# Explain to me about Hinrich



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The "better" he gets, the worse the team seems to get. Are his teammates regressing as a team? 

Also, maybe I should bring back the Fire Pax signature. His draft combined with the signing of an over-the-hill veteran ex-star has put the team in a hole early when we only have a small window of opportunity due to: 1) Wallace's decline, and 2) LeBron's/Cavs' rise.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

This is just amazing. After 7 games while going through easily the hardest part of our schedule and the team is at 3-4 you feel comfortable pronouncing the demise of the Chicago Bulls' 06-07 season? Apparently Ms. Cleo's got nothin on you.

This place can be incredibly frustrating at times with all the chicken-littles running around gleefully pronouncing doom and gloom. Ironic thing is - just like the childrens' story - they're always wrong.

Just make sure you put your raincoat on before going out to play!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

7 games is roughly 10% of the season. I think our expectations with the Wallace signing and two decent draft pick positions to be a 50+ win team and contender are set. The pundits (e.g. professional writers) were predicting good things for us.

The proof is in the pudding.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

yeah, nothing builds traffic like the fire paxson sig.

and feel free to stop speaking in antiquated, grandmotherly cliches anytime you like


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> 7 games is roughly 10% of the season. I think our expectations with the Wallace signing and two decent draft pick positions to be a 50+ win team and contender are set. The pundits (e.g. professional writers) were predicting good things for us.
> 
> The proof is in the pudding.


You've had one spoonful and you're calling that proof?


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

A) Hinrich is responsible for Gordon's shooting slump. 

B) Hinrich is responsible for the circus coming to town.

C) Hinrich is responsible for rookie mistakes.

D) Hinrich is responsible for PJ being old and unable to lift his feet more than an inch off the floor.

E) Hinrich is responsible for Deng's good play not making other guys play better.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Against Dallas, we hit our fts, we win. 

i am willing to wait. I mean after all we started 0-9 two years ago and won 48 games. 

Last year we had a big losing streak, Was it 12? Yet we ended up .500 and played miami as hard as any of the elite teams in the league.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> 7 games is roughly 10% of the season. I think our expectations with the Wallace signing and two decent draft pick positions to be a 50+ win team and contender are set. The pundits (e.g. professional writers) were predicting good things for us.
> 
> The proof is in the pudding.


In other words - there's better than 90% of the season left and plenty of opportunity to get to 50 wins. Perhaps it might be better to sample the pudding when there's actually something wothwhile to sample. To blithly claim that 50 wins is unobtainable because of a 3-4 start is beyond ridiculous.

Feel free to carry on with any other baseless extrapolations - just don't forget the raincoat. That sky is looking pretty creepy right about now.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

thebullybully said:


> A) Hinrich is responsible for Gordon's shooting slump.
> 
> B) Hinrich is responsible for the circus coming to town.
> 
> ...


I think it's more like "focusing on Hinrich's development has cost the rest of the players' development."


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Against Dallas, we hit our fts, we win.


Huh...We lost by 11. I guess this is literally true if we hit all 12 FTs that we missed.

Of course, personally, I don't expect a 70% shooting FT team to go 30 for 30.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

If the Bulls are still struggling come Dec 15th, then I think this thread is justified. At this point, however, it's simply not. Our schedule gets incredibly soft toward the end of the road trip, when we play easier teams and have a 7 game home stand.

Every team we've played so far has a fairly good shot at playoffs, except maybe Milwaukee who we destroyed. 

Sacramento, Orlando, & Cleveland all with very good records so far. And Dallas who we know is a contender despite a rocky start. I'm not too worried we lost those considering our gelling period.

Not thrilled with 3-4, but not freaking out. There's plenty of time to win games and the robust opportunities are still ahead.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> The "better" he gets, the worse the team seems to get. Are his teammates regressing as a team?
> 
> Also, maybe I should bring back the Fire Pax signature. His draft combined with the signing of an over-the-hill veteran ex-star has put the team in a hole early when we only have a small window of opportunity due to: 1) Wallace's decline, and 2) LeBron's/Cavs' rise.


I'm not sure I agree with either of your points. 

Concerning the first one, are you basing it on just this season, or on his tenure with the Bulls? If it's just this season, I'd say you're applying false causality, since there are a lot of things contributing to the team's 3-4 record, and I'd say most of them don't really have to do with Hinrich. If it's based on his time here, I'm not sure what you'd base that assumption on.

Big Ben has been disappointing so far, but he hasn't been _that_ bad, and I think you're overstating the problem with our window of opportunity. Aside from Ben, everyone in our core is still on the upward swing of their career, and the future of our team will likely include the contributions of Thabo, Tyrus, and the player we get with the NY pick next year.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I think it's more like "focusing on Hinrich's development has cost the rest of the players' development."


This is lazy, antagonistic B.S. Hinrich doesn't need others to "focus on his development". He develops on his own because he trains like a bat out of hell and has a considerable amount of talent that has been and continues to be underestimated.

Why don't you focus your argument on your MVP of the team, Ben Gordon? Perhaps his performance to date is somehow correlated to team success?

Blaming Hinrich for our team's current woes is like blaming Bill Clinton for the war in Iraq.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I think it's more like "focusing on Hinrich's development has cost the rest of the players' development."


I'm not sure what this statement is supposed to mean.

Are you trying to say that Kirk's training takes up valuable resources of the coaching staff that could be better used on other players?

That Kirk's improved play on the court has caused others to play badly?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> This is lazy, antagonistic B.S. Hinrich doesn't need others to "focus on his development". He develops on his own because he trains like a bat out of hell and has a considerable amount of talent that has been and continues to be underestimated.
> 
> Why don't you focus your studies on your MVP of the team, Ben Gordon? Perhaps his performance to date is somehow correlated to team success?


One of the two players gets a quick yank if he makes a mistake or two. 

But the real point is we've maintained our core, the core has improved, we've added DPOY Wallace as an upgrade to Chandler, had two (roughly) top 15 draft picks, and we're not visibly any better.

3-4


----------



## RagingBulls316 (Feb 15, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The pundits (e.g. professional writers) were predicting good things for us.


They also predicted a slow start because of the tough early schedule and many new faces on the team. And that's exactly what we are seeing, a slow start. If we are still under or near .500 at the end of December, then maybe the proof will be in the pudding.

Now I want pudding .


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> I'm not sure what this statement is supposed to mean.
> 
> Are you trying to say that Kirk's training takes up valuable resources of the coaching staff that could be better used on other players?
> 
> That Kirk's improved play on the court has caused others to play badly?


That we can have a 15 point lead, Kirk can take 5 straight ill-advised shots or be tired, and the coach won't put in a fresher player or make him sit for his mistakes. Just foul trouble.

And you have him stuck at PG where he's just OK (6 APG is not all that impressive) while the guy who should be playing PG is standing in the corner beyond the 3pt line (gordon). or sitting on the bench (duhon)
.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> One of the two players gets a quick yank if he makes a mistake or two.
> 
> But the real point is we've maintained our core, the core has improved, we've added DPOY Wallace as an upgrade to Chandler, had two (roughly) top 15 draft picks, and we're not visibly any better.
> 
> 3-4


And you're basing this argument on a population of 7 games.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> One of the two players gets a quick yank if he makes a mistake or two.


This is because Player A does things (lead the offense, defend) that Player B either doesn't or can't do, so Player A has a longer leash because he generally has a positive impact on the game despite his errors. The same cannot always be said for Player B. Come on, DaBullz. This is elementary. This has been hashed and rehashed hundreds of times not only on this board, but in the major media as well. 



> But the real point is we've maintained our core, the core has improved, we've added DPOY Wallace as an upgrade to Chandler, had two (roughly) top 15 draft picks, and we're not visibly any better.


True. Now name the players not carrying their weight thus far.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> And you have him stuck at PG where he's just OK (6 APG is not all that impressive)


Hilarious.

The greatest net production by position in the NBA is the Chicago Bulls point guard spot with a net PER of +21.7. And it's not even close. Team Production By Position: "CAPTAIN KIRK: Hinrich has steered the Bulls PG slot to the greatest net production by position." 



> while the guy who should be playing PG is standing in the corner beyond the 3pt line (gordon). or sitting on the bench (duhon)
> .


Gordon cannot play PG. Period. Duhon is a very good backup.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> And you're basing this argument on a population of 7 games.


What do these teams have in common?
Cleveland, San Antonio, Sacramento, Clippers, Lakers

All top teams, championship contenders, and playing like it.

A population of 7 games, exactly. That 7 will become 8 and 9 and so on. There's nothing really been shown to suggest they're going on some magic undefeated streak at the end of the season to scrape into the playoffs again.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Hilarious.
> 
> The greatest net production by position in the NBA is the Chicago Bulls point guard spot with a net PER of +21.7. And it's not even close. Team Production By Position: "CAPTAIN KIRK: Hinrich has steered the Bulls PG slot to the greatest net production by position."
> 
> ...


Typical. Gordon gets a shot at PG and drops 37 with 9 dimes. But you say he can't play the position. 

Duhon was PG on a 48 win team. Hinrich on a 41 win team and 23 win team and now a team that's under .500 (that should be a championship contender).


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> What do these teams have in common?
> Cleveland, San Antonio, Sacramento, Clippers, Lakers
> 
> All top teams, championship contenders, and playing like it.
> ...


What is the combined record of Detroit, Miami, Dallas and Phoenix?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> What is the combined record of Detroit, Miami, Dallas and Phoenix?


Which of those teams do you expect to be in the NBA finals?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Typical. Gordon gets a shot at PG and drops 37 with 9 dimes. But you say he can't play the position.
> 
> Duhon was PG on a 48 win team. Hinrich on a 41 win team and 23 win team and now a team that's under .500 (that should be a championship contender).


My goodness. This coming from the guy who, as recently as last year, thought net +/- dictated player value.

I am not going to honor the rest of your irrational devils advocacy with a response. Glad to see your Republican strategy working out so well for you.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> My goodness. This coming from the guy who, as recently as last year, thought net +/- dictated player value.
> 
> I am not going to honor the rest of your irrational devils advocacy with a response. Glad to see your Republican strategy working out so well for you.


Aren't I the guy who called net +/- something akin to hat size divided by shoe size?

I AM the guy who says the record says it all. 3-4.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Actually, bulls are 2-4 in the games where Kirk was full-time PG, considering the one game he sat for fouls and Gordon did his 37/9 numbers. I also note that when Kirk came back in the game and resumed the PG duties (in a blowout), Gordon didn't get another assist.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I AM the guy who says the record says it all. 3-4.


Miami started last season 10-10. They still got to 50 wins, and they did this other thing too...what was it again? 

Oh right, they won the championship.

but by all means, the sky is falling because we're 3-4. And it's Hinrich's fault, despite the fact that he's playing really well. And we'd be doing just fine if we would just put Mr. 2-18fg at PG full-time, but the mean ol' bald Drill Sargeant won't allow it.

yeah.


----------



## RagingBulls316 (Feb 15, 2004)

VincentVega said:


> Gordon cannot play PG. Period.


I would have agreed with that 2 years ago, but now I really don't. I think Gordon has improved at playing the point since he came into the league. His ball handling and decision making is better then his rookie year.

Ben has shown he is good at setting up teammates, when he's running the point and I wouldn't mind seeing more of it. However if the other team puts alot of pressure on, it's probably best to have Hinrich or Duhon bringing the ball up the court.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Also, maybe I should bring back the Fire Pax signature.


Dare I hope? Please do it. 

The rest of this thread is excrement.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> The greatest net production by position in the NBA is the Chicago Bulls point guard spot with a net PER of +21.7. And it's not even close. Team Production By Position: "CAPTAIN KIRK: Hinrich has steered the Bulls PG slot to the greatest net production by position."
> 
> Gordon cannot play PG. Period. Duhon is a very good backup.


Funny, Gordon can't play PG yet Gordon is contributing mightily to the greatest net production by position in the NBA which is the Chicago Bulls point guard spot

According to 82games, Gordon is playing 5% of the total Chicago PG minutes AND he is a net PER of +50.0. 
------------------
Thabo plays 3% of the point guard mins. Also at net PER of +50.0. 
Duhon plays 41% at net PER of +13.2
Hinrich plays 47% at net PER of +9.1 (slacker)
Barrnet plays 1% at net PER of -21

p.s. LOL. Lies, Damn Lies, and statistics.

p.p.s. Looks like the linked article is dated. Bulls down to a +16.8 net at the point. http://www.82games.com/0607/0607CHI5.HTM


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

From start to end it has not been clear to me what this thread is about, except that now I have a headache.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> What do these teams have in common?
> Cleveland, San Antonio, Sacramento, Clippers, Lakers
> 
> All top teams, championship contenders, and playing like it.
> ...



All those teams didn't add 8 new players to their team. Cleveland stayed pat with the group they had from last year, lost Flip Murray and added Pasivic (sp?). Last year was their first year together and Lebron is only going to get better, but what happens when Big Z, Donyell Marshall, David Wesley, and Eric Snow all hit their decline which is coming soon? 

San Antonio is San Antonio, Duncan in the middle, Ginobli and Parker on the outside. A veteran group that has been together at least 4 or 5 years. Some old veterans and new young foreign talent. 

Sacramento a championship contender in the West, please? They will make the playoffs but not get past the 1st round. Still, they haven't added anybody new, Kevin Martin is getting better and Ron Artest is there for a whole year, how long until he messes up again? You know it's coming.

Clippers is the same core group from 3 years ago. Livingston is replacing Sam Cassell and Brand is going to be Brand.

Lakers, same team for the past 3 years. Kobe is getting healthy and this is their 2nd year under Phil without Shaq. We know Phil can coach, remember 93-94 season?

Now, let's move on to the Bulls in the past 3 seasons.

04-05 Added Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Andres Nocioni, Chris Duhon and Adrian Griffin. Start 0-9, end up 47-35 and lost in the 1st round.

05-06 No draft picks, traded Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis before the season. Signed Darius Songalia and Malik Allen, lost Adrian Griffin. Start 12-19, end up 41-41 and lost to the NBA Champions in the 1st round. Played them tougher than anybody else in the East.

06-07 Added T. Thomas, Thabo Sefalosha, Ben Wallace, Adrian Griffin, Victor Krhapa, PJ Brown, Andre Barrett, and Marty A. (sp?) Traded away Tyson Chandler. Let Darius Songalia and Jannero Pargo go. Started 3-4 so far, the rest, ?

See a pattern here. Our core of Kirk, Ben, Luol, Andres and Chris has stayed the same since the 04-05 season, but our role players has changed. All the other teams role players haven't changed. Paxson is finally getting close to the team he wants on the floor. It will take some time for this team to gel. Like I posted before, I want to see our best basketball at the All-Star break and after, not in the beginning of the season. Championships aren't won in November, they are won in June.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Kirk is a great defender and shooter, but he is not a great playmaker, as his 6 assists per game shows. He's not bad at it, but he's not a net positive either. Unfortunately, Skiles' system puts the ball in his hands 90% of the time and let's him choose what to do. This does not make for great offense, and Kirk would likely be even more inconsistent offensively if he was not allowed to pick and choose his spots to shoot and drive. Kirk's stats this year (50 percent shooting) really puts his offensive production from the past 3 years in perspective.

I place *a lot* of blame on Ben Gordon for this team's poor start. However, Ben is clearly not great at coming off screens and shooting off quick passes and working off the ball in general. There is a lot of pressure on him to do something with the ball when he receives it, which is not very often. Is it really a surprise that he becomes clutch at the end of games when the ball is in his hands more often and he is allowed to make decisions with it? At the same time, Hinrich is superb at working off the ball and shooting off quick passes. ...It doesn't take a genius to see what should be done. 

Ben is clearly a very flawed player, but his confidence and trade value should be a lot higher that what they are right now, and I think Skiles deserves some blame for his play.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Kirk is a great defender and shooter, but he is not a great playmaker, as his 6 assists per game shows. He's not bad at it, but he's not a net positive either. Unfortunately, Skiles' system puts the ball in his hands 90% of the time and let's him choose what to do. This does not make for great offense, and Kirk would likely be even more inconsistent offensively if he was not allowed to pick and choose his spots to shoot and drive. Kirk's stats this year (50 percent shooting) really puts his offensive production from the past 3 years in perspective.
> 
> I place *a lot* of blame on Ben Gordon for this team's poor start. However, Ben is clearly not great at coming off screens and shooting off quick passes and working off the ball in general. There is a lot of pressure on him to do something with the ball when he receives it, which is not very often. Is it really a surprise that he becomes clutch at the end of games when the ball is in his hands more often and he is allowed to make decisions with it? At the same time, Hinrich is superb at working off the ball and shooting off quick passes. ...It doesn't take a genius to see what should be done.
> 
> Ben is clearly a very flawed player, but his confidence and trade value should be a lot higher that what they are right now, and I think Skiles deserves some blame for his play.


Great post!!!!

:clap:

I also agree with DaBullz in every way, and I thank him for saying it!!!!


:clap:

People ignore me when I say it.


----------



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

rwj333 said:


> Kirk is a great defender and shooter, but he is not a great playmaker, as his 6 assists per game shows. He's not bad at it, but he's not a net positive either. Unfortunately, Skiles' system puts the ball in his hands 90% of the time and let's him choose what to do. This does not make for great offense, and Kirk would likely be even more inconsistent offensively if he was not allowed to pick and choose his spots to shoot and drive. Kirk's stats this year (50 percent shooting) really puts his offensive production from the past 3 years in perspective.
> 
> I place *a lot* of blame on Ben Gordon for this team's poor start. However, Ben is clearly not great at coming off screens and shooting off quick passes and working off the ball in general. There is a lot of pressure on him to do something with the ball when he receives it, which is not very often. Is it really a surprise that he becomes clutch at the end of games when the ball is in his hands more often and he is allowed to make decisions with it? At the same time, Hinrich is superb at working off the ball and shooting off quick passes. ...It doesn't take a genius to see what should be done.
> 
> Ben is clearly a very flawed player, but his confidence and trade value should be a lot higher that what they are right now, and I think Skiles deserves some blame for his play.


Any solution that doesn't involve Kirk being the symbolic and literal leader handling the ball is really no solution at all.


----------



## Chi-Town Bovine (Jan 9, 2006)

Its almost funny to me that we are talking about this now, we are only 7 games in and there is no way to tell what will happen over the next 75. Im sure there will be slumps and Im sure there will be outbursts but there is plenty of basketball left to play. So lets not do the blame game thing yet. We need to let everyone settle in, find their roles and gel as a team. Fire Skiles, trade Gordon, shoot Hinrich if you want but not 7 games in.


----------



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

Hmmm, Kirk does GOOD, he gets bashed. Kirk does BAD, he gets bashed. Some fans respect nothing but Crawfordesque streetballers or Chandleresque untapped potential.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Also, maybe I should bring back the Fire Pax signature.


Bring back the sig! This site needs more e-drama. Can we also get other classics like the _Bulls playing the right way??????_ sig back? I heard that one turned out awesome. The best part was that it referenced the Knicks, which Crawford was obviously gonna take to a new level.



DaBullz said:


> [Paxson's] draft combined with the signing of an over-the-hill veteran ex-star has put the team in a hole...


That's funny, the reason you took the sig down in the first place is because you were delighted with Pax's signing of Wallace, the same move you're lambasting him for now. I think it'd be a lot simpler if you just put a line in there admitting that you don't know what this team needs.


----------



## SianTao (Jul 11, 2005)

Cocoa Rice Krispies said:


> This site needs more e-drama.


Ok.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I am not happy with the start, but I don't blame Paxson and his moves. He has done a great job. Chandler instead of Brown wasn't going to happen due to Reinsdorf. And I don't think we would have won any more games with Chandler. 

I am dissapointed with the play of some players. Wallace has looked very good in some games, average in others. You have good and bad nights. I don't think he is the problem.

As much as I love Noc, he has not been as effective as we all had hoped for. Gordon has been a big dissapointment. Skiles is doing a very poor job in my opinion with his rotations. We need the rookies to contribute and be effective for us to be successful. They are not getting in, especially Thomas. We need him to contribute, not Malik Allen. Would we all agree for this team to be successful and contend both of the rookies need to develop and contribute this year? Do we agree Malik Allen is not the answer and we need Thomas to develop, and we need to suffer the growing pains of him being out there? Also need some Khryapa contribution. Skiles is complaining about Khryapa not defending his own man well. How do you tell this in 5 minutes a game?

If you want to know why Hinrich is only averaging 6 asts? It is the bricks being shot up by Gordon.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> The "better" he gets, the worse the team seems to get. Are his teammates regressing as a team?
> 
> Also, maybe I should bring back the Fire Pax signature. His draft combined with the signing of an over-the-hill veteran ex-star has put the team in a hole early when we only have a small window of opportunity due to: 1) Wallace's decline, and 2) LeBron's/Cavs' rise.


You shouldn't be allowed to post anything about Firing or Keeping Paxson, IMHO because you obviously have the patience of a child. The Bulls have played a grand total of three, that's right 3 home games and somehow our window is closing. I don't recall you saying Wallace was "over-the-hill" when we signed him. I recall just a few games ago he had 18 rebounds and won the game for us. Oh, wait that was a whole 2 games ago. He is obviously is RAPID decline.

As for the Cavs "rise". Who is rising on that team? 31-year old and oft-injured Ilgauskas playing 22 mins a night? 33-year old and soon to be free agent Donyell Marshall? Drew Gooden? Injured all the time (and currently) Larry Hughes? 33-year old Eric Snow?

So basically you are categorizing it as the follows. Cavs = Good, Bulls = Bad. Cavs = In ascension, Bull = In decline. 

Let's say we won that Sacramento game and we were 3-0 at home and a 4-3 record. Would Ben Wallace still be in decline? Would the Cavs still be WAY better than us? Would we be firing Paxson yet again? So we are 1 point away from a complete season reversal. Hilarious.

People will make any sort of generalization to support their impatient arguments. 3-4 Bulls = lottery team that needs to be blown up. 4-3 Bulls = championship contendor.


----------



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

Salvaged Ship said:


> If you want to know why Hinrich is only averaging 6 asts? It is the bricks being shot up by Gordon.


Good point guards actually create a lot more easy opportunities for other players, even if the options down low are Ben Wallace and PJ Brown. The supporters of a good point guard will talk about how even formerly-offensively-decrepit-player-X has benefitted. Example: Steve Nash. But here since Kirk isn't that great of a point guard but is immune to criticism, it's everyone else's fault.

rwj333 said the solution.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Actually, bulls are 2-4 in the games where Kirk was full-time PG, considering the one game he sat for fouls and Gordon did his 37/9 numbers. I also note that when Kirk came back in the game and resumed the PG duties (in a blowout), Gordon didn't get another assist.


You would really consider one half and say BG is a better PG. Do you see the problem with your 2-4 stat, it really only accounts for one half of a game, Kirk is the starting point guard.

Didn't Gordon score 23 or more in that second half, didn't the Bulls play really well?

*What current players in the league with an assist to turnover ratio as bad as BG's career best(1.3) have had an equal or worse career low and eventually turned themselves into a starter or backup point? Smush Parker and Gilbert Arenas. Pretty telling if you ask me.*



DaBullz said:


> I AM the guy who says the record says it all. 3-4.


Dallas, Pheonix, Mia, Det


I have no problem with criticizing Kirk, like with his low percentage shooting in years past, but what else is there to criticize. He isn't Stockton or Nash but what other point averages 6 assists with the offensive level of bigmen we have, no one. His career high 6.8(rookie season) dipped off when Curry left.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> but he is not a great playmaker, as his 6 assists per game shows...Kirk's stats this year (50 percent shooting) really puts his offensive production from the past 3 years in perspective.


Hinrich's current apg average is only 0.6 off his career average. And this is with the team's primary scorer not being able to hit the ocean from the beach.

Kirk shot 44% from the field over the first seven games last season, which is far higher than his career average. He finished the year averaging 6.3 apg. We went 3-4 to start last season, too. 



> However, Ben is clearly not great at coming off screens and shooting off quick passes and working off the ball in general.


This is kind of like saying your star cornerback is clearly not great at defending the pass and reading offenses in general.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> You shouldn't be allowed to post anything about Firing or Keeping Paxson, IMHO because you obviously have the patience of a child.


He isn't patient, because if we were 7-0 right now, he would be the most patient man alive claiming these games mean nothing. He just has something that he wants to believe, and there is really nothing that's going to change his mind. He comes off as more of a Ben Gordon fan than a Bulls fan. He doesn't like Paxson, Hinrich, Skiles or any of the players besides Gordon. Some Bulls fan.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

just *luv ya* dabullz. _you_ are consistent to a fault. the more things change the more they stay the same.



it's kirk's fault the team is 3-4? it's kirk's fault the other players aren't developing? dammit, that _must_ be it! thanks for clearing that up. i was wonderin' what in the heck was going on.




*HILARIOUS!*

:cowboy:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Good point guards actually create a lot more easy opportunities for other players, even if the options down low are Ben Wallace and PJ Brown.


Last season, 68% of our shots were jump shots and 33% were in the paint. So far this season, 64% of our shots are jumpers and 36% have been taken in the paint. It seems like there are more easy opportunities and closer shots this year as opposed to last, even if the options down low are Ben Wallace and PJ Brown. Additionally, our inside shots are being converted at a higher rate than last season.

I remember a couple seasons ago when certain posters criticized Hinrich for not being an effective passer. They said that he only got his assists off of perimeter passes, and that he couldn't convert an interior pass to save his life (but Crawford did it all the time!). When I showed that the ratio of Hinrich's passes that led to interior buckets was among the top 10 in the NBA, these people quickly changed the subject and said that Hinrich was an "assist hog" who only thought about dropping dimes and padding his stats.

What does the flavor of the month for December look like? Kirk can't shoot? Kirk can't pass? Kirk can't lead a team? Kirk refuses to pass the ball to Ben? Kirk can't defend?


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Also, maybe I should bring back the Fire Pax signature. His draft combined with the signing of an over-the-hill veteran ex-star has put the team in a hole early when we only have a small window of opportunity due to: 1) Wallace's decline, and 2) LeBron's/Cavs' rise.


 :rofl: Let me get this right. You removed the sig 'cause Paxson did what you thought he should do. Through 7 games, the moves with which you agreed aren't quite working out the way you (and Paxson) believed they would. 

Maybe it should be a "Fire Paxson and DaBullz" Club. Better yet, a "Fire Just About Everyone" Club, since just about all of us thought (and most of us still think) Paxson had an exceptional offseason.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> 7 games is roughly 10% of the season. I think our expectations with the Wallace signing and two decent draft pick positions to be a 50+ win team and contender are set. The pundits (e.g. professional writers) were predicting good things for us.
> 
> The proof is in the pudding.


I have them winning 48.7 games this season (midpoint of the range). Right now they should have a record of 3.2-3.8 again using midpoints. After Houston and San Antonio, I have them at 3.9-5.1.

If they split the next two games, they are actually slightly above pace (by 0.1 wins) to my forecast of 48.7 wins despite the 0.444 winning %.

We have played all of our games against playoff caliber teams except for Milwaukee (a team some would argue will make the playoffs). The Kings at home should have been our second easiest game, which we blew, but I don't think it was at the expense of Hinrich's development.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

transplant said:


> Maybe it should be a "Fire Paxson and DaBullz" Club. Better yet, a "Fire Just About Everyone" Club, since just about all of us thought (and most of us still think) Paxson had an exceptional offseason.


I'm considering starting a "David Stern should contract the Chicago Bulls Club." Since Paxson, Skiles, and Reinsdorf (not to mention Hinrich!) are clearly all terrible, why not just get rid of the entire team?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

We're all a bunch of chumps, by the way.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> This is kind of like saying your star cornerback is clearly not great at defending the pass and reading offenses in general.


Somehow, somewhere, R.W. McQuarters just died a little inside.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> :rofl: Let me get this right. You removed the sig 'cause Paxson did what you thought he should do. Through 7 games, the moves with which you agreed aren't quite working out the way you (and Paxson) believed they would.
> 
> Maybe it should be a "Fire Paxson and DaBullz" Club. Better yet, a "Fire Just About Everyone" Club, since just about all of us thought (and most of us still think) Paxson had an exceptional offseason.


You mischaracterize the situation.

I removed the fire pax club becuase I thought there would be a followup trade for someone like KG or J. O'Neal and that Pax was actually going for it all. It was premature, clearly, as the followup trade was for PJ Brown (who's no KG) and the draft picks were spent on guys with little chance of being immediate impact players.

So what we got was more of the same. Wait 'till next year!.

As for Hinrich, I don't think I'm bashing him. I think if he's going to be an all-star, SG is the position for him, and if we do play him at SG, we have an outstanding chance of having an all-star at PG, too. As is, we seem to have a chance at neither.

What I don't understand it the mentality that Hinrich has to be the PG and (over)handle the ball all the time, no matter who we have who's better suited for the PG role.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz,

Please name an NBA coach or executive who thinks that Ben Gordon better suited for point guard than Kirk Hinrich. Thanks in advance.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

perhaps this is beyond the mind of the big bald head, but if i were him I would seriously consider putting Gordon back in the lineup and switching Hinrich with him.

PG Gordon
SG Hinrich

let's just try it for one game and see what happens. Hinrich is obviously a better slasher than Gordon but I'd love to see what he can do in a catch and drive situation.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> DaBullz,
> 
> Please name an NBA coach or executive who thinks that Ben Gordon better suited for point guard than Kirk Hinrich. Thanks in advance.


LOL

Name one who thinks Hinrich is better suited (other than Skiles)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Hinrich's current apg average is only 0.6 off his career average. And this is with the team's primary scorer not being able to hit the ocean from the beach.
> 
> Kirk shot 44% from the field over the first seven games last season, which is far higher than his career average. He finished the year averaging 6.3 apg. We went 3-4 to start last season, too.
> 
> ...


His career average is not very good for a PG. Being near it isn't impressive.

If all statisticians were laid end to end, it would be a good thing.
--Anonymous


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Wow. Just wow.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If all statisticians were laid end to end, it would be a good thing.
> --Anonymous


WIN METHOD.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I don't get the gloom and doom. This is a team with lots of new faces and a tough beginning schedule where they are on the road a lot. I expect a good season, but I sure as heck never expected this team to come out of the gate like gangbusters. Did you? Really?

Heck, people are slagging on PJ Brown for suggesting this (ALWAYS) demanding circus trip would be a success if they were .500 (or presumably better than .500, since it is an odd number of games).

You know what? The vaunted 1997-8 chicago Bulls, of 72 Win, smack in the middle of the second Threepeat, Dynasty Glory team went 4-3 on the circus trip that year.

Don't panic.

Jeesh.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> LOL
> 
> Name one who thinks Hinrich is better suited (other than Skiles)


The one(s) who invited Kirk, not Ben to be on Team USA.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

while i'm definitely a gordon supporter, AND i feel his best position is pg, its an exercise in futility to surmise that kirk's output (or lack thereof) is the obvious reason gordon should be put there. 

in most bull sets, the *only* real difference i see (in the majority of offensive trips) is hinrich bringing the ball across half court. at that point, gordon either runs off screens for looks (something i personally don't think is his strength) or hinrich hands the ball to gordon at the top and the sets evolve.

for gordon to be successful, i don't believe hinrich needs to give up the ball; ALTHOUGH hinrich was a combo 2 at KU with aaron miles running the point. in the KU scheme, i recall seeing kirk as the guy running off screens, catching and shooting; something i beleive got him drafted. his pg skills at the 2 would be plus, sort of a poor man's jeff hornacek. IF kirk's mentality could adjust to a "shoot first" mode, he might be even better than he's been thus far. this means at least to me that if a switch were to occur, kirk might have less of a problem morphing into a 2 than gordon has.

gordon's detractors like to point out his lack of ballhandling as a reason ben's "not a pg"; his turns have decreased considerably, further a scoring pg will likely have more turns than a pass first pg, so it's a matter of skiles deciding which kind of pg is more beneficial to team success.

so far with ben struggling, it appears that a change/switch might not hurt to at least explore.


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

Amazing...people think there's an actual correlation between Kirk's high level of play and the Bulls losing??


Even worse...there are people out there who think ben gordon would be a better PG than Kirk????????


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

The best point guard on this team isn't Gordon or Hinrich,but Duhon isn't a good scorer and this team needs backcourt scoring.Gordon is probably headed back to the bench eventually.He can come off the bench and chuck like World B.Free.Most likely everyone will happier.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

How 'bout them OU Golden Eagles?

Whoot.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> gordon's detractors like to point out his lack of ballhandling as a reason ben's "not a pg"; *his turns have decreased considerably*,


no they haven't. Even if you only look at his marvelous Milwaukee game he would still have the worst assist to turnover ratio at PG aside from Arenas.



> further a scoring pg will likely have more turns than a pass first pg, so it's a matter of skiles deciding which kind of pg is more beneficial to team success.


Since none of the Ben is a better pg supporters responded to it, I'll post it twice

What current players in the league with an assist to turnover ratio *as bad as BG's career best*(1.3) have had an *equal or worse career low *and eventually turned themselves into a starter or backup point? Smush Parker and Gilbert Arenas. Pretty telling if you ask me.



> so far with ben struggling, it appears that a change/switch might not hurt to at least explore.


it might hurt the team considerably IMO, if Ben at PG is as bad an idea as I think it is, one win could be the difference between a 3 and 5 seed.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Diable said:


> The best point guard on this team isn't Gordon or Hinrich,but Duhon isn't a good scorer and this team needs backcourt scoring.Gordon is probably headed back to the bench eventually.He can come off the bench and chuck like World B.Free.Most likely everyone will happier.


 If Gordon can deal with it mentally, he is IMO definitely the heir apparent to Vinnie Johnson. A guy who can play both PG and SG depending on the adjustment the coach wants to make off the bench and can provide that instant offense. Plus off the bench he won't have to worry about getting teammates involved, if I was the coach I would define Gordon's job as to score in bunches while the second team is in


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

Just when you think you've seen it all...


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> no they haven't. Even if you only look at his marvelous Milwaukee game he would still have the worst assist to turnover ratio at PG aside from Arenas.


how can this be accurate when that game was the only one in which actually played pg? if he's turning the ball over like suggested, wouldn't it be fair to say it's from the SG and not the PG position?
unless there's some data that divides up his stats for each position, this assertion is a reach. further, if ben were to develop into an arenas level pg (which kirk, for all his positives will NEVER become), i'd be a happy fan.

i don't like to use stats as a way to see whether a guy can be or is effective at a particular position; gordon's been a PG *all his life* and has for the most part (nc2a champ & mvp; ny state champ in hs, if i'm not mistaken), been a successful one, regardless of what stats say about his propensity for turns. the fact that a few paltry stats show that he *might be* (since he only does in in brief spurts) turnover prone doesn't prove (at least to me) that pg isn't his best position. i'm also doubtful that skiles (or pax) is holding up stats as a reason to view gordon as a 2. they've viewed gordon as a gifted scorer, which they've also mouthed frequently. it's simply a matter of those 2 believing he can transition to a SG *and* that the team is better suited with a pass first pg. is that necessarily the case?; i'm not sure but if they're truly trying to put each player in a position to succeed, then the possiblity should be explored.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I think it's more like "focusing on Hinrich's development has cost the rest of the players' development."


And you know this... how?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Funny, Gordon can't play PG yet Gordon is contributing mightily to the greatest net production by position in the NBA which is the Chicago Bulls point guard spot
> 
> According to 82games, Gordon is playing 5% of the total Chicago PG minutes AND he is a net PER of +50.0.
> ------------------
> ...



5% of the 8% of the season that we've played so far isn't really sample sizing it up, no?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> how can this be accurate when that game was the only one in which actually played pg? if he's turning the ball over like suggested, wouldn't it be fair to say it's from the SG and not the PG position?


that would be perfectly fair, you mentioned his to rate has gone down, which it hasn't.



> i don't like to use stats as a way to see whether a guy can be or is effective at a particular position; gordon's been a PG *all his life* and has for the most part (nc2a champ & mvp; ny state champ in hs, if i'm not mistaken), been a successful one, regardless of what stats say about his propensity for turns. the fact that a few paltry stats show that he *might be* (since he only does in in brief spurts) turnover prone doesn't prove (at least to me) that pg isn't his best position. i'm also doubtful that skiles (or pax) is holding up stats as a reason to view gordon as a 2. they've viewed gordon as a gifted scorer, which they've also mouthed frequently. it's simply a matter of those 2 believing he can transition to a SG *and* that the team is better suited with a pass first pg. is that necessarily the case?; i'm not sure but if they're truly trying to put each player in a position to succeed, then the possiblity should be explored.


I don't use many stats much myself, but sometimes they are pretty telling, as is the case here IMO.

His past success at different levels means nothing in the NBA. Tyrus played soem PG in high school too, and I bet he was pretty good at it. Half the 2 guards in the league played center in hs. Also at Uconn he played most of his time in a 2 guard role with Tierre Brown playing point.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> just *luv ya* dabullz. _you_ are consistent to a fault. the more things change the more they stay the same.
> 
> it's kirk's fault the team is 3-4? it's kirk's fault the other players aren't developing? dammit, that _must_ be it! thanks for clearing that up. i was wonderin' what in the heck was going on.
> 
> ...


Hi Miz, we mizzed ya! Hope this crazy thread doesn't send you away again.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

Hinrich bogs down the offense. He also isnt a great PG b/c he cant hit off the dribble. The only reason why he gets his assists is b/c the people he passes too eventually hit their J's.

flamesuit on


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> that would be perfectly fair, you mentioned his to rate has gone down, which it hasn't.


yet, if as the quote below suggests, your argument was bolstered by pulling out a stat, rather than observing his play. i never suggested his stats said his t/o rate went down, only that by viewing his development did i notice/observe him faring better at the t/o. his defense has also improved; yet i suppose there's a stat somewhere that might suggest otherwise. most guys when they want to make a case for or against a player pull out some stat to bolster their case; i generally don't; i watch games and how players apply themselves in given situations. gordon's game *may be * suffering as a 2 guard, not necessarily that he was better or worse than hinrich because i like kirk's game. the bull has to find a way for both players to be comfortable and excel in their roles. ben's role is obviously as a scorer, which he's not doing well, which as i'm suggesting may (to repeat) be because he's not as comfortable coming off screens, picks, etc., receiving and shooting. 



> I don't use many stats much myself, but sometimes they are pretty telling, as is the case here IMO.
> His past success at different levels means nothing in the NBA.


that much i realize; however, that's not why the statement was made. the point was, if a player plays one position his entire career, if and when he struggles at another it * may be* due to to the adjustments said player finds it necessary to make to play the new position. inconsistency is common in such cases. is that an excuse? probably, because i personally think he should be excelling either way, but for the fans screaming for a trade, what i'm observing and what i'm reading as the lament over gordon's "short"comings, don't jibe imo.



> Hinrich bogs down the offense.


not true......



> He also isnt a great PG b/c he cant hit off the dribble. The only reason why he gets his assists is b/c the people he passes too eventually hit their J's.


trying hard to think of the pg's that DO shoot off the dribble; only nash comes to mind, and in every sense, nash's games belies many of the ordinary pg responsibilties. he's an exception. ridnour's a good outside shooter, but not sure if his foot speed creates "off the dribble" shot attempts either.
further, since the bull is a primarily jumpshooting team. the last sentence would tend to follow with respect to his assists. shots made are shots made the assist isn't graded for the proximity to the hoop the pass receipient scores from.


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

H.O.V.A. said:


> Hinrich bogs down the offense. He also isnt a great PG b/c he cant hit off the dribble. The only reason why he gets his assists is b/c the people he passes too eventually hit their J's.


LOL

Hilarious thread all-around...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

If you don't like this thread, you can read lots of other threads in this forum. In the mean time, I have a POV and many others seem to agree with it, and it's only fair that we all can post.

That said, I'm not ripping on Hinrich. I am ripping on the notion that Hinrich has to be the PG.

As PG, he led the team to 23 wins. As PG, Duhon led the team to 47 the next season. As PG, Hinrich led the team to a string of consecutive losses, and the Bulls pulled out a playoff birth only after Gordon became the PG (and Songaila wasn't in Skiles' rotation). As starting PG again, the Bulls aren't living up to my expectations, and they certainly aren't looking like a 50-win kind of team (barring some big winning streak late in the season again).

From a PG standpoint, you want to compare Hinrich with other PGs. In APG, Hinrich was *15th* in the league last season. Since his APG is down this season, he's likely worse than 15th now. As the 23 wins team indicated, he's not the kind of PG that made an immediate impact, like say, Chris Paul (would Paul be our SG if he was on the team? Probably! And he'd probably not be the player you see now.)

People say "his assists would be better if his teammates hit their shots!" But that's an excuse or something. The correlary to that theory is that he simply isn't setting up his teammates to have good shots to make (enough). 

For some reason, Gordon playing PG seems to be some sort of threat to Hinrich. I don't get that. Aside from Deng (and Hinrich himself), EVERY PLAYER on the team is performing below last season - including Gordon, including Nocioni, including Wallace, including PJ Brown, and so on. So why isn't that a reflection on the PG? It is.

As near as i can tell, even Skiles recognizes there's some kind of problem with the team. He did juggle the lineup, after all. Kirk = 25 points. Kirk = PG 42 minutes. Bulls lose by 12. To a team that was 2-4. The outcome wasn't really in doubt.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> If you don't like this thread, you can read lots of other threads in this forum. In the mean time, I have a POV and many others seem to agree with it, and it's only fair that we all can post.
> 
> That said, I'm not ripping on Hinrich. I am ripping on the notion that Hinrich has to be the PG.
> 
> ...


Oh boy. There's a ton of stuff wrong with this post, IMO.

First, the post that started this thread had absolutely nothing to do with Kirk Hinrich playing point guard. In case you've forgotten, here's your thesis statement:

"The "better" he gets, the worse the team seems to get. Are his teammates regressing as a team?"

There's nothing about Hinrich playing point being the issue in the first post of this thread.

Second, the 23 win season shouldn't be taken as an indictment of Hinrich's ability to run an offense. That team was dreadful, full of CBA level talent, and I don't think Chris Paul could've done much better with it as a rookie. By the way, while I really like Chris Paul, his team only won 38 games last year, and they missed the playoffs. Using your "team wins as a metric for measuring point guard effectiveness" logic he's not coming out looking all that hot either.

Third, Hinrich played 42 minutes versus Dallas, most of them NEXT TO CHRIS DUHON. He was playing SHOOTING GUARD. Using that game to judge his skills as a 1 is just crazy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Oh boy. There's a ton of stuff wrong with this post, IMO.
> 
> First, the post that started this thread had absolutely nothing to do with Kirk Hinrich playing point guard. In case you've forgotten, here's your thesis statement:
> 
> ...


Duhon played 21 minutes, Hinrich 42.

Paul's impact on the hornets was from 18 wins to 38 wins. Hinrich's impact was from 30 wins to 23.

To address your first point, I've not denied Hinrich's numbers (except assists) are improved. In fact, they've pretty much improved overall year-by-year. The correlation seems to be that the more he plays PG, the worse the team's record. That's consistent with my first post.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Oh boy. There's a ton of stuff wrong with this post, IMO.
> 
> First, the post that started this thread had absolutely nothing to do with Kirk Hinrich playing point guard. In case you've forgotten, here's your thesis statement:
> 
> ...


Those seem to be pretty strong points.

I do think, however, that Hinrich is a combo guard. He's not the best pure PG on the team and he's not the best pure SG on the team, but he's clearly the best guard on the team.

That has advantages and disadvantages both. It requires that the players next to him have certain complementary skills and when they don't have it, it can be to the team's detriment.

For example, as a PG, Duhon might have a slight advantage over Kirk. As a SG, Gordon might. But putting those two together would create a defensive mismatch.

Duhon, I think, would be more effective playing next to Ray Allen than he is next to Kirk, because Ray is a better pure SG.

And while I think Kirk is all in all a better player than Duhon (clearly), I'm not sure you wouldn't have a better chance of winning by starting Duhon + Ray instead of Kirk + Ray. Why, because in the Duhon + Ray backcourt, you've got two guys who do their specialties with textbook precision. 

If you start Hinrich and Ray, you've got one guy who's a textbook shooting guard and one guy who's a very good combo guard.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Duhon played 21 minutes, Hinrich 42.
> 
> Paul's impact on the hornets was from 18 wins to 38 wins. Hinrich's impact was from 30 wins to 23.
> 
> To address your first point, I've not denied Hinrich's numbers (except assists) are improved. In fact, they've pretty much improved overall year-by-year. The correlation seems to be that the more he plays PG, the worse the team's record. That's consistent with my first post.


A few things:

1. No, that correlation is not consistent with your first post. Your first post had absolutely nothing to do with Hinrich's ability as a 1, which is what you're talking about now. 

2. I think Chris Paul is a better point guard than Kirk Hinrich, but I don't think that means Hinrich is poor as a point guard.

3. I just cannot wrap my head around this hyper-simplistic "we won 30 games before Hinrich, and 23 after so Hinrich can't play point" logic. Here's some other stuff that MIGHT have contributed to the slip in wins:

- Jay Williams' motorcycle accident.

- Trading Jalen Rose. (long term benefit, short term cost in this case, IMO)

- Coaching change during the season.

- Losing Tyson Chandler to injury for the bulk of the season.

- Trading out Donyell Marshall's production in the 30 win season for a broken down Scottie Pippen.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> A few things:
> 
> 1. No, that correlation is not consistent with your first post. Your first post had absolutely nothing to do with Hinrich's ability as a 1, which is what you're talking about now.
> 
> ...


What players did NOK add, aside from Paul, that helped them win 20 more games than the previous season? I'm looking for the corellary of the JWill motorcycle (etc.) excuse.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Those seem to be pretty strong points.
> 
> I do think, however, that Hinrich is a combo guard. He's not the best pure PG on the team and he's not the best pure SG on the team, but he's clearly the best guard on the team.
> 
> ...


I think you're basically correct. A good deal of Hinrich's value is tied up in the fact that he can play capably at the 1 and the 2. I do think he's probably the best point guard on the team, but that has more to do with my relatively low opinion of Chris Duhon than anything else.

From an offensive standpoint, I guess I think Hinrich is probably a slightly above average NBA starter at the 1. He's not Jason Kidd, but I don't buy the argument that he's making other players worse.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> What players did NOK add, aside from Paul, that helped them win 20 more games than the previous season? I'm looking for the corellary of the JWill motorcycle (etc.) excuse.


Their leading scorer, David West, who missed most of the '04-'05 season due to injury.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

jbulls said:


> A few things:
> 
> 1. No, that correlation is not consistent with your first post. Your first post had absolutely nothing to do with Hinrich's ability as a 1, which is what you're talking about now.
> 
> ...


That sums it up. I feel like the analysis is such an over-simplification as to make it totally untenable. DB is painting the picture of causal connections with broad strokes while turning a blind eye towards every other conceivable explanation for the sequence of events.

The year-to-year performance of a basketball team, especially one with as much roster flux as this team has had, involves analyzing a lot of moving parts. It seems a bit naive to think that it all can be explained away due to one factor.


----------



## bre9 (Jan 8, 2006)

Kirk is a ball hog. He wents to be the man a little too much,sometimes Luol and Ben be open at the end of games he want pass it to them he'll try take the shot, but he's a great PG.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I'm reminded of the old AI commercial when NBA-TV first came on the air (although the commercial may be older than that, I first really noticed it on NBA-TV).

(paraphrased, AI says)

"People always ask, am I a PG or a SG? To which I reply...

Is MJ a point or a SG?

Oscar Robertson, point or 2?

Jerry West?

I don't know, I'm just a player."

Seems quite relevant to this discussion.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

Revisionist history is fun!


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Hinrich's current apg average is only 0.6 off his career average. And this is with the team's primary scorer not being able to hit the ocean from the beach.
> 
> Kirk shot 44% from the field over the first seven games last season, which is far higher than his career average. He finished the year averaging 6.3 apg. We went 3-4 to start last season, too.


For the record, I don't agree with Dabullz' thesis that Kirk's development is hindering the team. I do have high expectations for Kirk, and I think he should have been playing like this a year and a half ago given his position within the offense. Still, even though Kirk is playing well, I think it's a mistake to have the ball in his hands 90% of the time. I think most people would agree that Kirk is not the kind of player you can build your team around offensively, but that is what Skiles is doing! 



> This is kind of like saying your star cornerback is clearly not great at defending the pass and reading offenses in general.


The point is that Ben is better when he has the ball in his hands and is not forced to make a quick decision off a pass. Ben is a flawed player. Since Kirk is equally good at both guard positions, it makes sense to put Ben at PG, or isolate him at times, or at least let him set up the half court set and pass off to Kirk. But this almost never happens.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I don't see what Chris Paul really has to do with this nonsense,but if you're saying you would be better off with a top 3 point guard...Well yes,that's probably correct.

Honestly the Bulls should look to score a lot more in transition,but Duhon is the only PG they have that's well suited to that.They need to get easy baskets,because they are always going to be offensively challenged with their current roster.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> That sums it up. I feel like the analysis is such an over-simplification as to make it totally untenable. DB is painting the picture of causal connections with broad strokes while turning a blind eye towards every other conceivable explanation for the sequence of events.
> 
> The year-to-year performance of a basketball team, especially one with as much roster flux as this team has had, involves analyzing a lot of moving parts. It seems a bit naive to think that it all can be explained away due to one factor.


The Bulls once won 6 championships in 8 seasons. Then they gave Toni Kukoc a more prominent role and the team won only 13 games. The obvious conclusion: Kukoc is clearly the most destructive force in the history of basketball.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

transplant said:


> The Bulls once won 6 championships in 8 seasons. Then they gave Toni Kukoc a more prominent role and the team won only 13 games. The obvious conclusion: Kukoc is clearly the most destructive force in the history of basketball.


Hey, that's just not fair, and I won't put up with it.

That was a 50-game season, in a full season that would have been 21 wins, dammit!! :biggrin:


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Diable said:


> I don't see what Chris Paul really has to do with this nonsense,but if you're saying you would be better off with a top 3 point guard...Well yes,that's probably correct.
> 
> Honestly the Bulls should look to score a lot more in transition,but Duhon is the only PG they have that's well suited to that.They need to get easy baskets,because they are always going to be offensively challenged with their current roster.


This always SOUNDS good, but it's not easy. Why?

1. Skiles wants our guys to rebound. You think this would have gotten better with guys like Big Ben and Tyrus and PJ around, but I don't think it has. We'll see tonight, maybe. But having everyone crash boards means less opportunities to get out in transition... you need to be able to rely on your bigs to corral boards and get the quick outlet pass. Tough to do when the entire team is crashing boards.

2. We don't have anyone that moves fast with the ball. We talk about Duhon, and he does try, but the truth is, he's nowhere near as quick as Jason Terry, Jason Williams (chocolat blanche), Mike Bibby, Chris Paul, AI... I'd even rather have Andre Miller and Bobby Jackson on the break, because they move fast with the ball.

What's more is we need guys that are hungry to make that play in transition, not guys that have to try and force themselves to finish on the break. We need guys like Iguodala, Josh Smith, Desmond Mason, Darius Miles.. in transition, that is. We don't have anyone who wants to get out in front of the pack, rise up and put it down before anyone can catch him. 

We need that. A coaching mentality of "come on guys, let's go get some easy points out there", etc., isn't enough.

Hinrich is a great half-court guy, who can do a little of everything, create offense, play gritty defense, and has very good court vision. But he's not an ENGINE. He's just a great player.

Gordon is more of an engine but less consistent, and trying to take on the mentality of a finisher, a scorer, and not one of a starter or distributor. He's got the tools for it but not the mentality.

Duhon's the only guy that does it but he's probably the least equipped, physically and athletically.

From what I remember in summer league, Thabo's very good at pushing the ball up. I can't wait until he develops and gets used to the speed of the game. I say give him until January and then see what he can do.


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

I'm not going to argue that Kirk is a great playmaker. He isn't. But he is an above average playmaker who would get a lot more assists if he had anyone who could score in the post on a regular basis. Since they let Eddy Curry walk, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Bulls have missed more shots in the paint than any other team in the NBA. It should be a credit to Kirk that he has kept his assists at a relatively stable level while his scoring average has jumped 2.5 points per game. Yes, he has flaws running the offense -- he will overdribble too much at times and he doesn't always get the guy with the hot hand the ball enough (such as Deng the other night). And his decision making, while improved, can sometimes be described as bizarre. But despite these flaws, he's more than capable of running the offense and being the primary ballhandler.

As for Gordon, the fact that he had 9 assists in one game (sorry, in one half) playing the PG is nice, but fails to prove that he would be any better at the PG position than Hinrich is if he had to play there for 30+ MPG. Gordon's ballhandling is improved from the last couple of seasons, but his assist-to-TO ratio is still a very poor 1.29:1 (Kirk's is 2.41:1, which is down from a couple of days ago, and still lower than a PG should have). Also, Ben tends to hold the ball and try to take his man 1-on-1 whenever he gets the ball. One nice game as a distributor doesn't suggest to me that he would suddenly become a pass first, shoot second guy. There is also the possibility that if he WERE given the responsibility of running the offense, his own offense would suffer simply because he would be trying too much to become much more of a playmaker. Somehow I can't see Gordon suddenly making all those floaters in the lane that he's been missing this year simply because he moves from SG to PG. His slump has nothing to do with the position he plays -- it simply has to do with the fact that he continues to be an extremely streaky shooter.

Then there's also the problem of whether Hinrich's play would drop off if he were moved to primarily play the SG spot. It's possible that by flip flopping the two guys, the Bulls could decrease the production at both positions. Should Gordon share more of the ballhandling responsibilities? Sure -- but I wouldn't be so quick to hand the job of running the offense over to him

It's silly to blame Hinrich (or any other) for the other Bulls' struggles. The PG can only do so much to help his teammates play better. Has anyone noticed that Boris Diaw has stunk so far this season? But no one is blaming Nash for the fact that Diaw came into camp overweight and way out of shape. Jameer Nelson is playing alongside Grant Hill, Hedo Turkoglu and Dwight Howard, but is averaging well under 4 APG. But only a few people (Carlos Arroyo fans) seem to think he shouldn't be the team's PG. Chauncey Billups' assists are now more than 1 APG and the Pistons are averaging 2 PPG less than last season. But does that mean Billups is a worse PG than he was last season? Too many factors go into running any team's offense to suggest one player should get most of the credit -- or blame -- for the team's performance.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Hinrich is a combo guard, not a point guard.

He is not great at making the players around him better or setting up his teammates like great point guards can (knight, kidd, nash, andre miller, paul).

I think Bullsville is right.... (whoa).... Hinrich is "just a player."

No need to label him a PG. 

The Bulls best season since MJ was when Hinrich was a SG. With the current starting lineup, Hinrich is back to being a starting SG. 

He's a combo guard that can player either position. MikeDC's description of the situation seems spot on, IMO.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> As PG, he led the team to 23 wins. As PG, Duhon led the team to 47 the next season. As PG, Hinrich led the team to a string of consecutive losses, and the Bulls pulled out a playoff birth only after Gordon became the PG (and Songaila wasn't in Skiles' rotation). As starting PG again, the Bulls aren't living up to my expectations, and they certainly aren't looking like a 50-win kind of team (barring some big winning streak late in the season again).


Perhaps getting a new coach a month into the season and trading a third of the roster contributed to the 23 wins as well. Perhaps adding 4 rotation players while only losing one, having a year to implement new coaching strategies, and a year more experience for a super young team contributed to the 47 wins, perhaps? I don't ever remember Gordon taking any full time pg resposibilities ever. His assists totals did go up to a whopping 4 for the Bulls last stretch to make the playoffs. All of you guys getting in a fuss about this season are getting way ahead of yourselves.



> From a PG standpoint, you want to compare Hinrich with other PGs. In APG, Hinrich was *15th* in the league last season. Since his APG is down this season, he's likely worse than 15th now. As the 23 wins team indicated, he's not the kind of PG that made an immediate impact, like say, Chris Paul (would Paul be our SG if he was on the team? Probably! And he'd probably not be the player you see now.)


15th isn't bad for one. 2 of the guys ahead of him aren't even PG's. 7 of the guys ahead of him are allstars. Where exactly would Gordon rank in assists? He's about 15th in assists for a 2 guard.

But I am definitly not calling Kirk, Chris Paul.



> People say "his assists would be better if his teammates hit their shots!" But that's an excuse or something. The correlary to that theory is that he simply isn't setting up his teammates to have good shots to make (enough).
> 
> For some reason, Gordon playing PG seems to be some sort of threat to Hinrich. I don't get that. Aside from Deng (and Hinrich himself), EVERY PLAYER on the team is performing below last season - including Gordon, including Nocioni, including Wallace, including PJ Brown, and so on. So why isn't that a reflection on the PG? It is.


The if his teammates hit their shots maybe an excuse. But how about if he had a bigman that could finish around the basket. Every guy in the league that averaged more assists had better finishers than Hinrich did, call that an excuse if you would like.

Wasn't Hinrich the PG last season?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hinrich is a combo guard, not a point guard.
> 
> He is not great at making the players around him better or setting up his teammates like great point guards can (knight, kidd, nash, andre miller, paul).
> 
> ...


I knew it was cold and windy out today, but apparently hell actually *is* freezing over. :biggrin: 

But (gulp) K4E is right, Kirk is a combo guard- which is nice IMHO. You can play him with a "pure PG" or a "scoring-only SG" and he'll be just as effective either way.

Let's face it, Kirk cannot run the break like JKidd or CPaul, but he's a much better shooter than either of those guys.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I knew it was cold and windy out today, but apparently hell actually *is* freezing over. :biggrin:
> 
> But (gulp) K4E is right, Kirk is a combo guard- which is nice IMHO. You can play him with a "pure PG" or a "scoring-only SG" and he'll be just as effective either way.
> 
> Let's face it, Kirk cannot run the break like JKidd or CPaul, but he's a much better shooter than either of those guys.


I don't disagree with any of this. In fact, it is my thesis. It's that he IS being played as a pure PG that is what I take issue with.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

jbulls said:


> hyper-simplistic "we won 30 games before Hinrich, and 23 after so Hinrich can't play point" logic. Here's some other stuff that MIGHT have contributed to the slip in wins:


Hyper-simplistic. That's exactly the word I have been looking for. My favorite example of this is:

In 2005 the Bulls won 47 games. In 2006 the Bulls won 41 games. In 2005 Eddy Curry was our starting center. In 2006 Eddy Curry wasn't with us.

Conclusion: Eddy Curry is a dominant, future All-Star center who is accountable for the huge drop in play from 2005 to 2006. We miss his sure fire post play that led to so many of our victories, despite his high turnover, poor passing, no rebounding, no defense approach to the game. 

Hahahahhaha. That is all sarcasm is case you couldn't tell.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hustle said:


> Perhaps getting a new coach a month into the season and trading a third of the roster contributed to the 23 wins as well. Perhaps adding 4 rotation players while only losing one, having a year to implement new coaching strategies, and a year more experience for a super young team contributed to the 47 wins, perhaps? I don't ever remember Gordon taking any full time pg resposibilities ever. His assists totals did go up to a whopping 4 for the Bulls last stretch to make the playoffs. All of you guys getting in a fuss about this season are getting way ahead of yourselves.
> 
> 
> 15th isn't bad for one. 2 of the guys ahead of him aren't even PG's. 7 of the guys ahead of him are allstars. Where exactly would Gordon rank in assists? He's about 15th in assists for a 2 guard.
> ...


No offense, but this is all excuses. The thing about Paul is West wasn't a great player until Paul showed up. The rest of their roster (as it was) isn't impressive in the least. Maybe one player as good as Jamal Crawford (who was on that 23 win team as SG).

I'd also like to point out that lack of post scoring as some sort of excuse just doesn't make sense to me. We had Curry who could score in the post and led the league in FG%, and Hinrich's assist numbers weren't any better.

The reason Gordon's assist numbers went up during that stretch is because he played PG for 20+ minutes a game instead of for 0.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I don't disagree with any of this. In fact, it is my thesis. It's that he IS being played as a pure PG that is what I take issue with.



I don't think he's being played as a "pure" PG- according to 82games, he has played 47% of the Bulls' PG minutes and 22% of their SG minutes.

FWIW, the Bulls are -35 when he's at PG and +18 when he's at the 2...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Hyper-simplistic. That's exactly the word I have been looking for. My favorite example of this is:
> 
> In 2005 the Bulls won 47 games. In 2006 the Bulls won 41 games. In 2005 Eddy Curry was our starting center. In 2006 Eddy Curry wasn't with us.
> 
> ...


Conclusion:

Curry may have been worth 6 victories.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I don't think he's being played as a "pure" PG- according to 82games, he has played 47% of the Bulls' PG minutes and 22% of their SG minutes.
> 
> FWIW, the Bulls are -35 when he's at PG and +18 when he's at the 2...


Dan Rosenbaum once posted that +/- statistics are exceptionally noisy. I don't think they are worthwhile at all this early in the season.


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> He is not great at making the players around him better or setting up his teammates like great point guards can (knight, kidd, nash, andre miller, paul).


knight and andre miller are great? I don't think those 2 names belong in the same category as the other guys...And I want Kirk running the team over those 2, no question. Anyways, last I saw, knight is sharing the PG duties with felton...


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

It's odd that the issues related to the Bulls mediocre start that have been discussed in this thread are all related to offensive performance -- in particular Hinrich's performance and his effect on teamates offensive performance.

But the Bulls haven't really had that hard of a time scoring. They're shooting 45% from the field and averaging about 97 points per game. If they hit more of their free throws, the offense would be better than average, in spite of the fact that their best scorer has gotten off to a bad start. It's obtuse to argue that Hinrich's performance has somehow made team scoring worse than it otherwise would have been, when he has clearly been one of the team's two dependable scorers.

On the other hand, the Bulls defense has been bad more often than not, and since Hinrich has been on the floor most of the time he has to share in the blame for poor performances. Overall, the Bulls opponents are shooting nearly 47% from the field, which is considerably worse than last year. Hinrich doesn't seem to be defending the pick and roll with the same aggressiveness this year as he has shown in the past. Maybe that's because of the officiating, or maybe he's just saving some energy for the offensive end. Or (and this is my take on the problem) the team as a whole is just not playing together very well at this point in the season.

Pointing the finger at one player or another is really not getting at the real problem the Bulls face, which is that it will take considerable time for this team to gell. 

Frankly, I find the whole issue of who is playing PG and who is playing SG tenditious, since the two guards seem to share responsibility for distributing the ball in Skile's offense. The same goes for the pseudoissue of who is playing SF and who is playing PF. The real issues are how the Bulls can find ways to match up defensively against taller guards, forwards and centers on the defensive end, and how they can find ways to exploit their strengths in rebounding and perimeter shooting on the offensive end. Overall, Hinrich is clearly more part of the solution to the Bull's problems than he is a cause of their current problems.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Great post, McBulls.

Really great.

I seem to remember that last season early on, the Bulls were having the same struggles defensively after adding several new players to the rotation. Yet they still wound up leading the league in opp FG% when all was said and done.

Skiles' defensive philosophy seems very similar to Bobby Knight's "man to man with zone principles", so it only seems logical that it will take some time for the new players to get used to defending together.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> No offense, but this is all excuses. The thing about Paul is West wasn't a great player until Paul showed up. The rest of their roster (as it was) isn't impressive in the least. Maybe one player as good as Jamal Crawford (who was on that 23 win team as SG).
> 
> I'd also like to point out that lack of post scoring as some sort of excuse just doesn't make sense to me. We had Curry who could score in the post and led the league in FG%, and Hinrich's assist numbers weren't any better.
> 
> The reason Gordon's assist numbers went up during that stretch is because he played PG for 20+ minutes a game instead of for 0.


Maybe a change in coaches and players is an excuse, having perhaps the worst finishing team in the league an excuse. But just as a good basis of comparision why isn't Chandler any better offensivily with Paul, Paul is one of the top points in the league what is his excuse, after all he is soley responsible for what West is right(again Kirk is not Paul but that really has nothing to do with Ben being a better point than Kirk).

6.4 is a little better, at a younger age(another excuse why can't these guys come into the league in their prime), while playing a lot of 2 guard(wait isn't that BG's excuse, Hinrich had no excuses in comparision). And unlike Ben his a/to ratio was fantastic. The fact that Du played half of the teams PG minutes and the team won more is no indication of Hinrich's play it's a team game, see Brevin Knight.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sleep520 said:


> knight and andre miller are great? I don't think those 2 names belong in the same category as the other guys...


Hey Sleep.

Yes, they are great point guards.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Frankly, I find the whole issue of who is playing PG and who is playing SG tenditious, since the two guards seem to share responsibility for distributing the ball in Skile's offense. The same goes for the pseudoissue of who is playing SF and who is playing PF. The real issues are how the Bulls can find ways to match up defensively against taller guards, forwards and centers on the defensive end, and how they can find ways to exploit their strengths in rebounding and perimeter shooting on the offensive end. Overall, Hinrich is clearly more part of the solution to the Bull's problems than he is a cause of their current problems.



Perhaps Skiles' offense is tailored to his players. If he had guys with more traditional skillsets to work with my guess is that he'd probably define the roles a bit differently.

I think we actually see this pretty clearly at the forward slots. Both last year and now this year he seems to be searching for someone to give him a more traditional 4 and only going back to the Deng/Noc lineup when the search doesn't pay off.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I'm reminded of the old AI commercial when NBA-TV first came on the air (although the commercial may be older than that, I first really noticed it on NBA-TV).
> 
> (paraphrased, AI says)
> 
> ...


Also relevant is the fact that those guys were all-time great level talents and Kirk's not.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

It's my understanding that Jerry West was both the best point guard and the best shooting guard in the NBA during different periods and maybe at the same time.His role would apparently change as the team's needs did.It's not like he got on that logo by coincidence.I don't think anyone has ever compared anyone on this Bulls roster to MJ or AI or anyone else you'd know by their initials.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Last season* 

Hinrich
at PG: +4.1 net PER 
at SG: +1.1 net PER

Gordon
at PG: -2.2 net PER
at SG: +3.5 net PER


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

As near as I can tell, the bulls have 3 plays for Gordon. One has him standing in the corner waiting for a pass for a 3pt shot. I drew up the other two and they are attached.

The benpg.gif file is what the bulls do when Gordon has his big scoring games. My suggestion he'd be better at PG means that we should play this configuration on the court from the start of games.

The 3team.gif file is what happens when Ben's not playing the PG position, and you can see that he's basically dribbling into a triple team by the play's design. It's a horrible play.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'd also point out that all game long, the Rockets got the ball to TMac in the same position.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I think there's a difference between what you describe, and making Gordon the team PG generally. I agree, especially after watching his flurry against the Rockets, that we need to let him dribble full-court and be a playmaker, or at least run the set you suggest where he starts off at the top of the key. But, late in the game tonight, he was only creating offense for himself (by design...he was HOT). This is fine for stretches or when we need him to don his 4th quarter hero cape, but it's not sustainable. And I'm not sure he's yet at the point where we can have him be the tablesetter for the rest of the team on a nightly basis. His ast/to ratio is still pretty bad by PG standards and he still needs to refine his ballhandling a bit IMO.

So yeah, we need to run more sets that put the ball in his hands full court, or at least half-court, but I don't think we can simply run our offense that way for entire games and expect it to work over the long haul. It's more of a set you run in order to let Gordon do a "heat check" from time to time, or in close 4th quarter games when Gordon does his thing. Gordon and Skiles also need to figure out other ways for him to be an effective offensive weapon, or work on the traditional stuff like curling off screens, etc. In any event, we need Gordon to be a stud if we expect to do anything noteworthy this season.


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hey Sleep.
> 
> Yes, they are great point guards.


Interesting. 

Agree to disagree.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Sham said:


> 5% of the 8% of the season that we've played so far isn't really sample sizing it up, no?


Totally agree. But it was a Hinrich supporter pointing out this stat this early in the season. And if the same said Hinrich disciple is bragging about a Bulls PG play at net +22 (now down to +13) clearly it very relevant that Hinrich is now at +4 while Gordon (4%) and Thabo (3%) are +50. Even at 7% of time, Gordon and Thabo's marks are what's raising the boat.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Not to get too off-topic, but I agree with Ben Gordon not dribbling into triple-teams and trying to elevate over players that are invariably taller than he is to make game-winners. He's good, he's so damn good that sometimes he makes those shots, but does that mean we should encourage the play? Haaayyylz no.

To be honest, the way Luol Deng's been playing, I don't see why we shouldn't just take turns making him and Gordon the offensive focus of the team. It's not just about the open man being the best man; Malik Allen did a few nice things to get some jumpers for himself, but he won't do it every night, and PJ's shot has been looking nasty. So has Noch's, by the way. I loved it when Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng basically dominated the offense for the 3rd and 4th quarter, when we came back strong.

In my opinion, it's about coaching. Skiles is MAKING Ben the focus of the offense, and asking for triple teams. Hinrich can't do much when bad plays are being drawn.

We always talk about Gordon operating best from the top of the key. But in my opinion, while it's not great to cramp Gordon into a corner, the best config is when Hinrich brings the ball up to the top of the arc, Deng is on one side and Ben is on the other, then Ben comes up to the ball, Hinrich sets a screen, then gets himself open away from the ball, and Deng cuts into the hoop from the opposite side. In this way, Gordon is the decision-maker, when the play advances, but Hinrich is the true "set up of the offense" guy, because he gets things started.

And again, it's that style of play that makes many of us notice that Duhon is better than Kirk is at this.


----------

