# Can Hinrich improve to match Jamal?



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Career FG%
Hinrich: 39.0%
Crawford: 39.7%

Does anyone think that Hinrich will ever catch Jamal?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Career FG%
> Hinrich: 39.0%
> Crawford: 39.7%
> 
> Does anyone think that Hinrich will ever catch Jamal?


:rofl:

the debate has reached a new low...


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

:wink:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

no


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)




----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

And will Jamal ever catch Kirk in

RPG Jamal 2.5 Kirk 3.7
AST Jamal 3.8 Kirk 6.8
STL Jamal 1.07 Kirk 1.4

Inquiring minds want to know...

Actually, since they put up such similar shooting numbers and Jamal's slightly better ppg is countered by Kirk's superior assists/rebounds, inquiring minds don't really care.

I've suggested it before, I'll suggest it again:

Jamal. Kirk. Celebrity Death Match!










Lets GET IT ON!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> And will Jamal ever catch Kirk in
> 
> RPG Jamal 2.5 Kirk 3.7
> AST Jamal 3.8 Kirk 6.8
> ...


Do they still make NBA Jam-type games? Kirk/Ben vs. Jamal/JYD would be a classic grudge match.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Jamal leads Kirk in career steals per minute played.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Crawford also shoots better from the FT line and gets more blocks per minute played.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Will Jamal ever match Jalen Rose?

Rose's career FG: .455 

I doubt it.

That's why it'd be nice if Crawford could do something other than force shots.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

madox said:


> Will Jamal ever match Jalen Rose?
> That's why it'd be nice if Crawford could do something other than force shots.


What's Kirk's excuse?

Is he just bad?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

madox said:


> Rose's career FG: .455


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/2636/career

says 44.5%


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I don't even know why I voted. I don't need a poll to decide who the better player is. To me it's clear as day who is the better all-around team-oriented player...and that, my friends, is what produces wins.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> What's Kirk's excuse?



Crawford is a shooter that can't shoot. 

Hinrich is a good all-around player that can't shoot. 


And Crawford is in his fifth year. His percentages:

.352 
.476
.413
.386
.397

Looks to me like he's already peaked. Hinrich IMO has more of chance of improving his FG% because he'll probably shoot less as guys like Gordon and Deng mature. But Crawford'll still be a chucker... 

Just like Skynyrd said, "You can take a boy out of ol' Dixieland, but you'll never take ol' Dixie from a boy."

You can take take Crawford out of the playground, but you'll never take the playground outta Crawford.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Thank you for the friday evening sendoff. Have a good one all.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

truly pathetic.

and on a slightly related note:

did anyone happen to catch the "I love this game" JLo commercial on the all-star game and last night on the TNT coverage?

really great clip of KIRK that closes the spot (_what we used to call the MONEY SHOT back at the ad ranch_) right before the cut to the tagline and logo.

i guess JAMAL wasn't quite ready for his close-up.

:biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> truly pathetic.


Don't be so hard on him Miz.

He does possess a great floor game to make up for the below average FG%.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Don't be so hard on him Miz.
> 
> He does possess a great floor game to make up for the below average FG%.


hilarious!

:laugh:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Please . . . make . . . it . . . stop.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

:rofl: Honestly, who gives a crap about Crawford? He's not a Bull anymore and the Knicks suck. Some of you need to find a Jesus/Allah/Buddha or whoever the hell you worship.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Jamal Crawford* 
New York Knicks 
Position: G 
Height: 6-5 Weight: 190 
College: Michigan '03 

PPG 18.5 
RPG 2.7 
APG 3.8 
SPG 1.37 
BPG .30 
FG% .397 
FT% .849 
3P% .359 
MPG 36.3 













*Kirk Hinrich* 
Chicago Bulls 
Position: G 
Height: 6-3 Weight: 190 
College: Kansas '03 

PPG 15.7 
RPG 4.2 
APG 6.9 
SPG 1.51 
BPG .27 
FG% .394 
FT% .805 
3P% .343 
MPG 37.4​


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

This must be Groundhogs Day.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Hong Kong Fooey said:


> :rofl: Honestly, who gives a crap about Crawford? He's not a Bull anymore and the Knicks suck. Some of you need to find a Jesus/Allah/Buddha or whoever the hell you worship.


I used to worship Hogan before he went Hollywood.

Jaded ever since.


----------



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

I love it when people resort to "stats per minute" LOL!

If a scrub plays 1 minute and gets 1 point and 1 rebound, he's an all-star right?!?

This argument is old and has been won by the red staters (Bulls Red). The blue staters (Knicks blue) should stay in their own area and enjoy their myopia. (yeah, Isaih made great trades this week - riiigghhtt)


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

All this thread proves is that Paxson was right about getting rid of Crawford but should also trade Kirk Hinrich for Jalen Rose.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> All this thread proves is that Paxson was right about getting rid of Crawford but should also trade Kirk Hinrich for Jalen Rose.



:jawdrop:


----------



## billiam (Feb 24, 2005)

Did the Bull's win with Crawford? Thats all I got to say.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

madox said:


> You can take take Crawford out of the playground, but you'll never take the playground outta Crawford.


:laugh: 

That was gold.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> truly pathetic.
> 
> and on a slightly related note:
> 
> ...


 yep. Then JLo goes, that's why I love this game.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> :jawdrop:



:laugh:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

<IMG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=300 BORDER=0 ALT="CRAWFORD, JAMAL" TITLE="CRAWFORD, JAMAL" SRC="/img/headshots/200x300/knicks/CRAWFORD, JAMAL.jpg"> VS. <IMG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=300 BORDER=0 ALT="HINRICH, KIRK" TITLE="HINRICH, KIRK" SRC="/img/headshots/200x300/bulls/HINRICH, KIRK.jpg"> VS. <IMG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=300 BORDER=0 ALT="ROSE, JALEN" TITLE="ROSE, JALEN" SRC="/img/headshots/200x300/raptors/ROSE, JALEN.jpg">


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I'll tell you one thing, they shouldn't be on the cover of GQ magazine. They are both ugmos. How did Crawford nail Sue Bird?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hong Kong Fooey said:


> I'll tell you one thing, they shouldn't be on the cover of GQ magazine. They are both ugmos. How did Crawford nail Sue Bird?


It's the tatoos.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> It's the tatoos.


Or his snaggletoothed smile. What woman could resist? 
:thinking:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

It could be his $6M/year contract, too ;-)


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

spongyfungy said:


> yep. Then JLo goes, that's why I love this game.



yep. she does! and i don't see _jamal_ anywhere in the spot. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

http://www.jenniferlopez.com/video/JenniferLopez_NBA_TVSpot_ref.mov


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I don't think Hinrich can ever improve to Crawford's level. Crawford just has too many crossovers, behind the backs, and several other moves that would make hot sauce jealous. Things like working hard and playing great defense are just minor details when considering the kind of And1 specialist Crawford is.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Efficiency Rating*
Crawford: +13.95 on a losing team
Hinrich: +16.76 on a winning team

*Plus/Minus*
Crawford: -3.2
Hinrich: +4.3

Incredibly stupid argument.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> *Efficiency Rating*
> Crawford: +13.95 on a losing team
> Hinrich: +16.76 on a winning team
> 
> ...


I searched through the thread twice to see where EFF or +/- were mentioned.

Perhaps I missed it or the post was deleted.

I don't see what this has to do about the topic of the poll... which was FG%.

You could say its stupid to care about FG%... but then why post on this thread?


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> <IMG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=300 BORDER=0 ALT="CRAWFORD, JAMAL" TITLE="CRAWFORD, JAMAL" SRC="/img/headshots/200x300/knicks/CRAWFORD, JAMAL.jpg">


Looks like a runway model. eat a sammich.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

Hong Kong Fooey said:


> :rofl: Honestly, who gives a crap about Crawford? He's not a Bull anymore and the Knicks suck. Some of you need to find a Jesus/Allah/Buddha or whoever the hell you worship.



I totally I agree! :no: Can we just merge this with the 3000 page Crawford update thread or better yet, how about someone make a Crawford forum?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Hey, this thread gave me an idea for the name of a new band...*HATERS, GRASPING AT STRAWS*.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I searched through the thread twice to see where EFF or +/- were mentioned.
> 
> Perhaps I missed it or the post was deleted.
> 
> ...


you know he wont answer you , but he'll post on any thread with Kirk's name in it , heck i'm still waiting on an answer on why if Kirk's such a great passer why does his backcourt mate in both of his season's have had significantly higher rates of passing for easier baskets, crawford last year(.415 to .334 and duhon(.448 to.413 this year.) even ben whose passing has been an object of scrutiny as well is at .421.

heck he still hasn't reached JC's from last year level even though ....let me see if I remember all the excuses for kirk , less effective teammates , new offensive system, i'm sure there were more but whichever ones jamal didn't smash because he was playing alongside him chris does, because too is playing alongside now.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> yep. she does! and i don't see _jamal_ anywhere in the spot. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> http://www.jenniferlopez.com/video/JenniferLopez_NBA_TVSpot_ref.mov


That bleating horn effect has given me a huge headache. Ugh.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

K4E, don't ever change. You are a genuine piece of work.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Hong Kong Fooey said:


> How did Crawford nail Sue Bird?


My sources say it was doggy style, with the lights out.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I searched through the thread twice to see where EFF or +/- were mentioned.
> 
> Perhaps I missed it or the post was deleted.
> 
> ...


Hypocrite.

Perhaps if you search through the thread again and focus on the first page, you'll see that in two separate posts you wrote:



> *Jamal leads Kirk in career steals per minute played.*


and



> *Crawford also shoots better from the FT line and gets more blocks per minute played.*


Remember those? Nothing like trying to cover your a$$ by means of ignoring your own freaking posts in the midst of a completely homeristic "argument". Almost as bad as Crawford's floor game.

Excellent work, killer. Bravo.


----------



## HuejMinitZ (Dec 28, 2004)

He does have an atrocious floor game.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

How many posts and threads can possibly be devoted to 2 players who are... in reality... very similar players?? One's a better shooter, one's better looking, one's a better passer, one's dad can beat up the other's dad.... It just goes on and on.... 

Repeat...
Repeat...
Repeat...

At the end of the day, seems the only huge difference is that one is on the Bulls and one is on the Knicks...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Calling Kirk Hinrich and Jamal Crawford "similar players" seems a little less than insane only if one glances at a stat sheet and never watches the games.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Calling Kirk Hinrich and Jamal Crawford "similar players" seems a little less than insane only if one glances at a stat sheet and never watches the games.


Dismissing a truth so quickly only points to biased watching....


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

What aspects of their games are similar?


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> What aspects of their games are similar?


What aspects are so far apart?

They both have a tendancy to dribble the clock down too much.
Both have a tendancy to take quick 3s when they should pull back and let the offense set up. (proofs in the pudding... the both shoot ~40% and will until they learn better shot judgement)

Neither is a great outside defender, neither fights through screens very well. 

Neither goes to the line as much as they should.

Jamals a better scorer, Kirk a better defender. Rebounding, about the same... free throw % similar (when they actually get to the line)

They are both good, but flawed, combo-type guards that really seem more at ease playing off the ball then running the show.

Bottom line is the posting goes on and on even when one is no longer on the team, that was the point. But of course it MUST be turned into a "VS." situation. I mean, what would any thread be without some level of lemming-like Kirk or Jamal worship....?

Sorry, I've watched 99% of Bulls game for the past 20+ years (so put that card back in your pocket...) and I just don't and never have seen this huge disparity between the two that some people love to cling to...


----------



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

Jim Ian said:


> What aspects are so far apart?
> 
> They both have a tendancy to dribble the clock down too much.
> Both have a tendancy to take quick 3s when they should pull back and let the offense set up. (proofs in the pudding... the both shoot ~40% and will until they learn better shot judgement)
> ...


Excellent post. 

Different styles. Same results.

Preferences for individual games are all style becuause they produce the same results --- inconsistently good ones for themselves and for the team. Kirk might be considered the best player on this team, but is he and his improvement (which appears statistically arguably because he gets more shots) really the reason were winning over Ben Gordon's 4th quarter clutchness, the stepping up of the big men, the health of everyone ?

Now as to who between Jamal and Kirk would fit on this particular team, that's a much different topic. As a Jamal fan, I think Kirk may be a better fit for this team, but maybe not as much a natural fit or natural leader as some of you think he is. More a made leader ala Paxiles than a born one.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

ignore.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Not tonight.

Jamal 5-9
Kirk 4-15


----------



## PobreDiablo (Feb 23, 2005)

Crawford is way more talented than Hinrich, but the thing is, Crawford doesnt have a brain


so Hinrich > Crawford


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Hypocrite.
> 
> Perhaps if you search through the thread again and focus on the first page, you'll see that in two separate posts you wrote:
> 
> ...


Yikes! The name calling.... :no: 

The steals comment was in response to TB.... I'm happy to keep it to FG%.

The haters are wily and will result to taking the thread off subject... I'll admit to getting swept up in the madness while responding.

Hinrich seems to continue his digging of a low FG% hole.

Crawford is at 39.9% for the season. Almost to the magic 40% number. I wonder when/if Hinrich will see 39.9%?

Any guesses?


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

PobreDiablo said:


> the thing is, Crawford doesnt have a brain


I could wile away the hours 
Conferrin' with the flowers 
Consultin' with the rain 
And my head I'd be scratchin' 
While my thoughts were busy hatchin' 
If I only had a brain 

I'd unravel any riddle 
For any individ'le 
In trouble or in pain 

With the thoughts you'd be thinkin' 
You could be another Lincoln 
If you only had a brain 

Oh, I would tell you why 
The ocean's near the shore 
I could think of things I never thunk before 
And then I'd sit and think some more 

I would not be just a nuffin' 
My head all full of stuffin' 
My heart all full of pain 
I would dance and be merry 
Life would be a ding-a-derry 
If I only had a brain


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

PobreDiablo said:


> but the thing is, Crawford doesnt have a brain



Personally, I think this song is more appropriate (It could be the Knicks intro music):

When a man's an empty kettle 
He should be on his mettle 
And yet I'm torn apart 
Just because I'm presumin' 
That I could be kind of human 
If I only had a heart 

I'd be tender, I'd be gentle 
And awful sentimental 
Regarding love and art 
I'd be friends with the sparrows 
And the boy that shoots the arrows 
If I only had a heart 

Picture me a balcony 
Above a voice sings low 

I hear a beat, how sweet! 

Just to register emotion, jealousy, devotion 
And really feel the part 
I could stay young and chipper 
And I'd lock it with a zipper 
If I only had a heart


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> What aspects of their games are similar?


Jamal has a shooting percentage that is .006% better than Kirk's

Despite all of Crawfords myriad flaws, which we've discussed to death, this apparently is perceived by some as making JC superior to KH.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Hey mods, can this thread be merged into the Jamal update thread? That's where it really belongs, IMO.  (seriously, it does though)

Btw, Jamal only took 9 shots in 41 minutes last night in a Knicks victory! Maybe he's finally figuring out that his best role with the team is to NOT shoot the ball. Props to Jamal if he keeps up that stellar play.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

careful! he's got those dogs trained.


:wink: :biggrin:


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> careful! he's got those dogs trained.
> 
> 
> :wink: :biggrin:



Jesus... I guess some dogs do look like thier owners... :laugh:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yikes! The name calling.... :no:
> 
> The steals comment was in response to TB.... I'm happy to keep it to FG%.
> 
> The haters are wily and will result to taking the thread off subject... I'll admit to getting swept up in the madness while responding.


 :laugh: 

In other words...

*I'll gladly respond to TB's steals comment and not even mention it's off-topicness, because I can come up with 3 stats where Jamal is better than Kirk.

But don't dare bring up efficiency rating or +/-, because Kirk is way better than Jamal in those categories, they are off-topic and you are a wily hater for taking the thread off subject.*

Not to be a name-caller, but it seems as if in this case, hypocrite is an accurate description, not a personal attack. You said nothing about the off-topic stuff that is pro-Jamal, but "defended the purity of your thread" when someone posted some anti-Jamal off topic info.

It's just funny that you got "swept up in the madness" of pro-Jamal off-topic info... I guess the efficiency rating and +/- info brought you back to Earth, eh? :biggrin:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

bullsville said:


> :laugh:
> 
> In other words...
> 
> ...


Par for the course in threads like this. It's really quite a trainwreck to watch.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> It's just funny that you got "swept up in the madness" of pro-Jamal off-topic info... I guess the efficiency rating and +/- info brought you back to Earth, eh? :biggrin:


I just wanted to talk about fg%.

All the name calling and venom and deflection was not the intent of this thread.

Its a shame that it turned it into something different.

I guess that's just how it goes when you talk about Hinrich's FG% and his inability to match Crawford in this stat.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> I guess that's just how it goes when you talk about Hinrich's FG% and his inability to match Crawford in this stat.


Hey, my point is that Jamal and Kirk actually have very similar stats, and where they differ, they don't differ by much -- except for Kirk's superior defense.

So the whole point of the thread "will Kirk ever catch Jamal" is misleading and off-base to begin with.

As for FG% we are talking about .399 -vs- .393.

Will Kirk ever bridge that .006 gap?

Doesn't seem to be that great a hurdle that it even deserves a thread to discuss, does it?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> So the whole point of the thread "will Kirk ever catch Jamal" is misleading and off-base to begin with,


The whole point of the thread was will Kirk ever catch Jamal in FG%.

It quickly degenerated into a name-calling fiesta. Whatever. I guess if Kirk can't shoot as well as Jamal that's what people have to rely on. :no:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Answer:

I have no doubt that he will. No doubt, whatsoever.

Put that .006% in the bank, and then some.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Par for the course in threads like this. It's really quite a trainwreck to watch.


Like Hinrich trying to shoot.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Like Hinrich trying to shoot.


Ouch! That wasn't very nice! When you look at their FG percentages, neither is a dead-eye shooter. It's like two midgets (sorry if I'm offending any little people) arguing over who is taller.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

dkg1 said:


> Ouch! That wasn't very nice! When you look at their FG percentages, neither is a dead-eye shooter. It's like two midgets (sorry if I'm offending any little people) arguing over who is taller.


That is actually a much nicer way of saying what I've been trying to say.

They have remarkably similar stats and neither has shown to be a dead-eye shooter. Jamal has had longer to develop it in the pro game, Kirk had the benefit of trying to develop it in college.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The whole point of the thread was will Kirk ever catch Jamal in FG%.


so far...looks like most people think he will...was that what you were "trying to prove"?

will kirk be shooting over 40% by the time he is a 5th year player? 

yes, i think so.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The whole point of the thread was will Kirk ever catch Jamal in FG%.
> 
> It quickly degenerated into a name-calling fiesta. Whatever.


What an unpredictable outcome.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> so far...looks like most people think he will...was that what you were "trying to prove"?
> 
> will kirk be shooting over 40% by the time he is a 5th year player?
> 
> yes, i think so.


I'm not trying to prove anything. 

Just pointing out that Hinrich is a poorer shooter than Jamal Crawford and wondering what people think about his chances to ever catch him.

The whole "five years in the league" thing has been discussed already.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> What an unpredictable outcome.


I have not lost faith in my fellow man.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Hey, my point is that Jamal and Kirk actually have very similar stats, and where they differ, they don't differ by much -- except for Kirk's superior defense.
> 
> So the whole point of the thread "will Kirk ever catch Jamal" is misleading and off-base to begin with.
> 
> ...


Come on now, Tom- if they each take 1,000 shots, Jamal will hit 399 and Kirk will only hit 393. As a Bulls fan, I personally cannot possibly live with this situation, I'm just praying that we can get Jalen Rose back- he shoots way better than even Jamal does, I'm pretty sure he would take us straight to the Finals!! :wink:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Come on now, Tom- if they each take 1,000 shots, Jamal will hit 399 and Kirk will only hit 393. As a Bulls fan, I personally cannot possibly live with this situation, I'm just praying that we can get Jalen Rose back- he shoots way better than even Jamal does, I'm pretty sure he would take us straight to the Finals!! :wink:


Jalen is the only one of the three to play in the NBA Finals.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Jalen is the only one of the three to play in the NBA Finals.


That is very true.

It's also safe to say that if they stay with their current teams, Kirk will be the next to visit the Finals.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FYI

A fun thread from past times...

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9440


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

dkg1 said:


> I could wile away the hours
> Conferrin' with the flowers
> Consultin' with the rain
> And my head I'd be scratchin'
> ...


Jamal -- the Scarecraw!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Maybe its just time to acknowledge crawford as the superior shooter, kirk the better defender until proven otherwise and move on past this discussion , he doesn't just have the higher fg% , but 3pt fg% efg% and ft% every shooting stat there is crawford comes out on top people like to throw out excuses (JC has been a pro longer but both left high school the same year with kirk being considered the better player if crawford has surpassed him since then he should be commended not have excuses thrown in for kirk since kirk has never been a bad shooter during that time) , will he ever catch JC ?

why not its not like those are reggie miller #s heck JC has done better himself in fact I say its highly probable he catches those numbers either this year or in the next couple, but i also expect crawford to improve as well.

and yes VV despite all the chatter and comparison's they are pretty similar they just accomplish what they do in different ways and in some thing one is better than the other and it works both ways.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The only thing similar about Hinrich's game and Crawford's game is that neither shoots particularly well from anywhere but the free throw line. The valid comparisons end there. 

I'd be hard pressed to find two "combo" guards whose games resemble each other's less.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The only thing similar about Hinrich's game and Crawford's game is that neither shoots particularly well from anywhere but the free throw line. The valid comparisons end there.
> 
> I'd be hard pressed to find two "combo" guards whose games resemble each other's less.



you would ronny.

luckily i am not you.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

but seriously they are both of the size that is big for a pg but small for a 2 , both are probably not pure pg's but moreso playmaking 2's or scoring pg's at the closest to being a pg.

defensively both are better off guarding pg's can defnd pure 2's but have serious trouble guarding 2/3's ricky davis/paul pierce types who are as much small forwards as they are shooting guards.

both are good spot up shooters and use the pick and roll too much.

both have problems with shooting selection , launching quick 3's and long 2's when its not always prudent.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Once again, I ask, how does a .006% advantage qualify as being a "superior shooter" to the extent it is even worth discussing?


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

happygrinch said:


> but seriously they are both of the size that is big for a pg but small for a 2 , both are probably not pure pg's but moreso playmaking 2's or scoring pg's at the closest to being a pg.
> 
> defensively both are better off guarding pg's can defnd pure 2's but have serious trouble guarding 2/3's ricky davis/paul pierce types who are as much small forwards as they are shooting guards.
> 
> ...


I believe Kirk can be a pretty pure PG...but whateva

as to the bolded part. I don't believe Kirk takes bad shots. I believe he just misses the shots he currently does take, partly because hes been put into this shooting role that doesn't fit him, at least yet (the shooting guard role). And If Kirk was jacking up shots the coach didn't want him to take, he'd probably be in trouble.

In other words, The coach has him taking these shots IMO! And has told him to keep firing no matter what because thats his role on the team, and theres noone else to fill it right now, without upseting the rotation and soundness of the team.

Kirks just doing what he's told. If you think he isn't, I doubt it.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> I believe Kirk can be a pretty pure PG...but whateva
> 
> as to the bolded part. I don't believe Kirk takes bad shots. I believe he just misses the shots he currently does take, partly because hes been put into this shooting role that doesn't fit him, at least yet (the shooting guard role). And If Kirk was jacking up shots the coach didn't want him to take, he'd probably be in trouble.
> 
> ...


Bingo!!! We have a winner! Well put!


----------



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

fleetwood macbull said:


> I believe Kirk can be a pretty pure PG...but whateva
> 
> as to the bolded part. I don't believe Kirk takes bad shots. I believe he just misses the shots he currently does take, partly because hes been put into this shooting role that doesn't fit him, at least yet (the shooting guard role). And If Kirk was jacking up shots the coach didn't want him to take, he'd probably be in trouble.
> 
> ...


So basically you admit that Kirk's not that good of a shooter and that Skiles' may not be that bright of a coach ? Kirk's role on the team is to keep missing shots ?

:biggrin:


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> So basically you admit that Kirk's not that good of a shooter and that Skiles' may not be that bright of a coach ? Kirk's role on the team is to keep missing shots ?
> 
> :biggrin:


 :laugh: I hope not

Kirks not the best shooter right now, he may never be that awsome. Thats not tough to admit :biggrin: He's a good trey shooter though

they used to say Kidd couldn't shoot either, and he's still a pretty good player now eh? KIrks not Kidd, but he's good. 
KIdd probably was never in a situation like Kirk is either having to play SG. It wouldn't have been pretty for Kidd if he was a 2 as far as % :yes:

But seriously.......Skiles has no alternative until Ben can get more minutes and start too. Its working fine enough, or as good as it can


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> I believe Kirk can be a pretty pure PG...but whateva
> 
> as to the bolded part. I don't believe Kirk takes bad shots. I believe he just misses the shots he currently does take, partly because hes been put into this shooting role that doesn't fit him, at least yet (the shooting guard role). And If Kirk was jacking up shots the coach didn't want him to take, he'd probably be in trouble.
> 
> ...


its funny when kirk takes basically the same shots crawford takes , kirk's must be coach endorsed but jamal is the scorn of the devil despite i'm willing to wager they make about the % of them or if anything crawford makes more of them (the questionable ones) i mean after all crawford does shoot a higher %.

were JC's shots last year when he had basically the same role kirk does now coach endorsed ?

thats why I dont get all the scorn and love for kirk especially on things they do that are extremely similar.

in truth as of late I would say JC has been exibiting far better shot selection than kirk, 3-4 weeks ago it was being bandied about for the good of the team(knicks) that crawford stop trying to mold his shot selection so much and start gunning more(that he was thinking about it too much), over his last 6 games jc has been avg 15.7 shots and 20.2 points and has shot .419 this month not exactly lights out but in the games he hasn't been hitting he's shot less, unless his offense was really needed and he's had to push things. he seems to have gotten a better handle on when to shoot, and what type of shots to take.

kirk has been going the other way avg. 15.8 shots and getting 16.3 points over his last 6 shooting .385 this month his shooting % has dropped for his last couple of months, he's struggling ith what shots to take more than crawford is and is actually shooting the more as of late to lesser results.

people have always complained with crawford if he isn't hitting he shouldn't be shooting so much , i dont see why the rules all of sudden should change when its kirk hinrich doing the missing. especially since alot of the posters who complained about crawford are now making excuses for kirk.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

If i hadnt read most of the posters posts around here for a long time what I would take from reading some of the posts in this thread is .

Kirk takes good shots but just misses them which is why his fg% suffers so bad 

Jamal can shoot but doesnt always take good shots which is why his fg% suffers so bad 

So wouldnt that mean Kirk CANT shoot but Jaml can shoot but just doesnt take good shots ?? 


This stuff is hilarious.

IMO fg% be damned they both can make shots and make plays and they are the type of players that the one time you think they wont make a shot they make it.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Does anyone think that Hinrich will ever catch Jamal?


Sure. He passed him last night at Madison Square Garden.

Hinrich -- 38.9%
Crawford -- 38.7%


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Does anyone think that Hinrich will ever catch Jamal?






> The last time the Knicks lost as many as nine in a row came during the franchise-record losing streak of 12 games from March 23 to April 13, 1985.
> 
> *Now the Knicks (29-46) can only hope the draft produces young players the quality of Chicago's Kirk Hinrich*, who had 20 points and five assists, and rookie Ben Gordon, who led the Bulls (43-32) with 22 points.


http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...9,0,477268.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines

We know what happened to Jamal the last time a player the quality of Hinrich joined his team. The clock started ticking...
:banana:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

GB said:


> http://www.newsday.com/sports/baske...9,0,477268.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines
> 
> We know what happened to Jamal the last time a player the quality of Hinrich joined his team. The clock started ticking...
> :banana:



So if the knicks draft a pf the clock will start ticking ?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> So if the knicks draft a pf the clock will start ticking ?



You're not that dense are you?

You just do it for the board, I guess.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Sure. He passed him last night at Madison Square Garden.
> 
> Hinrich -- 38.9%
> Crawford -- 38.7%


Impressive marksmanship.

Question #2.

Can Hinrich improve to match *JAMAL* in *eFG*?

*JAMAL*
0.469430052

The Captain
0.454319762


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

wow. Hinrich passes Jamal? :clap:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Impressive marksmanship.
> 
> Question #2.
> 
> ...


You're like the Energizer Bunny. Your question has been answered, yet you fight on. Whatever floats your boat...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Career FG%
> Hinrich: 39.0%
> Crawford: 39.7%
> 
> Does anyone think that Hinrich will ever catch Jamal?


He will and he did. He is better than crawford.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Impressive marksmanship.
> 
> Question #2.
> 
> ...


Probably not but then Hnirich is a lot better on defense than Jamal so do they even out with that fact?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> He will and he did. He is better than crawford.


The premise of the poll was *career FG%* anyway if anyone would bother to read the damn question!!!! :biggrin: :curse: :curse: :biggrin: 

CURRENT CAREER FG%
*JAMAL* 39.4
Hinrich 38.8

So... he has not caught *JAMAL*.

The chase is still on.

At least wait to see if he actually catches him first before starting the gloat-fest.

Gosh!


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The premise of the poll was *career FG%* anyway if anyone would bother to read the damn question!!!! :biggrin: :curse: :curse: :biggrin:
> 
> CURRENT CAREER FG%
> *JAMAL* 39.4
> Hinrich 38.8


I don't know man, they're both pretty bad if you're looking strictly at FG%. We're talking about 2 of the least efficient shooting guards in the league here.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

kukoc, what is with the capitals on JAMAL's name all the time? LOL He even got bold marks a few posts ago. :laugh: 

I was just wondering b/c I've seen it all season now and had to ask. I always say his name with more emphasis in my head when I read your posts. 

*JAMAL* :biggrin:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Selected eFG%*

Antawn Jamison -- 45.9%
Richard Hamilton -- 45.7%
Kirk Hinrich -- 45.4%
Larry Hughes -- 44.6%
Allen Iverson -- 44.5%
Latrell Sprewell -- 44.5%
Emeka Okafor -- 44.5%
Carmelo Anthony -- 44.2%
Chris Webber -- 44.1%
Troy Murphy -- 44.0%
Steve Francis -- 43.7%


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

It's noteworthy that Hinrich has been dynamite from the field the past few games, ever since his 0-7 stinker in Miami. I'm telling you guys, it had everything to do with the rest he got during his hamstring injury. I've been saying all season that the kid has played too many minutes (37 min/game) considering the frantic pace at which he plays. Now that he got some games to rest up and his hamstring is coming around, he's shooting the ball far and away better. He just needs a little more juice in those legs (and no, I don't mean any Balco incidents).


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

yodurk said:


> It's noteworthy that Hinrich has been dynamite from the field the past few games, ever since his 0-7 stinker in Miami. I'm telling you guys, it had everything to do with the rest he got during his hamstring injury. I've been saying all season that the kid has played too many minutes (37 min/game) considering the frantic pace at which he plays. Now that he got some games to rest up and his hamstring is coming around, he's shooting the ball far and away better. He just needs a little more juice in those legs (and no, I don't mean any Balco incidents).


Bingo. I've been saying this all year as well. 

Either way, when it comes to Hinrich and Crawford, it's not close. If Hinrich got his shooting efficiency up to 45% or so, we'd be talking about a top 3 point guard in the NBA due to his playmaking, passing and defensive impact on top of scoring. Crawford is a one dimensional scorer, who doesn't even score that well considering that's what he does best, and he just isn't the basketball player Hinrich is. Mentally, physically, you name it.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The premise of the poll was *career FG%* anyway if anyone would bother to read the damn question!!!! :biggrin: :curse: :curse: :biggrin:
> 
> CURRENT CAREER FG%
> *JAMAL* 39.4
> ...


your poll didn't say career. Title and even the question of the poll leads one to believe it is now. But I guess another summer of of shooting might have been a hint.

Well then for career? Yes he will. And probably next year. I will even say in Kirks 5th season it will be substantually higher than Jamal is now. 
He passed Jamal this season, so yes I fully expect him to continue to improve. 

394 jamal Kirk .389 and Jamal's shooting has fallen sustantually over the last three seasons. It has improved .001% from last year. But a far cry from 48% 4 years ago. 

Kirk had a modest gain .006% Which is nothing to be excited about but neither is Crawford.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> your poll didn't say career. Title and even the question of the poll leads one to believe it is now. But I guess another summer of of shooting might have been a hint.


The first post says CAREER.

Jalen's 44.5% in option 4 was his career FG% at the time.

The third option says "spending a summer or two at Berto" which seems to eliminate the poll being about this season's FG%.

This is a silly thing to be talking about.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> *Selected eFG%*
> 
> Antawn Jamison -- 45.9%
> Richard Hamilton -- 45.7%
> ...


These are interesting to look at.

People rip crawford all the time for taking so many threes... but that's why his eFG is higher than all these players.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The first post says CAREER.
> 
> Jalen's 44.5% in option 4 was his career FG% at the time.
> 
> ...


Maybe I was not clear, I said I should have gotten it by your hints in the actual poll. I am not arguing against you and yes I agree it is silly to be talking about it so why still continue on with it? I was AGREEING after I had stated it was misleading. Sorry if I was not clear.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Sorry if I was not clear.


Nah, you were clear. Sorry for the unnecessary reply.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Thread title missleading. It has to say "Can Hinrich improve to match Jamal fg%?" , Since Kirk has to go about 3 steps backwards to catch Jamal overall.

I agree Kirk has an awful fg% (like Jamal). The thing is , once Kirk has enough good scorers next to him he will easily except the role of taking less shots and most likely (imo) his FG% will go up. On the other hand - Jamal can have better scorers next to him , and he'll still demand and take his shots .

Jamal is only better than Kirk in a 1 on 1 game , if Kirk lets him off on Defense.


----------

