maybe I'm overrating Pax's degree of love for Hinrich, but I really don't think so. If this list is accurate, that really disturbs me. I guess that's my only point. I just don't understand it. Hinrich's good, yes, and I think he can get a little better, but he's nowhere near as good as he's made out to be by his own bosses. It's unfair to him and the fans, because he'll never be able to live up to the expectations. Not to mention, it's annoying, sometimes to the point of being laughable.

Anyone have any thoughts or disagree with anything said here?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Take this for what it's worth.....*

I just got my Pro Basketball Forecast book by Hollinger. He is probably the premier numbers guy for the NBA.

Kirk was the 36th ranked PG by his effectiviness score.

He didn't show up as too effective on D by Hollinger's analysis. I still need to figure out how his is calculating that.

The NBA player that he is most similar to in the past at the same age is Khalid Reeves.  

key stat - Kirk only shot 44% when close to the basket which is quite low.

"the projections aren't exactly brimming with optimism about Hinrich's offensive development. Right now they're saying Hinrich's inability to finish shots in the paint is going to put a lid on his development. There's no shame in being a jump shooter who plays good defense, but the Bulls are hoping for more from him".

Hollinger says elsewhere that he sees Hinrich as the 3rd guard in the future and Gordon as the starting PG.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

I agree that Pax's and Skiles' unceasing glorification of Hinrich is unfair to him, and to his teammates, and to the fans. But it is especially unfair to Kirk. 

They are putting a lot of pressure on him. 

I don't really see any merit, however, in speculating on who Pax may or may not trade him for. That's just making stuff up.

I sure do envy Kirk's agent though. That contract is going to be the easiest negotiation he ever does.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Take this for what it's worth.....*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> key stat - Kirk only shot 44% when close to the basket which is quite low.


82games.com shows that Kirk has not improved in this thus far this year.

And Gordon is even worse. Much, much worse. 22% shooting inside.

Both of these guys need to get much better in this regard.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I agree that Hinrich is somewhat overrated by his bosses and fans, but I can understand why. Many people believe that the NBA isn't what it used to be. It seems like most players in this league all have personal agendas and want to be "the man". They rarely sacrifice themselves for the team, they don't bring old-school fundamentals, they slack on defense, and they want to heave up as many shots as they can to lead the league in scoring (funny, I think I just described Jamal Crawford, lol, j/k). Kirk Hinrich is the exact opposite of this. He isn't the most physically gifted guy in the world, but he is incredibly well-schooled in the game's fundamentals, he has always been a guy who plays within his team's system, he's unselfish with the ball, and he could care less about the stats he puts up. His natural instincts on the court are to contribute to his team's cause by getting all 5 players involved and shooting only when he feels is appropriate. Those are rare things in the NBA, and Kirk's supporters believe that this makes him more valuable than other point guards who have more "natural talent". 

In terms of effectiveness, I think Kirk is most equal to a guy like Mike Bibby. I think if you put Bibby in Kirk's role with the Bulls, and Kirk in Bibby's role with the Kings, you won't really see much of a difference for either team (Bibby's solid, but he's no #1 option, or even a #2 option for that matter; recall his years with the Grizzlies...very similar to Kirk's numbers with the Bulls). 

Obviously, Paxson would take Nash and Wade over Hinrich any day of the week, as you say. But with some of those other guys, I think Paxson wouldn't hesitate to take either; most notably, he would surely take Iverson, Billups, Francis, a healthy Jason Kidd, or a healthy Baron Davis over Hinrich (although knowing Davis and Kidd are pretty messed up physically, I wouldn't trade much of anything for them right now). I'm indifferent to Bibby as I mentioned, and Arenas strikes me as one of those me-first type of players, so I think I'd take Kirk over him as well. Except for Marbury, most of that bottom list doesn't interest me. Hinrich is every bit as good as all those guys, if not better (most of them are pretty much on-par with Hinrich though). But maybe I'm just another one of those guys who overrates Kirk Hinrich as well.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Take this for what it's worth.....*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> I just got my Pro Basketball Forecast book by Hollinger. He is probably the premier numbers guy for the NBA.
> 
> Kirk was the 36th ranked PG by his effectiviness score.
> ...


Hollinger is the man, and I will be picking up his book shortly 

He was spot on last season about breakout players, and has been pretty good good thus far. Bender has been hurt all year and Tyson is a mixed bag. But the rest of the list is breaking out this season for sure....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/john_hollinger/10/23/all.breakout/index.html

10. Drew Gooden
9. Brendan Haywood
8. Michael Sweetney
7. Jamaal Tinsley
6. Al Harrington
5. Chris Bosh
4. Dan Gadzuric
3. Larry Hughes
2. Tyson Chandler
1. Jonathan Bender


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Don't mean to start a riot over here...

<b>But has Hinrich shown that he can consistently break down opponents off the dribble?</b> I'm not talking the catch/pump fake/drive variety (which Kirk seems to do well) but rather the shot clock is winding down you twist your defender/create separation/dish to teammate kind of stuff.

Breaking down the defense should be priority #1 offensively of a team's PG. Duhon does it quite well, though by being more crafty than fast. I'm convinced Gordon can get by any PG in the league with ease, but his passing leaves a little to be desired.

Is Gordon the better long term fit at PG?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Don't mean to start a riot over here...
> 
> <b>But has Hinrich shown that he can consistently break down opponents off the dribble?</b> I'm not talking the catch/pump fake/drive variety (which Kirk seems to do well) but rather the shot clock is winding down you twist your defender/create separation/dish to teammate kind of stuff.
> ...


I think Gordon is the better long term fit.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

If "winning" a trade is based in large part on taking advantage of a perception of a player's ability vs. his ability to actually produce, Hollinger's numbers suggest that Hinrich is the guy we should be falling all over ourselves to deal, not Chandler or Curry.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> If "winning" a trade is based in large part on taking advantage of a perception of a player's ability vs. his ability to actually produce, Hollinger's numbers suggest that Hinrich is the guy we should be falling all over ourselves to deal, not Chandler or Curry.


The day of the draft, I suggested we trade Curry and Hinrich as a package. We could have gotten more for the two then than we can now, obviously.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Don't mean to start a riot over here...
> 
> <b>But has Hinrich shown that he can consistently break down opponents off the dribble?</b> I'm not talking the catch/pump fake/drive variety (which Kirk seems to do well) but rather the shot clock is winding down you twist your defender/create separation/dish to teammate kind of stuff.
> ...


He absolutely has not shown the ability to do that, nor is he good going around screens and getting into the lane. He looks like he's running with ankle weights on sometimes. This is a big problem for me. Ben is much better at that, specifically, but I'm not sure that necessarily makes him the better long-term fit at PG. I'd still rather have a PG play next to him so he can concentrate more on scoring.

Speaking of getting slammed, I may be slammed for this, but I think our best lineup would include Duhon and Gordon in the backcourt. As you said, Duhon is much better at breaking down his defender, getting into the lane and either getting a layup for himself or an open shot for someone else.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I've never seen a player that has done nothing to deserve it so hated by the "fans" of his team. 

If Hinrich gets moved, this team regrets it in the long run.

No different than Brand, Miller, or probably Jamal.

I'm not talking about the statistics on this occasion. I'm talking about the continued attitude exhibited toward the guy on this board.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> I've never seen a player that has done nothing to deserve it so hated by the "fans" of his team.
> 
> If Hinrich gets moved, this team regrets it in the long run.
> ...


Hate? Is anyone in this thread hating on Hinrich? If anything, Hinrich gets free love from most fans without doing anything to really deserve it. People love Kirk, outside of a small collection of fans here on the boards. Aren't we just being realistic, as opposed to the fantasy world Pax and some Kirk-lovers live in? He's good, man, but he's nothing more than that.

It's easy to say "you'll regret trading him in the long run" without giving reasons why. I'm not even saying we need to trade him, because we don't, but if the opportunity presents itself, he's nothing near untouchable. He's not that good. The evidence is there.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> I've never seen a player that has done nothing to deserve it so hated by the "fans" of his team.
> 
> If Hinrich gets moved, this team regrets it in the long run.
> ...


I want the TEAM to do well. 

The perception of Kirk -- his press clippings and how coaches and media around the league feel about him -- clearly far outstrips his actual contributions on the court. Why not take advantage of that and for once get back more talent in a trade than we give up?

That's all I'm saying. No vendetta here.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> 
> Hate? Is anyone in this thread hating on Hinrich?
> ...


See it now?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> See it now?


Just confirming -- 36th best point guard in the league and a Khalid Reeves career trajectory is, to you, good?

If my inference is wrong, please feel free to elucidate, and I thank you in advance for not resorting to the threadbare "oh, those darn statistics aren't worth a damn" response.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

This thread is just another of the many back door ways to bash paxson and hinrich. If JC was a pg i would have to read all about his great potential. hinrich is a talent PG, good shot, but needs to improve his finishing around the basket. Since he appears to be a hard worker i would think he will improve on these things. unlike players that think looking good and dribbling between their legs, not improving each year, and play awful D.

Hinrich is a long term solution to our PG position. If we had more players with hinrich's tude and work practices this team would be a lot better off. I say to all stop being a self hating bulls fan

david


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> Let me start off by saying this is not a thread bashing Hinrich and I'm definitely not blaming our record on him.





> He's not that good. The evidence is there.



oh. ok. 

:no: 

...and i am perplexed at the idea of a super-duper teeny tiny backcourt of duhon/gordon after all we heard ALL SUMMER LONG, was how our "midget" backcourt would surely fail. this would be better how? duhon's 3.7 ppg will surely carry us to the promised land. 

but what the heck. let's just trade hinrich straight up for, oh, say, carlos arroyo and then sit back and see how they each do respectively for their new teams.

advantage: jazz

call it a "gut feeling".


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The day of the draft, I suggested we trade Curry and Hinrich as a package. We could have gotten more for the two then than we can now, obviously.


How do you figure? If you base it on numbers and quantitative production, Curry and Hinrich are every bit as valuable as they were during the summer. Maybe not MORE valuable, but certainly not less valuable IMO.

EDIT: Just wanted to add...

I'm not totally opposed to trading Hinrich, but I will say that he's probably the ONLY guy on this team who can be considered a "glue guy", meaning he's a player who prevents his team from falling apart. I only give up Kirk if we get another youthful "glue guy" in return. There really aren't many of those around.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> See it now?


Actually, no. Though I do see how your misconstruing my saying he's not as good as some people say he is with me hating him. Way to go. :|


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> I want the TEAM to do well.


The teams current performance has nothing to do with any strengths or weaknesses of KH.



> The perception of Kirk -- his press clippings and how coaches and media around the league feel about him -- clearly far outstrips his actual contributions on the court.


Well...we sit back and crunch numbers...the coaches and the media go into practice and sit by the courtside and watch with their own eyes

I was in Dallas yesterday, and took the time to listen to Parcells press conference. What a great coach.

Some of the things he said touch all sports. He said when game time comes...it's all about winning and losing. Some owners, media and people watching tv want to see the flashy plays, and he likes that too...they want to see what they have in other players...but he's a bad coach if he has to do that because he should know it already...that the most important people on his staff are his trainers...because they tell him after taping the players up what kind of mood and attitude the players are in and what he'll get out of them that day. The great ones are the same every Sunday...

He said it's great to have a real talent, but it's useless for winning if the spirit an athlete brings to the field is wrong.. The stuff that fans can't see from the stands. He said everyone is raving about Julius Jones running, but no one is talking about he locked up when it came time to block for the QB, instead of attacking the defender, or how he never got his feet right when receiving to maximize his YAC. How he takes the first hole that opens instead of seeing a second, better one thats developing. A player who wants to maximize his talent and be great will be talking about those things with the coach and teammates after the game...not celebrating making plans for a big post-game party.

He made the point that fans tired of losing always want to see something different. Always. Something to distract and entertain them. Then they get tired of losing and that thing that was different and want something else. It becomes a cycle. He's not playing into it. He knows his players, and what they can do, and where they can go with them. 

This (the Bulls) is a bad team. It's the worst situation to measure a player like KH, who is a supporting player and not a star, on. But those league coaches, and the media, and the organization have a measure of his spirit, and have also seen enough to really know him, what he can do, and where they can go with him.

*I'd suggest that all of them know very well the numbers being batted around in this thread.* I'd suggest that they consider his circumstances and also what they've seen with their eyes as more than balancing it all out.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Just how badly does Pax overrate Hinrich?*



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


You're clearly being over the top in your response. Nice.  

So, you're saying the evidence of him "not being that good" _isn't_ there? You're missing something, because the evidence is all over this thread and all over the tv screen when I watch him play.

And yes, I would trade Hinrich for Arroyo right now, straight-up and take my chances, but like I said, it's a toss-up between them in my mind.


----------



## p_s (Jul 21, 2004)

I agree that Kirk is overrated, too. I love his heart and his passion, however, there are things that he doesn't do well that you would want your point gaurd to do. As for the Bulls being the worst situation to measure Kirk -- that's true, too. But I don't think that going to another team would make Kirk better at breaking down defenders -- nor would it make him better against quicker, more agile gaurds. Kirk is good. But good point gaurds, as illustrated by the previous list, are not a rarity. Any given year, there are journeyman point gaurds that help lead good teams in the playoffs. There are only a handful of special point gaurds and Kirk doesn't, and I think will ever, fit into that category.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> The teams current performance has nothing to do with any strengths or weaknesses of KH.
> ...


Excellent post. My compliments to you and the Tuna.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> See it now?


It's not that hard. Just read the quote _in it's context_. 


> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> ...he's nothing near untouchable. He's not that good.


Saying "he's not that good" means _he's not good enough to be untouchable_. Mmmm, strong hate indeed. :| 

It's my turn to take quotes out of context now...



> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> i am ... a super-duper teeny tiny ... "midget"


(No offense miz, just for laughs and making a point... )


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> Jamal is good, yes, and I think he can get a little better, but he's nowhere near as good as he's made out to be by his own fans. It's unfair to him and the owners, because he'll never be able to live up to the expectations. Not to mention, it's annoying, sometimes to the point of being laughable.
> 
> Anyone have any thoughts or disagree with anything said here?





> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> Chandler is good, yes, and I think he can get a little better, but he's nowhere near as good as he's made out to be by his own bosses. It's unfair to him and the fans, because he'll never be able to live up to the expectations. Not to mention, it's annoying, sometimes to the point of being laughable.
> 
> Anyone have any thoughts or disagree with anything said here?





> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> Curry is good, yes, and I think he can get better, but he's nowhere near as good as he was made out to be by his own bosses. It's unfair to him and the fans, because he'll never be able to live up to the expectations. Not to mention, it's annoying, sometimes to the point of being laughable.
> 
> Anyone have any thoughts or disagree with anything said here?





> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> Stats are good, yes, but nowhere near as good as they're made out to be by Bulls fans. It's unfair to the players...not to mention, it's annoying, sometimes to the point of being laughable.
> 
> Anyone have any thoughts or disagree with anything said here?


----------



## Ice Nine (Apr 3, 2004)

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Could anyone on the current roster crack the #9 slot on the 95-96 squad?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> I want the TEAM to do well.
> ...


Bingo.

I'm tired of us being the suckers in all the trades.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Just how badly does Pax overrate Hinrich?*



> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, I would trade Hinrich for Arroyo right now, straight-up and take my chances, but like I said, it's a toss-up between them in my mind.


I don't know, PC. Arroyo is playing some pretty crummy ball right now. He didn't do squat against the Bulls, except for hitting the off-balance 3 near the end of the game. I was very impressed with his Olympic play, but I think Kirk is the more reliable player.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yodurk</b>!
> 
> 
> How do you figure? If you base it on numbers and quantitative production, Curry and Hinrich are every bit as valuable as they were during the summer. Maybe not MORE valuable, but certainly not less valuable IMO.
> ...


How do I figure?

1) We have a #3 draft pick to play point to replace the #7 draft pick we'd be trading away.

2) If you have two capable guys to play the position, trade away the one who's perceived to be the better of the two. You get back more in trade that way.

3) The hype of Curry finally being in shape, etc., is worn off. The proof is in the pudding. What little trade value he might have had in the offseason is LESS now.

4) Hinrich is the PG leading his team to a 1-10 record. He's shooting 38% and 34% 3Pt. His scoring is up 1.9 PPG over last season. His assists are up .7 per game. His career is now paralleling that of Jamal Tinsley. In the offseason, he was a guy who had a pretty good rookie season with some upside. The upside isn't showing. Therefore his value is less now than it was.

5) Getting guys like Curry and Hinrich going into training camp is worth more to a team than getting them from a 1-10 (and counting the losses) team in mid-season.

My reasoning for trading the two at the time of the draft is that it was obvious we needed a PF and an SG. We might have been able to package the two for what we needed. We were also looking at no pick next season, though that's changed (see our record).

I'm comfortable with Chandler at C and AD as his backup. I'm comfortable with Gordon at PG.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 4) Hinrich is the PG leading his team to a 1-10 record. He's shooting 38% and 34% 3Pt. His scoring is up 1.9 PPG over last season. His assists are up .7 per game.


Unfair.

He was passing to Mr. Wonderful last season...and he's now playing with a bunch of rookies...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

for the record. i am 5'12". and nater, that is mizenkay to you.

i take kirk over carlos but that is just me.

i am not comfy with gordon at PG at this point. 

yeah, kirk is overrated. so what. he's a good player. his play last year proved that. 

bulls fans are a tough crowd to please.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Last season, I remember Paxson or Skiles saying Hinrich was the Bulls' best player. At the time it was said, it was hard to argue with...not much competition for the honor. Other people (writers?) named him to the all-rookie team last season. Paxson may have said that the honor was well-deserved, which would be expected.

I haven't heard Paxson say much about Hinrich lately, but based on playing time, it would appear that Skiles thinks Hinrich is one of his best players.

I may have missed it, but I haven't heard Paxson say that he believes Hinrich is a great player, deserves all star consideration or that he's untradeable. I'm not even sure that he named Hinrich as one of the "cornerstones of the franchise," though again, I may have missed it.

How much does Paxson overrate Hinrich? I'm not sure he does at all.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> Last season, I remember Paxson or Skiles saying Hinrich was the Bulls' best player. At the time it was said, it was hard to argue with...not much competition for the honor. Other people (writers?) named him to the all-rookie team last season. Paxson may have said that the honor was well-deserved, which would be expected.
> 
> I haven't heard Paxson say much about Hinrich lately, but based on playing time, it would appear that Skiles thinks Hinrich is one of his best players.
> ...


I must say I agree with you. I don't remember any direct quotes from Paxson saying this, though I too could have missed it. It's easy for us as fans to read far too deep into a couple of quoted lines, and to speculate quite a bit from that. I think that's where many people get their information from on this board. Not that it's a bad thing though. It creates friendly debates.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> Last season, I remember Paxson or Skiles saying Hinrich was the Bulls' best player. At the time it was said, it was hard to argue with...not much competition for the honor. Other people (writers?) named him to the all-rookie team last season. Paxson may have said that the honor was well-deserved, which would be expected.
> 
> I haven't heard Paxson say much about Hinrich lately, but based on playing time, it would appear that Skiles thinks Hinrich is one of his best players.
> ...


Yep. This was the first thing I thought when reading this thread. We've got plenty of quotes of Skiles heaping on the praise for Kirk, but not nearly as much from Pax. We certainly don't have enough to create a hierarchy of players that Pax would/would not trade Kirk for.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> The perception of Kirk -- his press clippings and how coaches and media around the league feel about him -- clearly far outstrips his actual contributions on the court. Why not take advantage of that


Maybe there is a reason coaches around the league like this kid? What do you know that they don't? You're pinning your opinion higher than the opinion of an NBA coach and NBA management, which is fine, but it seems as though you don't realize that you're clearly out on a limb with that opinion. Its extremely rare for coaches and general managers around the league to almost unanimously overrate a player, so "taking advantage" of these teams (coaches and management) that all "overrate" Hinrich really isn't possible, because the chance that they are overrating him and are all wrong is extremely slim. 

But as always, the grass is greener on the other side of the fence with some Bulls fans here. I understand the pain of losing all too well, but I don't think some of you go about it in the right way.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe there is a reason coaches around the league like this kid? What do you know that they don't? You're pinning your opinion higher than the opinion of an NBA coach and NBA management, which is fine, but it seems as though you don't realize that you're clearly out on a limb with that opinion. Its extremely rare for coaches and general managers around the league to almost unanimously overrate a player, so "taking advantage" of these teams (coaches and management) that all "overrate" Hinrich really isn't possible, because the chance that they are overrating him and are all wrong is extremely slim.
> ...


Johnny Mac,

Excellent post, but it really belongs in a new thread:

"How badly do most of the people who make fairly serious money judging NBA talent overrate Hinrich?"


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Valid points all the way areound. 

Dabullz I am tired of getting the short end of trades too. 

GB, nice post! Now your suspended. LOL, j/k

It has been only 11 games. He has a 34 pt game and a 32 pt game in exhibition. Kirk in the long run will be a good fit. However, should we package Hinrich and Curry and get a real good player, all-star maybe, then we have to consider it. But I don't see that happening.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny the grass is greener on the other side of the fence with some Bulls fans here.


Green isn't the color I think of when I think of Duhon and Gordon starting together...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe there is a reason coaches around the league like this kid? What do you know that they don't? You're pinning your opinion higher than the opinion of an NBA coach and NBA management, which is fine, but it seems as though you don't realize that you're clearly out on a limb with that opinion. Its extremely rare for coaches and general managers around the league to almost unanimously overrate a player, so "taking advantage" of these teams (coaches and management) that all "overrate" Hinrich really isn't possible, because the chance that they are overrating him and are all wrong is extremely slim.
> ...


The guy who I think happens to be the smartest person writing on a regular basis about the NBA, a guy who has taken an extremely rigorous, academic approach to using statistics to evaluate basketball players the same way Bill James (Billy Beane, Theo Epstein, etc.) did for baseball, rates Kirk Hinrich as the 36th best point guard in the league and estimates his career trajectory will equal Khalid Reeves's. Those are pretty damning numbers that powerfully suggest we are putting a lot of eggs in a very shaky basket.

GMs overrate players and just generally screw up all the time. You only need to look at second-round players like Boozer, Arenas, and Redd to realize that--to say nothing of the practically innumerable first rounders who were drafted way higher or lower than they ought to have been.

PC Load's original point was a simple one, and he predicted it would of course inflame the knee-jerk "Hinrich ist Gott" camp: the numbers simply do not support what appears to be management's placing of an "untouchable" tag on Kirk. 

You seem to want to look down your nose at me because you think I'm claiming to know more than 29 GMs. Am I allowed to find your blithe dismissal of hard statistical evidence flat-out ignorant?

Again, if Kirk's appeal is greater than his actual production, shouldn't we take advantage of that gap and consider trading him for a better player? That's all anyone's saying.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> GB, nice post! Now your suspended. LOL, j/k


Thats not funny. I actually had a physical reaction to that before I saw the j/k. 



> It has been only 11 games. He has a 34 pt game and a 32 pt game in exhibition. Kirk in the long run will be a good fit.


Palabra.




> However, should we package Hinrich and Curry and get a real good player, all-star maybe, then we have to consider it. But I don't see that happening.


Like who? Antonio Davis was an all-star. Elton Brand too.

Or are we talking Carmelo type talent? 

I'd trade everyone on the team but Hinrich or Gordon (other teams choice) for LeBron or Amare type talent.

Thats the kind of fresh start I'm dreaming about.

It would funny to see Amares reaction though when Skiles finds a reason to bench him and Paxson comes out and says he supports it.  :laugh:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> I'd trade everyone on the team but Hinrich or Gordon (other teams choice) for LeBron or Amare type talent.
> 
> Thats the kind of fresh start I'm dreaming about.


You would seriously turn down a deal for a LeBron-type player if the trading team asked for Gordon AND Hinrich?

Wow.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats not funny. I actually had a physical reaction to that before I saw the j/k.
> ...


sorry I scared you. Just playing. You do that when you say.."see you in five days."

just who? As ScottMay said a leron type of player. Though I do not us getting James. They do not need a pg or a center. But in speculatiion should a team offer a dynamic player we would have to consider it.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> sorry I scared you. Just playing. You do that when you say.."see you in five days."
> ...


leron who? :laugh: J/k


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> The guy who I think happens to be the smartest person writing on a regular basis about the NBA, a guy who has taken an extremely rigorous, academic approach to using statistics


Statistics are 1/3 of the measurement.

By my statistics, you're ignoring 66% of whats important in judging a player because a statistically pure sample of NBA history proves that 100% of what the numbers tell us is only 33% of what determines whether a player is in the 75th percentile or higher. Furthurmore, we at most average witness about 264 hours of a players performance season to season (including pre-season games) while 100% of the coaches and assistent coaches experience significantly higher incidences of contact with said subjects, probably, within a statistically signicant margin or error, permitting them to develop judgements based on data unavailable to nearly 100% of the posters posting here. Because compensation for said optical judgements _in addition_ to consideration of said statistics is largely greater than compensation for posting statistics on an internet message board (in excess of 1 billion percent in many cases) it may be assumed that those actually benefitting from said analysis (OWNERS) find more value in former than in the latter. This renders the value of of said statistical postings near .000000000000000000001% in relation to all statistical analysis done. For reasons for practicality, we may consider this, in the real world, as worthless.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> You would seriously turn down a deal for a LeBron-type player if the trading team asked for Gordon AND Hinrich?
> ...


Not if they'd let me keep Luol, or sent me a semi-competent PG in return.

Tyson, Curry, Hinrich, Luol, Gordon, Nocioni, AD, Othella and others for LeBron?

Who would he play with? It's practical...not a thing of value. We don't have a draft pick this season.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> sorry I scared you. Just playing. You do that when you say.."see you in five days."


Don't sweat it...it was funny.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> The guy who I think happens to be the smartest person writing on a regular basis about the NBA, a guy who has taken an extremely rigorous, academic approach to using statistics to evaluate basketball players the same way Bill James (Billy Beane, Theo Epstein, etc.) did for baseball, rates Kirk Hinrich as the 36th best point guard in the league and estimates his career trajectory will equal Khalid Reeves's. Those are pretty damning numbers that powerfully suggest we are putting a lot of eggs in a very shaky basket.


Hollinger's list of PGs is on-line as well as in the book.

http://www.alleyoop.com/prates/pg04.htm

His book makes for great reading. Far, far beyond what is posted on his site.

p.s. Our very own, Dan R, gets mentioned in the book.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> The guy who I think happens to be the smartest person writing on a regular basis about the NBA, a guy who has taken an extremely rigorous, academic approach to using statistics to evaluate basketball players the same way Bill James (Billy Beane, Theo Epstein, etc.) did for baseball, rates Kirk Hinrich as the 36th best point guard in the league and estimates his career trajectory will equal Khalid Reeves's. Those are pretty damning numbers that powerfully suggest we are putting a lot of eggs in a very shaky basket.


Can I get a link? 



> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> GMs overrate players and just generally screw up all the time. You only need to look at second-round players like Boozer, Arenas, and Redd to realize that--to say nothing of the practically innumerable first rounders who were drafted way higher or lower than they ought to have been.


Compare the top 10 of any draft, to the top 20, and the top 20 to the top 30, etc. Tell me that they don't draft very accurate. Thats also the pick of one general manager, not almost all of them. If every general manager sat down and figured out an order in which to draft players, it would be much much more accurate. Thats where the unanimous part comes in. Then you have to factor in the fact that general managers have to judge how players will transition, which explains guys like Boozer getting picked so low. General managers have seen Hinrich play extended time against NBA competition, and the majority of them like what they see. 

By the way, Redd is an unfair example because he improved after he was drafted, he wasn't that good of a shooter in college. 



> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> PC Load's original point was a simple one, and he predicted it would of course inflame the knee-jerk "Hinrich ist Gott" camp: the numbers simply do not support what appears to be management's placing of an "untouchable" tag on Kirk.


There are about 5 players in the league who are really untouchable. Everyone else can be had, including Hinrich. That doesn't mean that we should go out of our way to shop Hinrich, thats where everyone is confused. The Celtics would let go of Pierce if the Cavs offered Lebron James, but that doesn't mean they are actively shopping Pierce around. 

Hinrich is a keeper, we shouldn't be shopping him. If another teams offers something greater in return, thats when you take it. Otherwise there is no reason to be shopping him. 



> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> You seem to want to look down your nose at me because you think I'm claiming to know more than 29 GMs. Am I allowed to find your blithe dismissal of hard statistical evidence flat-out ignorant?


You can do what you want, I don't care. I just found it akward that you aren't hesitant about dismissing the opinion of several general managers and coaches, but you are quick to accept the statistical proof that says he is on the same track to being a Khalid Reeves. It seems like you are just digging for reasons to trade him, why I don't know. 



> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> Again, if Kirk's appeal is greater than his actual production, shouldn't we take advantage of that gap and consider trading him for a better player? That's all anyone's saying.


If Kirks appeal is greater than his ability, then we should be open to trading him, but that goes completely without saying. The question is, is his appeal greater than his ability and potential? The answer is no, most likely, since its rare for general managers to be wrong when they are unanimous about a player.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> There are about 5 players in the league who are really untouchable. Everyone else can be had, including Hinrich. That doesn't mean that we should go out of our way to shop Hinrich, thats where everyone is confused. The Celtics would let go of Pierce if the Cavs offered Lebron James, but that doesn't mean they are actively shopping Pierce around.
> 
> Hinrich is a keeper, we shouldn't be shopping him. If another teams offers something greater in return, thats when you take it. Otherwise there is no reason to be shopping him.
> ...


:greatjob:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ahhh. so hinrich was rated 36th best PG in his *rookie season?* 

ok. other rookies were wade @ 12th and ridnour @ 35. this all based on per minute stats.

but hey, this guy is a basketball guru and we shant disagree. 

will be interesting to see where kirk nets out after _this season_.

 

so...good resource. thanks for the link. 

and if we could get a "lebron" type player? trade the whole freakin' team.

and back to the original premise of pax lovin' hinrich beyond all reason: not one time this season when pax has been quoted as saying the bulls don't have a go to guy - did he even mention kirk. now, to me, if he were truly overrating him, he would have said different. 

paxs' thing - and it has been kinda a broken record since the summer - is that eddy and tyson must step up their play. 

but that's a different thread for a different day.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Do you guys see Hinrich going to an All-Star game? 

I mean in a conference that has Arenas, Wade, Redd, Lebron, Marbury, Francis, Pierce in the backcourt still in/or about to reach their primes, I don't see Hinrich being an All-star ever. At least during his best years. 

Now explain to me, why a non-allstar is untradeable? Is it because he's the face of the franchise? If so, this franchise must not be very good, then again this is the Bulls. 

Not say, he can't improve, but his ability to finish at the rim, is not very good at all.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Do you guys see Hinrich going to an All-Star game?
> 
> I mean in a conference that has Arenas, Wade, Redd, Lebron, Marbury, Francis, Pierce in the backcourt still in/or about to reach their primes, I don't see Hinrich being an All-star ever. At least during his best years.


yeah, it's highly unlikely. But Nash didn't become a top-flight player until several years into his career. Some of that was being stuck behind Kidd in Phx, but not all of it. Kirk's not 30 years old - he can and likely will still get better IMO - maybe substantially better.

I don't think anyone is saying Kirk should be untouchable. If Pax comes on the record saying something like that, I'll be joining the Fire Pax club the same day. But I do think the argument is valid that he's our most valuable asset right now and still (sad though it is) our best player, though not by a wide margin. Thus, we better be sure not to deal him away unless it's a slam dunk.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Do you guys see Hinrich going to an All-Star game?
> 
> I mean in a conference that has Arenas, Wade, Redd, Lebron, Marbury, Francis, Pierce in the backcourt still in/or about to reach their primes, I don't see Hinrich being an All-star ever. At least during his best years.
> ...


I'm left with only questions.

Who said Hinrich would be an all star?

Who said Hinrich is untradeable?

Who said this franchise is good?


----------



## synthdogg (Jul 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> Last season, I remember Paxson or Skiles saying Hinrich was the Bulls' best player. At the time it was said, it was hard to argue with...not much competition for the honor. Other people (writers?) named him to the all-rookie team last season. Paxson may have said that the honor was well-deserved, which would be expected.
> 
> I haven't heard Paxson say much about Hinrich lately, but based on playing time, it would appear that Skiles thinks Hinrich is one of his best players.
> ...


Well, to take that a step further...I do recalll Pax saying something about not having a "go-to" player on the roster before the season started....and that would have included Hinrich.


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

Hinrich is an extreme longshot to make the All-Star team, due to the glut of very good guards in the Eastern Conference. He certainly has the ability to make the All-Star team at some point in the next few years, IF he continues to improve his overall game. 

The info below certainly isn't the only stat for measuring how good a player is or isn't, but here are some current efficiency ratings, as found on nba.com...

+ 29.71 LeBron James
+ 27.07 Dwyane Wade
+ 23.46 Stephon Marbury
+ 23.00 Steve Nash
+ 20.83 Chauncey Billups
+ 20.50 Allen Iverson
+ 20.08 Steve Francis
+ 18.29 Tracy McGrady
+ 17.93 Mike Bibby
+ 17.92 Jamaal Tinsley
+ 16.64 Gilbert Arenas
+ 16.50 Rafer Alston
+ 16.13 Marko Jaric
+ 14.81 Chris Bosh

+ 14.73 Kirk Hinrich

+ 14.46 Gary Payton
+ 14.43 Jeff McInnis
+ 14.33 Brevin Knight
+ 14.23 Andre Iguodala
+ 14.00 Carmelo Anthony
+ 13.94 Josh Howard
+ 13.85 Jason Richardson
+ 13.69 Jamal Crawford
+ 13.58 Jarvis Hayes
+ 13.50 Andre Miller
+ 13.09 Luol Deng
+ 13.07 Damon Stoudamire
+ 12.69 Luke Ridnour
+ 12.08 Sam Cassell
+ 12.07 Jalen Rose
+ 11.92 Maurice Williams
+ 11.88 Marquis Daniels
+ 11.67 Tony Parker
+ 11.64 Tyson Chandler
+ 11.60 Chucky Atkins
+ 10.22 Eddy Curry
+ 9.43 Jason Williams
+ 9.33 Carlos Arroyo
+ 8.64 Andres Nocioni
+ 7.31 Devin Harris
+ 6.25 Mickael Pietrus
+ 5.09 Ben Gordon
+ 4.82 Chris Duhon


Interesting that Kirk's rating is HIGHER than Carmelo Anthony's, huh?

Also, his rating is higher than ex-Bulls Crawford and Rose, as well as board faves Tony Parker, Jason Richardson, Mickael Pietrus (whose rating is skewed by his being injured most of the year), and Marquis Daniels, to name a few. I also was surprised to see Devin Harris's rating is so low, especially on a high-powered team like the Mavs.

It is also higher than all of the other primary players on the Bulls.

On the other hand, Kirk's rating is lower than Tinsley's, Alston's and Jaric's.
Which says...what, exactly?


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm left with only questions.
> ...


He never came out and said "Hinrich is untradeable," but it's been implied on more than one occasion. I'm searching far and wide for the exact quote, but there was at least one time in the past year that Pax said something to this effect "There are no untouchables on our roster...but we really like Kirk." That's not coming out directly and saying he is untouchable, but it's definitely implying it. (Again, that's not an exact quote, but it's definitely close and is the essence of what he said. I just asked a friend of mine and he remembers the exact quote I'm talking about, as well.)

On top of that, there have been many other times Paxson/Skiles have implied that Hinrich is certainly a cornerstone of the franchise and you can fairly read into many of those quotes that they think he's an all-star caliber player.

I just want to clarify that the point of this thread is not to suggest we need to trade Kirk or that he's the problem. After all, you don't see me posting trade ideas with Kirk involved. Rather, my purpose was to merely point out that we are not necessarily set at PG with Hinrich as many believe we are. If others on our team, such as Tyson and Eddy, are not good enough to commit to long-term, why does it seem that Kirk is so obviously so? I guess I see one player and some of you see another.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Just how badly does Pax overrate Hinrich?


Not nearly as much as the people on this board, who have said he's better than Tony Parker.

What really sucks is that he's the best player on your team.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Not if they'd let me keep Luol, or sent me a semi-competent PG in return.
> ...


Dude, if you offered your entire squad for LeBron James they'd turn you down, without hesitation.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I would also point out that it's a GM's job to praise his players in quotes to the media. Being critical of players in the media is a bad thing. If anything, heap on the praise, in my book.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>girlygirl</b>!
> Hinrich is an extreme longshot to make the All-Star team, due to the glut of very good guards in the Eastern Conference. He certainly has the ability to make the All-Star team at some point in the next few years, IF he continues to improve his overall game.
> 
> The info below certainly isn't the only stat for measuring how good a player is or isn't, but here are some current efficiency ratings, as found on nba.com...
> ...


These things are always in flux. ABout a week or so ago, for instance, Jamal and Kirk were about the same efficency rating.


----------



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

Kirk is Jamal except that Kirk doesn't quite have the ability to make momentum to carry this team. Even though he can keep us in a lot of games, he never seems able to hit the key shots. That ability to swing momentum is what ultimately separates Jamal from Kirk and what made me think Jamal could actually make some difference here.

That said, I'd like to see what Pax does with his boy by the time his contract is up. If he pays Kirk more than Jamal at Kirk's current production under the guise of "we need a complementary player" and were still not winning and there are no better players, then Pax has OFFICIALLY overrated Kirk because in effect we traded to make room for a lesser version.

But for now, it's just all indications. Fairly strong indications as PC has pointed out.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The 6ft Hurdle</b>!
> That said, I'd like to see what Pax does with his boy by the time his contract is up. If he pays Kirk more than Jamal at Kirk's current production under the guise of "we need a complementary player" and were still not winning and there are no better players, then Pax has OFFICIALLY overrated Kirk because in effect we traded to make room for a lesser version.


Number 1: Reinsdorf has always said that he'd pay top dollar for a winning team. If the team is winning at the same time as KH's contract update comes around...it's a whole different ballgame. You won't be able to compare the situations under which the two negotiations took place. There will also be a new CBA to consider.

Number 2: If it's a winning team, then KH's production will be based on what it takes to make his team a winner...not what he's capable of doing as the primary on a bad team...again, the circumstances underwhich Jamals negotiations took place.

Number 3: If we're still starting seasons 1-10 when KH's contract comes up, I think we'll be looking at cleaning house once again...and it may never come to the negotiations.

Again fellas, statistics are really important, but they can't be used in a vacuum. They have to be applied correctly in the _right context_ and *balanced* with _other non-numerical judgements_.


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

Watching last night's win over the Lakers again shows why the Bulls, at least right now, need Hinrich on the court as much as possible. They were up 6 at the end of the 3rd quarter. The Bulls started the 4th quarter with a backcourt of Duhon and Gordon, and the Lakers promptly went on a run to take a 2-point lead. Out of the timeout, they put Kirk back in the game, and the Bulls outscore the Lakers 18-8 the rest of the way.

Now, obviously, Deng, Gordon and Chandler had a lot to do with that, making key shots and getting big rebounds. But the fact remains, the team operates better when Kirk is out there, as he knows where everyone is supposed to be on the court and, even though he is struggling with his shooting, he is still a much bigger offensive threat than Duhon.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Number 1: Reinsdorf has always said that he'd pay top dollar for a winning team. If the team is winning at the same time as KH's contract update comes around...it's a whole different ballgame. You won't be able to compare the situations under which the two negotiations took place. There will also be a new CBA to consider.
> ...


 

That's what I said.



> If he pays Kirk more than Jamal at Kirk's current production under the guise of "we need a complementary player" and * were still not winning and there are no better players*, then Pax has OFFICIALLY overrated Kirk because in effect we traded to make room for a lesser version.


Let's assume that the regime stays in to continue the flow of the worst 6 years of any franchise in NBA history into 7,8, and 9.

I doubt we'll be starting the next few seasons 1-10, but I will say that once Kirk's contract is up, his situation will probably be ambiguous (or at least made ambiguous by this board). That's only been the standard.

However unlike Jamal, Kirk has more of a chance of getting kept because Pax has gone out of his way to acknowledge him in a way he wouldn't/won't acknowledge any other player other than to tell them that the burden is on them.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>girlygirl</b>!
> Hinrich is an extreme longshot to make the All-Star team, due to the glut of very good guards in the Eastern Conference. He certainly has the ability to make the All-Star team at some point in the next few years, IF he continues to improve his overall game.
> 
> The info below certainly isn't the only stat for measuring how good a player is or isn't, but here are some current efficiency ratings, as found on nba.com...
> ...


Perspective.

So refreshing.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> Who said Hinrich is untradeable?


I hate to bump this thread/harp on this, but here's a quote from the Sun-Times this morning:



> 7. Kirk Hinrich, BULLS
> Scrappy guard already a captain; considered an untouchable.


http://www.suntimes.com/output/sports/cst-spt-wade03.html

Don't read into this. I'm just answering transplant's question. There's clearly many who feel Pax considers Kirk is untouchable, including one of their beat writers.

sidenote: I wonder if Lacy went to the boards in the last couple days. Hmmm...


----------

