# The Official Hinrich Scouting Report



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

There is a lot on this board, both pro and con, on Kirk Hinrich. However, for the most part no one here seems to really understand what the Bulls got with the 7th pick in the draft. Having watched every game Hinrich played for 4 years, let me fill you in.

Hinrich is an undersized SG with decent ball handling and passing skills *for a SG*. He is not an NBA PG. Heck, he wasn't even the best PG on his college team. Call him a combo guard or a tweener, if you well, but don't call him a PG. 

Here are his strengths and weaknesses:

STRENGTHS:

1. He is very fast and has terrific acceleration once he gets up a head of steam.

2. He is a good shooter with very deep range.

3. He is a good off the ball defender against taller college level wing players.

WEAKNESSES:

1. Although fast, he is not quick, and he is completely incapable of staying in front of even the likes of Steve Blake on defense.

2. He shoots the ball from his chest and has a slow release.

3. Outside of the transition game, he cannot create his own shot.

You are already beginning to see all of this. He has lots of fouls because he simply isn't going to be able to hang with NBA point guards. And, of his 19 shots in the preseason, 15 are 3 pointers. This is what we saw at Kansas, particularly as a senior. Kirk can't get his shot off when defended, so he just keeps moving back until he is unguarded. Eventually, he'll have to start jacking them up from the cheap seats.

Hinrich is fundamentally sound and well schooled. Thus, it is ironic, that he is at his best in an undisciplined, up and down game. Hinrich shines in pick up games. Put him in the half court against a set defense and he gives you very little. Just look at last year's national championship game.

What does this mean? Hinrich may prove to be useful running with the second team for 12 to 16 minutes a game, if that unit can get out and run. You do not, however, want the ball in his hands at NBA crunch time when the game becomes half court and the defense stiffens.

If you want to compare him to John and Steve, that's fine. However, to avoid being disappointed, make sure you are talking about Paxson and Kerr, not Stockton and Nash.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

Wow, very well written analysis. Tells us alot of his game and what to expect (i.e. not the moon). Good job!


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

> Hinrich is an undersized SG with decent ball handling and passing skills for a SG. He is not an NBA PG. Heck, he wasn't even the best PG on his college team. Call him a combo guard or a tweener, if you well, but don't call him a PG.



That might be the most insane thing I have read in a long time. Kirk played on the wing because Kansas needed someone there. Kirk is a team player and played out of position because the team needed him to.



> Poise. Savvy. A killer jumper. Surprising athleticism





> I love him," one NBA personnel director said. "He's one of the smartest players in college basketball. The point guard position is the hardest position to learn in the pros. He has the capability to come right in and help a team."





> Hinrich has the size (6-foot-3), athleticism, floor vision, ball handling, unselfishness and a dead-on jumper.





> Possesses excellent quickness and court awareness. Very solid fundamentally on offense and defense. A strong competitor with the knack for getting a big bucket when his team needs it. Excellent defender with the ability to guard bigger guards. Good distributor and floor general with a good assist to turnover ratio (1.91) could be even higher if not for KU’s run and gun style. Great shooter with true three-point range (47%). Very good size at the point position. Controls the flow of the game pretty well.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Hmmmmm.....ShakeTiller sounds an awful lot like a certain poster I know from another board who was convinced that Hinrich was nowhere near 1st round material two years ago and openly mocked anyone last year who said that he'd go in the lottery. Coincidental first post? I think not.

...free fallin'.....



> Hinrich is an undersized SG with decent ball handling and passing skills for a SG. He is not an NBA PG.


You are contradicting what every single NBA scout, coach and GM saw in him during his career and workouts. Were you at Hinrich's workouts? If so, why don't you enlighten us on how well or poor he did at the point guard position?



> Heck, he wasn't even the best PG on his college team.


Miles is one of the best on-ball defenders in the college game, but please have a look at the numbers. You'll note that Hinrich's sophomore season was the only season he played point guard exlusively:

Hinrich, sophomore season: 11.5 ppg, 6.9 apg, 4.1 rpg, 1.3 spg, 0.3 bpg, 2.1:1 A/TO ratio, 50% FG, 51% 3PT, 84% FT.

Miles, sophomore season: 8.9 ppg, 6.4 apg, 3.3 rpg, 2.4 spg, 0.2 bpg, 2.0:1 A/TO ratio, 41% FG, 25% 3PT, 75% FT.

As you can see, Kirk averaged more points, more assists, more rebounds, more blocks, had fewer turnovers, and shot considerably better from the field as well as the free throw line than did Miles. Perhaps a pertinent question to ask yourself would be, "will Aaron Miles likely be drafted as a lottery pick?" I have little doubt you can answer that for yourself without much thought.



> 1. Although fast, he is not quick, and he is completely incapable of staying in front of even the likes of Steve Blake on defense.


If he was not quick, he'd be having a hard time penetrating this preseason. If you'd have watched the games thus far, this is not a problem at all -- he gets into the lane without too much effort and kicks it out to open teammates. Also, please note his athletic scores in the predraft camps. The people who said he wasn't quick shook their heads when he beat TJ Ford in both the sprints and the agility test. The people who said he wasn't strong took note when he bench pressed more than Dwyane Wade. You reference Steve Blake in a predraft game, that's fine. I'll take Kirk vs. Jay (2-15 FG, 8 turnovers) Williams in the 2000 NCAAs.



> 2. He shoots the ball from his chest and has a slow release.


Sure, but it goes in a lot.



> 3. Outside of the transition game, he cannot create his own shot.


True, Kirk scores most of his points off of threes and in transition. But keep in mind he does these things extraordinarily well -- why should he stop? Perhaps more importantly, in Roy Williams' system, Kirk simply wasn't allowed to create his own shot (except at end-of-half situations, regarding which I kindly submit Kirk vs. Hollis price, OU @ KU, 2002). He was chained to the motion and wasn't allowed to freelance. Hell, Keith Langford, one of Kansas' most adept one-on-one players of the last decade, was rarely allowed free reign in this regard. Isn't it strange that against elite competition (Paul Pierce, Raef LaFrentz, Rex Walters, Scot Pollard, Greg Ostertag, Jacque Vaughn, etc.) in pickup games at Allen Fieldhouse he scored at will? Hmmmm. Ever see one of those games? I've seen about twenty.



> You are already beginning to see all of this. He has lots of fouls because he simply isn't going to be able to hang with NBA point guards.


Keep in mind you also said that Kirk had no shot at being drafted in the lottery because, as of 2 and a half years ago, Kirk "wasn't listed on any mock drafts." Way to go with the flow, chief.



> And, of his 19 shots in the preseason, 15 are 3 pointers.


Is this not what he's supposed to do in the offense? Don't the Bulls already have plenty of scorers inside the arc? Care to reference LeBron James' stats in the preseason, namely his 7 ppg average?



> This is what we saw at Kansas, particularly as a senior. Kirk can't get his shot off when defended, so he just keeps moving back until he is unguarded. Eventually, he'll have to start jacking them up from the cheap seats.


See above re: Williams' offense. Additionally, the only player besides Hinrich on the KU squad last year who could even hit the rim from behind the arc was Mike Lee, and he only played 16 minutes a game. Spreading the defense does wonders, especially when the number one priority of your offense (Williams' offense) is to feed the post every time you get the ball.



> Hinrich is fundamentally sound and well schooled. Thus, it is ironic, that he is at his best in an undisciplined, up and down game.


You're confused because he's white. No big deal.  Everybody does it.



> Put him in the half court against a set defense and he gives you very little. Just look at last year's national championship game.


If McNamara doesn't have the game of his life _or_ if KU hits half of their free throws, Kirk has a national championship ring on his finger. The lack of a half-court offense, especially in that game where there was ample time to prepare for Boeheim's zone, should be attributed to Williams more than anybody -- you should know the drill by now. Morever, like I said earlier: if he can rarely be stopped when he's running, why stop?



> You do not, however, want the ball in his hands at NBA crunch time when the game becomes half court and the defense stiffens.


Yeah, because he never hit a big shot at Kansas. See: Columbia, MO, 2003, tie game, Big XII title on the line, one minute remaining for further details.

You should really try a little harder to disguise yourself. I'm a college kid and I could pick you out with nary a moment of consideration.

As always, thank you for your time.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I disagree that he doesn't have PG skills in the NBA... I think he does.

But I think there are quite a few guards that have PG skills in the NBA but aren't most effective at PG.

Contrary to his recent showings, Hinrich IS a dead-eye shooter. During the championship game, as much as I loved how Syracuse played and how their defense just made Kansas struggle in the half-court altogether, me and my friends were like "SHOOT IT! SHOOT IT FROM THERE!" whenever Kirk touched the ball, because the guy can seriously hit a shot. He's got crazy range on his shot, better than the average NBA point guard, I'd say. He can shoot the lights out, and I think that it's his best skill.

Pure shooting is underrated these days. People think of pure shooters as useful commodities but replaceable ones. Glen Rice has been traded all over the place. Walt Williams, a journeyman himself. Allan Houston, probably the sweetest stroke in the NBA, is overpaid.

But what about Reggie Miller, who basically made his career on killer shooting (and in his early to mid career, stingy defense, as we all know)? What about All-Star Ray Allen, who is athletic and a good passer but is really known for his ability to kill you with his range?

Hinrich has the pure shooting to be at LEAST a David Wesley/Wesley Person type in this league (and both are going to have very extended, very decent careers). He may have the ability to be even better, but I'd take him at a D. Wesley at his prime production except over more seasons. David Wesley, in the lock-out season, was 14.1 ppg, 6.4 apg, 2 spg, 3.2 rpg in 37 mpg, averaging 44.6 FG% and 36% from the arc. Those are great numbers, and Charlotte had a good year that year. Hinrich can be that kind of guard, except even better and more durable.

But David Wesley, although he ran the point sometimes before Baron came into his own, and continued to do it even after Davis' rise, is NOT a point guard. He is a SG with point guard skills, but definitely he is used for his ability to score. The guy started every game that he's ever played.

We have a better option at SG, in Jalen Rose, but Hinrich really needs to be considered for minutes there.

Don't believe what the scouts say. Don't even believe what Cartwright says. Hinrich is NOT a pure point guard. He DOES have point guard skills and he's a very heady player, extremely intelligent, and can give the impression that he IS a pure point guard by just always looking to pass. But does anyone think that if they asked him to shoot the lights out, to squirt out off of screens and move effectively away from the ball, that he couldn't do an excellent job with that? 

My contention is, wouldn't he possibly do a MORE excellent job with that and do that more naturally than running around and using his decent point guard skills to pass the ball around?

It's stuff like this that makes me kind of miffed when people throw Cartwright, Paxson, and random scouts' quotes in my face. Believe your own eyes, people! Watch him play, and you can see that while he's an intelligent enough basketball player to do a very decent job at PG, he's a lot more like Crawford than people will admit. 

Use Hinrich for his scoring and his defense. His passing is a nice touch, a real high skill up there that makes him a special player, but let's not reduce him to that.

Crawford, similarly, is that kind of player. He has real nice passing vision and the ability to take guys in isolation, as well as shoot the ball really well. His defense is average, but he's learning to use his long arms better to guard guys, and his height offers matchup problems in most games. 

Having TWO players like this in the backcourt is a great option, and I think they should seriously consider running the Craw/Hinrich/Rose/Fizer/Chandler lineup fairly often. The offensive fire power at 1 through 4, along with three very good passers at 1 through 3, and a board crasher, transition finisher, and defensive monster at 5... that's a great combo. Incredibly athletic, they'd tear you up from all over the place.

The objective is not to resolve Hinrich v. Crawford. The objective is to WIN SOME GAMES.

Ah, what the hell, I'm going to start a new thread!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

That, Showtyme, was one hell of a post.

Very well said.


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

Vince, did you even read showtyme's post? I ask only because it is fairly rare for someone who just got punked to say, "one hell of a post."

Showtyme basically says what I said, Hinrich's one strength is his ability to shoot the ball with great range. That will likely keep him in the league for quite awhile as another Tim Legler, John Paxon, Steve Kerr, etc.

One other thing, showtyme makes a good point about ignoring the scouts. Try to remember what scouts do. They follow hundreds of players, from high school to JuCo to D1, both home and abroad. They are lucky to see any individual player more than once or twice. They get lots of promotional highlight films on players. Their knowledge is a mile wide and a half inch deep. They rarely know more about a particular player than reasonably intelligent fans who have watched that particular player play every game for 4 years.


----------



## Butt Cheese (Jun 27, 2003)

Kirk is not going to shake and bake circles around every other PG in the NBA. Does that make him an ineffective PG? Hell, no. 

Let Kirk run the offense, shoot when he’s open, push the ball, play defense and lets get some wins. Also, whoever says Kirk can’t create his own shot is mistaken. Granted he’s not an AI or PP, but who is?


When does the regular season start? Sheez!!


----------



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Yeah, because he never hit a big shot at Kansas. See: Columbia, MO, 2003, tie game, Big XII title on the line, one minute remaining


I absolutely hated Hinrich when he made that shot to beat my Tigers.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Vince, did you even read showtyme's post? I ask only because it is fairly rare for someone who just got punked to say, "one hell of a post."


While I don't agree with it 100%, it wasn't worded like a broken record. I kind of like that. And how did I get punked? Where's the refutation of my post? Typical.....above-average subterfuge, even for you.



> Showtyme basically says what I said, Hinrich's one strength is his ability to shoot the ball with great range. That will likely keep him in the league for quite awhile as another Tim Legler, John Paxon, Steve Kerr, etc.


To say nothing of the David Wesley comparison, complete with lockout stats.....



> One other thing, showtyme makes a good point about ignoring the scouts.....Their knowledge is a mile wide and a half inch deep.


Except, of course, when dealing with sure-fire lottery picks who have been sure-fire lottery picks for months, and who have been talked about and written about on a daily basis by all forms of NBA and college media not only in regards to the draft, but also in their very high-profile college/high school/AAU games which are granted 10 times the exposure in America than Michael Pietrus' 8-point, 4-dunk performance in a Paris summer league. It's quite simple, really. We're not talking about some guy shooting on a busted hoop in rural Kazahkstan -- we're talking about household names in the eyes of American basketball fans who have no choice but to be judged and critiqued every game they play by a wide array of reviewers. But even more important in regards to scouts and the paychecks they earn is the value of a player's stock (and, subsequently, his value to a particular team). This is explained below.



> They rarely know more about a particular player than reasonably intelligent fans who have watched that particular player play every game for 4 years.


Unless, of course, that particular player is a high lottery pick and expected to be a very high priority get for a lot of teams in the draft. Again, we're not talking about projects from Greece here. When the stakes are high, when the prize is in the lottery, you better be for damn sure that you have an accurate and detailed analysis of your teams' prime and secondary targets. Guys in the lottery with highlighter around their names tend to merit such attention.

As always, thank you for playing.

P.S. If you feel up for refuting my above post, go right ahead. But I won't get my hopes up.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

It's a pleasure to read such a great and reasoned post. Too bad the personal attacks detracted from it.

my $.02


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBulllz,

For context, visit www.phog.net.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> DaBulllz,
> 
> For context, visit www.phog.net.


I particularly like the screen name "currydunkonme" ;-)

But whatever they do on that site is irrelevent to this one.

Like I said, I really really like your reasoning and writing, but the personal references simply detract from it all.

This one sentence is what I'm talking about:
"Typical.....above-average subterfuge, even for you."

The rest was awesome, IMO.


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

David Wesley was an undrafted free agent who fell into the right spot and carved out a position as a secondary role player.

If those are you expectations for Kirk Hinrich, you probably won't be disappointed.

Wesley also proves the point that these scouts are far from infallible. They keep their jobs by making safe, name recommendations.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I want to weigh in with my thoughts on Hinrich.

I don't have a problem with him as our draft pick. 

I HOPE he somehow comes in and sets the league on fire and becomes an unbelievable player. We sure need one of our lottery picks (well, we did have Brand and a shot at Francis) to be that kind of player.

I don't like him any less or more than I do Crawford. Whichever guy plays and leads the team to wins and satisfies the coach makes me happy. 

Peace!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

www.phog.net is the site of Tiller's many attempts to belittle both Kansas players and coaches, often in entertainingly contradictory style. While many of his observations are indeed quite astute, he does tend to spread himself too thin and exercise too much capriciousness, making himself quite the easy target for even the most amateur of thinkers. Equivocality is the name of the game for him over there and, apparently, here as well. In short, the guy cracks me up.

P.S. Whis is it gauche for me to mention Tiller's subterfuge -- which is clearly was, as he addressed exactly zero of my points -- AFTER he says that I "got punked"?

P.P.S. Tiller,

"Remember the Izzo!"


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Two points.

First, he basically stated your argument was "punked." Which is OK, whether it is right or wrong.

Second, it's better sometimes to just take the high road -- be the better guy!

Peace!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Condtradiction 101*



> Wesley also proves the point that these scouts are far from infallible.


Then why in the hell did you place so much emphasis on downgrading Hinrich's stock 2 and a half years ago because he was "not listed on any mock drafts" and was the "40th-60th best player in his class"?

I do not expect an answer.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

My two cents on Hinrich goes something like this:



I prefer him as a PG over Crawford, since I view Crawford as a mini Jalen Rose who is better suited to SG because of his scoring ability. Now I don't like Kirk as much as I did Jay but he is still a darn fine PG. I like his toughness on the defensive end. He is very unselfish and knows how to run a basketball team. That is one of those qualities I have always thought you could not teach you either had it or you didnt. Kirk has it. Kirk is a very good shooter. Relies too much on 3-ball sometimes but that can be worked on. Very good at delivering ball to post, something that is greatly needed at PG for the Bulls. Contrary to popular belief Kirk is a great athlete who leaves everything on the floor and gives maximum effort everytime out. Not a superstar guy more of a glue guy that holds a team together. Will be a Bull for a very long time.


----------



## Crawscrew (Jul 15, 2002)

The way Mason Jr. looked tonight, i would rather have him as my backup than Hinrich, i really like the way Mason defends and how he REALLY has the ability to play both backcourt positions well (neither Jamal or Kirk can play both well on both offense and defense). Mason has made the team, hassel is gone, johnson in, kirk is now the 12th man.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>hps</b>!
> 
> 
> I absolutely hated Hinrich when he made that shot to beat my Tigers.


well I did not like how Clearence Gilbert keep on hitting those threes either


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

I hate all these Hinrich bashers. True he has some weakness that he needs to work on. I think he will be a very good servicable guard for the Bulls. 

Do not just justify him on his points per game and assist per game. He is more than stats. He is a leader. He can defend teh ball. 

I remember on a couple games on both final four years during the tourney he may not had the best game when it came to the scoring stats, but he played some amazing defense to help the Jayhawks win.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Just caught Cartwright's scouting report on Hinrich. Cartwright loves what he sees from Kirk. He was comparing him to John Stockton, I can only hope that Bill is right on Kirk, a guard like Stockton giving Eddy the ball has me salivating  
A true point guard, seems to be Bill's opinion of Kirk.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Hmmmm....do we take Shake Tiller's (0 years experience in the NBA) evalutation of Kirk, or do we take Bill Cartwright's (20+ years experience in the NBA) evaluation of Kirk?

Tough call.

P.S. Shake, I'm still waiting on any -- ANY -- refutation of my previous points. You have succeeded admirably in subverting any credibility you may have had within five posts on this board. Congratulations.


----------



## ShakeTiller (Oct 13, 2003)

> In a related topic, Paxson said that the team didn't have much harmony until the end of last year. Now the PG situation is decided, so Jamal can be "relaxed," with Kirk getting "some minutes behind him."


Probably about right, although most here seem to think Mason will be getting those minutes.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

What are you, on dope?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Hmmmm....do we take Shake Tiller's (0 years experience in the NBA) evalutation of Kirk, or do we take Bill Cartwright's (20+ years experience in the NBA) evaluation of Kirk?
> 
> Tough call.
> ...


BC has a vested interest in not crushing Hinrich's confidence before he ever plays an NBA game, and correct me if I am wrong, he did not select Hinrich, Paxson did.

I am not saying that whatever BC said about Kirk, and I have no idea what he said, isn't right. I am just saying that it is hard to take the coach's word for it when he is talking to the media. I can't remember a coach really laying out one of his players, except maybe Collins on Kwame, because the coach knows in doing so, he undercuts the players confidence, and possibly any trade value.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55960&forumid=27

BC doesn't sling around praise lightly.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55960&forumid=27
> 
> BC doesn't sling around praise lightly.


The fact he is already comparing him to Stockton make me more leery of what he said, rather than to think he has hit on something. Throwing around comparisons like that make it hard for me to take him seriously.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> The fact he (Cartwright) is already comparing him to Stockton make me more leery of what he said, rather than to think he has hit on something. Throwing around comparisons like that makes it hard for me to take him seriously.


*From Kendall Gill: *"Too many point guards look to shoot first instead of pass," Gill said. "The whole league is like that. You hear people say they like to play with John Stockton and Jason Kidd, and that's why. They always think pass. Kirk has that potential."

*And from Scottie Pippen:* "He's a very skillful player and has a good knowledge of the game," said Scottie Pippen, another sure-fire Hall of Famer. "He's hard-nosed. He's got a great future ahead of him, and I don't use those words loosely."

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsmain,1,3159799.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Between Cartwright, Gill and Pippen, that's a lot of NBA experience. Sounds like the Bulls may have a very special player on their hands in a few years if not sooner.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

These comparisons are not from people who grant compliments loosely. They are from Cartright, who is usely the most unenthusiastic, boring speaker and from two veteran players in Gill and Pippen. I think this is clearly a sign we have gotten a very good pick in Hinrich. That doesn't mean he won't struggle this season or make bonehead plays, but the fact is that he has impressed quite the knowledgeable crew.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

This is what some people were trying to tell other people way back in June when the general Chicago sentiment was, "Oh, man! Not a Paxson clone! This sucks!".

These comments come as no surprise to anyone who's watched Hinrich play more than a few summer league games.


----------



## plasticman23 (May 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Butt Cheese</b>!
> Kirk is not going to shake and bake circles around every other PG in the NBA. Does that make him an ineffective PG? Hell, no.
> 
> Let Kirk run the offense, shoot when he’s open, push the ball, play defense and lets get some wins. Also, whoever says Kirk can’t create his own shot is mistaken. Granted he’s not an AI or PP, but who is?
> ...


my thoughts exactly


----------



## Zeus (Jul 1, 2002)

DaBullz,
You're wasting your time on VincentVega/auraltooth. The guy has been kicked off of many boards already.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

I'll sum up the scouting report on Hinrich in two words ... He Sucks.


----------



## plasticman23 (May 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> I'll sum up the scouting report on Hinrich in two words ... He Sucks.



Care to share why? I think pretty much every scout on this planet would disagree with you.


----------



## Athlon33.6 (Jul 31, 2003)

I'm alrady impressed with Hendrix. In his first two games as a NBA player, he played smart ball and even hit his first shot in the game. A smooth 3 with the buzzer going down. He's going to really make some good things happen for us.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>plasticman23</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Care to share why? I think pretty much every scout on this planet would disagree with you.



He's slow, unathletic (by NBA terms), he can't shoot very well from the NBA perimeter, and for a PG he isn't that good of a ballhandler. Other than that ... he's perfect.

I will give him credit in a few areas though ...

1. He hustles
2. He's a smart player
3. He plays solid fundamental D, although his lack of speed will hurt him
4. He's a respectable passer

Just because a player is great in college doesn't mean they'll do well in the NBA. The style of play is completely different. Ask JWill, a two-time NCAA POY who struggled in the NBA. TJ Ford is another guy who's not going to be very good in the NBA. Hinrich has one huge advantage over Ford though, he'll be playing about 10 mins a night max where as Ford will be playing around 30.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Crawford .365 FG%
Hinrich .370 FG%

Crawford .353 3P%
Hinrich .389 3P%


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Here's the most recent update on Kirk:

Hinrich has lost weight and conditioning because of his viral infection, which has weakened him. If he hasn't gained his strength back, Roger Mason Jr. could avoid the injured list and be the backup point guard. 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...assell,1,3156418.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

That's too bad. I hear he's been very sick since as far back as last Saturday. The way I hear it he had to nearly be dragged out of the United Center last Saturday. He wanted to play very badly but management was concerned that as sick as he was, he might pass on the infection to his teamates.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Crawford .365 FG%
> Hinrich .370 FG%
> 
> ...


Preseason. Craw was jacking bad shots, I hear.

But regardless, it's a moot point. MichaelofAZ is mistaken because Hinrich is actually a great shooter. That was his reputation in college, and his one of his best qualities coming into the league. The playmaking ability and all that; I wonder if that wasn't just a show. How can you REALLY evaluate playmaking ability anyway? In scrimmage teams during the Combine? 

Being able to run the floor well, handle the ball well, and having a good "feel" for the game to boot doesn't mean that you can really make it as a successful NBA point guard. Those are great things to have, but you have to be super coachable and fit in well with the teammates. These are yet to be determined about Hinrich.

Matteen Cleaves was a great college talent "playmaker" with great feel for the game. Jacque Vaughn, same thing. 

But it's guys like Nash, Kidd, Franchise, Payton that are at the top. They have feel for the game, certainly, but they also have some undeniable skills. On a good night, Steve Francis can get by any defender in the NBA. Nash can shoot the lights out (thus the Hinrich comparisons to Nash). Kidd is a great rebounding guard and is super quick with the ball. Payton was always a super talented man defender and knew how to score the ball.

The intangible "feel" for the game is kind of a gamble in any player, because great "feel" and "playmaking" might not fit in with your coaches and your teammates. The solid, tangible skills I see in Hinrich are his shooting ability and his defense. We should use him for that first, then let him ease into understanding the offense.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Kismet you are exactly right on about Kirk. He is VERY sick and as a matter of fact the team is considering him starting the year on the injured list because of the lost weight he has suffered as a result. Kirk is pleading his case for this not to happen because he does not want to miss 5 games because it won't be necessary to be out that many. He is having a hard time shaking this though. If he does not get placed on IL don't look for him to play the first couple games because he will not be able to. I imagine Baxter or Blount would be the 3rd IL guy along with Johnson and Williams.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KirkHinrich</b>!
> Kismet you are exactly right on about Kirk. He is VERY sick and as a matter of fact the team is considering him starting the year on the injured list because of the lost weight he has suffered as a result. Kirk is pleading his case for this not to happen because he does not want to miss 5 games because it won't be necessary to be out that many. He is having a hard time shaking this though. If he does not get placed on IL don't look for him to play the first couple games because he will not be able to. I imagine Baxter or Blount would be the 3rd IL guy along with Johnson and Williams.


Just wanted to know, but is this simply speculation or do you have a contact with Hinrich?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> I'll sum up the scouting report on Hinrich in two words ... He Sucks.


*From Kendall Gill:* "Too many point guards look to shoot first instead of pass," Gill said. "The whole league is like that. You hear people say they like to play with John Stockton and Jason Kidd, and that's why. They always think pass. Kirk has that potential."

*And from Scottie Pippen:* "He's a very skillful player and has a good knowledge of the game," said Scottie Pippen, another sure-fire Hall of Famer. "He's hard-nosed. He's got a great future ahead of him, and I don't use those words loosely."

*And from Bill Cartwright:* "He's had a terrific preseason so far. When we first got him I didn't know how good he was. I hate to say this, but he's got all the qualities of a young John Stockton. We're excited and pleased with him."

*More from BC:* "Kirk is playing real well. A lot of guys go through the process of learning how to play in this league. You have to learn to be aggressive defensively and not be intimidated by the guys you watched on TV. And you have to run the team and know what to do in NBA situations. He has all those qualities already. He is an assist guy and he can penetrate and he is good at screen-and-roll. He has a chance to be really good.''

Damn, who are you going to believe? MichaelOFAZ or these other guys?
:whoknows:


----------



## plasticman23 (May 30, 2003)

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


He is not slow by any means. Even by NBA standards he is a decent athlete. In the pre-draft workouts he performed better than TJ Ford in the sprints and agility tests. After reading your posts from this thread and others, I have concluded that you probably never saw Kirk play in college. Because if you had you would know that he is a very good shooter with nearly unlimited range. What your saying contradicts every scouting report of him and the opinions of his coaches and teamates who see him play on a daily basis.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

MichaelOfAz with the unabashedly asinine post of the day.

And Zeus, do you know in particular the "many sites I have been banned from"? If so, do you know why? Have I broken _ANY_ user guidelines on any of those sites?

Because I am not expecting an answer, I'll fill you in Maury Povich-style: some communities simply do not tolerate dissenting opinions, no matter how polite, open-minded or objectively analytical they might be. Call it xenophobia, call it blind loyalism, call it provinciality, call it whatever -- it's a hilariously bad attribute for any community, cyber- or otherwise, to have. All boards contain some element of homerism -- this is to be expected. But to carry the homerism to the extreme and to waste people who don't agree with the norm like Yosemite Sam on a safari is just stupid and puerile. Unfortunately, this phenomenon happens with great regularity on some sports messageboards.

Case in point -- Shake Tiller stirs up trouble here and on other sites with his acerbic takes. Should he be banned? Hell no. Just because he goes against the status quo doesn't mean his viewpoints should be discouraged or discounted. However, some sites will ready the torches and pitchforks at first sight of such "infidels".

Opinions make the world go round, Zeus. Live a little.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

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


Posted 10/2003.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> Call it xenophobia, call it blind loyalism, call it provinciality, call it whatever -- it's a hilariously bad attribute for any community, cyber- or otherwise, to have.
> 
> But to carry the homerism to the extreme and to waste people who don't agree with the norm like Yosemite Sam on a safari is just stupid and puerile.


It's a little silly to respond to 2 month old posts, but...

Alright, I know the meaning of Xenophobia from when I was cramming for the SAT, back in the day, but Puerile:

Main Entry: pu·er·ile
Pronunciation: 'pyu(-&)r-&l, -"Il
Function: adjective
Etymology: French or Latin; French puéril, from Latin puerilis, from puer boy, child; akin to Sanskrit putra son, child and perhaps to Greek pais boy, child -- more at FEW
Date: 1661
1 : JUVENILE
2 : CHILDISH, SILLY <puerile remarks>



Love the work as always Vincent.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

From Oct. 23, 2003:


> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> I'll sum up the scouting report on Hinrich in two words ... He Sucks.


I wonder how many of these gems are scattered throghout the backpages of this site.

Anyways, thanks for the props, C.C.C.P. I would honestly LOVE for Zeus to elaborate his earlier quote, but I really don't see that happenening. I'm the same on every single board I post on. What you see here is what got me (wrongly) banned on a couple other sites run by Nazi administrators (a Missouri board and an Oklahoma board). In fact, one site went so far as to _actively change_ my post -- they actually edited my words, put in some language of their own, and essentially made it a kool-aid friendly/propaganda post. When I pointed this out, the thread was deleted and I was silenced. Wonder if Zeus realizes these things.

MichaelOFAZ, thanks for the laugh. Half hour 'till game time!


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> I wonder how many of these gems are scattered throghout the backpages of this site.


I imagine I layed a few gems after we drafted Hinrich. It's all good fun. Because most of the people who were high on hinrich were also low on Crawford and said some equally dumb things.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

you know, I thought Kirk would be a good pick for someone, but thought the mix here was awful for him. I even thought that there was a chance that the since departed Roger Mason Jr might beat him out for minutes. This was because Jamal was such a good PG to end last year, and he didnt appear to be interested in moving to the 2. It looked like Jay played the 2 to end last year. So the pick didnt make much sense to me. But Jamal started the year struggling as the PG that Pax and BC wanted him to be. And then all of a sudden, he warmed up to the idea of being a 2 and Jalen was shipped out, and Kirk looks like a great pick. 

80% of the time, Kirk would be rookie of the year with what he has done recently. I absolutely can admit I was wrong. I am not like alot of the knuckleheads on some boards who are always right. And I am happy to be wrong on this one. The kid has won me over and I hope to see him in a Bulls Uni for the next 10 years. 

But 2 things. Lets be real. Pax couldnt forsee the events that happened that I described. Pax was very lucky with this pick. I think he only scouted maybe 3 guys overall (wade, hinrich, hayes). In the future, he is going to have to work far harder then he did. Second of all, Hinrich is not the next Stockton. I always felt that comparison was made on a racial basis and it makes me sick. In fact, Kirk is at his best, knocking down jump shots in my opinion. And Id rather see him average 4-5 assts and shoot alot, cause he is going to be a great shooter, then average 9-11 assts and never shoot. And if he shoots alot and dishes alot, the probably means we dont have the ball movement that championship teams have (when was the last time a team with a PG who was top 5 in assts? The Lakers?). But hey, Skiles seems to have a plan for him. And for the next 3 years, he will develop into an absolute top flight guard (Nash, Marbury, Billups, Miller, Dumars level). When Skiles is gone is 3 years (he is probably going to be burnt out in 2), whoever inherits him is going to get a tough, allstar or near allstar guard. Hopefully Pax can get him a 3 to pass the ball too. That will make Kirk an even better player if he can find a guy who can knock down 3s opposite jamal or finish on the break.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> In the future, he is going to have to work far harder then he did. Second of all, Hinrich is not the next Stockton. I always felt that comparison was made on a racial basis and it makes me sick.


Finally someone came out and said it. I agree full heartedly. And that's what killed me about the comparison. It's also the same reason Kirk's athleticism has been constantly downplayed at every level. It really irked me then when Cartwright started saying that.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Finally someone came out and said it. I agree full heartedly. And that's what killed me about the comparison. It's also the same reason Kirk's athleticism has been constantly downplayed at every level. It really irked me then when Cartwright started saying that.


BC wasnt the only moron saying this. So was Pax. The point is, everytime some white kid comes into the league and plays the point, he is never going to be compared to Isiah Thomas, Tiny Archibald, Baron Davis. That kid is going to be compared to Stockton, Mark Price, Steve Nash. And its BS. Kirk is a damn good player. But his game is not a Stockton like game. And when BC tried to make him into a Stockton clone, Kirk was on pace to smash the all time turnover record for the year. Kirk is far closer to a Joe Dumars then he is too Stockton. and personally, I am happy about that. I think its easier to win titles with a Dumars then it is to win with a Stockton personally

Also, Pax got real lucky. If jamal just played like he did last year, Kirk would be sitting on the bench, and BC might still be coaching. Alot of things that couldnt have been foreseen happened. It was kind of like the Bears had with Urlacher his rookie year, he was supposed to be an outside LB, sucked ****, and there was an injury inside and the rest is history. Kirk had a lucky break to get into the lineup. And to his credit, he made more then the most of it, he beat out all his teammates for it and has arguably been the best player from start to finish this season for the club. I certainly wouldnt argue against that. So next draft, pax better bust his ***. And I dont want to hear any crap like i cant draft a kid that I have never seen before. he better have spent the time to go and travel to see some of these kids. and he better get himself a 3 and get one quick. I cant think of another team in the league who is as bad at one position as we are at the 3 spot.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Great points as usual, rlucas.

The dynamics of this thread sure are interesting.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Great points as usual, rlucas.
> 
> The dynamics of this thread sure are interesting.


My only complaint about Hinrich is i wish he would shoot more. He has as pure a stroke as any in the league. Id like Skiles to get him 18 shots in the next game. Kirk can shoot it. I sometimes think that Stockton comment made by BC and Pax is still in the back of his head. And he needs to know that he isnt Stockton, but Kirk Hinrich. And Kirk Hinrich is a damn good shooter.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> My only complaint about Hinrich is i wish he would shoot more. He has as pure a stroke as any in the league. Id like Skiles to get him 18 shots in the next game. Kirk can shoot it. I sometimes think that Stockton comment made by BC and Pax is still in the back of his head. And he needs to know that he isnt Stockton, but Kirk Hinrich. And Kirk Hinrich is a damn good shooter.


This may be way out of left field, but your comments about being compared to stockton because of race got me to thinking about who Kirk really does play like. All out defender with a nice stroke and good passing instincts..... would a comparison to Gary "The Glove" Payton be too far off?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> This may be way out of left field, but your comments about being compared to stockton because of race got me to thinking about who Kirk really does play like. All out defender with a nice stroke and good passing instincts..... would a comparison to Gary "The Glove" Payton be too far off?


And the ability to get a team into their offense quickly. I think your comparison is a very valid one. Far more valid then our Moron GM and Former Coach. Kirk also is built very similar then GP. Now if he can avoid GPs trash talking and ability to have lots of children with lots of women ( he had 3 sons, all in the same week, all 3 with different women, all named GARY PAYTON jr), then we have a real star at the guard spot for the next 10 years.

Excellent post Wynn


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> This may be way out of left field, but your comments about being compared to stockton because of race got me to thinking about who Kirk really does play like. All out defender with a nice stroke and good passing instincts..... would a comparison to Gary "The Glove" Payton be too far off?


I was thinking that too because some people previously compared JC to Payton. Hinrich is actually more like Payton than JC.

The main areas of comparison are defense (Hinrich isn't at Payton's level, but is good) and movement off the ball, where Hinrich is very good for a PG. Playing some SG at Kansas would have helped him here.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> And the ability to get a team into their offense quickly. I think your comparison is a very valid one. Far more valid then our Moron GM and Former Coach. Kirk also is built very similar then GP. Now if he can avoid GPs trash talking and ability to have lots of children with lots of women ( *he had 3 sons, all in the same week, all 3 with different women, all named GARY PAYTON jr*), then we have a real star at the guard spot for the next 10 years.


hehehe.....

Maybe "The Glove" should have worn "The Glove"!


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

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


:rotf:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> 
> 
> I was thinking that too because some people previously compared JC to Payton. Hinrich is actually more like Payton than JC.
> ...


they also have the same hair trigger quick release. its a great comparison. why i havent thought of. great thinking again


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

FYI, Kirk's favorite player as listed in the old Kansas media guide is Gary Payton.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> I disagree that he doesn't have PG skills in the NBA... I think he does.
> 
> But I think there are quite a few guards that have PG skills in the NBA but aren't most effective at PG.
> ...


I agreed with this when I first read it months ago. With the obvious exception of the Rose reference, I use the benefit of hindsight to not only still agree with this post but nominate it for Bulls analysis of the year.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> In the future, he is going to have to work far harder then he did. Second of all, Hinrich is not the next Stockton. I always felt that comparison was made on a racial basis and it makes me sick.





> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Finally someone came out and said it. I agree full heartedly. And that's what killed me about the comparison. It's also the same reason Kirk's athleticism has been constantly downplayed at every level. It really irked me then when Cartwright started saying that.


Well, I agree and disagree. Color aside, I see some of Stockton's game in Hinrich. 

But when these comparisons are made I think the intent of the person making the comparison is to focus on how fundamentally sound each player is. Very old school. All fundamentals, all hustle, all unselfish play. Would get no attention on the schoolyard, but a coach's wet dream.

Right or wrong, I think thats where the comparisons come from more than a pure racial thing, and I don't think any harm is intended. However, I admit the white guy/shorty shorts image both share DOES make the comparisons that much more easy.


----------

