# Kirk Crawford



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

What a gunner. Kirk is turning into Jamal. If we didn't want Jamal, why do we want Hinrich? He is a gunner, and he doesn't gun with efficiency. I am tired of his bull**** of missing open shots.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I'm ready to see more of Duhon and Gordon tonight if Kirk isn't hitting. Telfair and Mighty Mouse will make CD and BG look like a big back-court together.

Duhon shoots as well as Kirk since Jan 1, he passes just as well, he defends just as well, and he turns the ball over less- I want to know when he is going to start getting some of Kirk's minutes if Kirk's shooting woes continue?


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Obviously he's not being kept around (and starting, and playing 40 minutes a game) because of his shooting.
If anything, he'd be buried on the bench if that's what we were relying on him for.

I'd say they want Hinrich for the same reason we want Tyson, or the same reason you'd want anyone else that brings an asset that isn't scoring.

Although his offensive deficiences are definitely not a good thing, and he shouldn't be taking as many shots as he is.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth
and remove all doubt.

- Mark Twain


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

sp00k said:


> It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth
> and remove all doubt.
> 
> - Mark Twain


Hey, screw you, I'm no fool!


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Based on the tone of this thread I think this bears repeating.

This past Monday (3/7) on ESPN Radio 1000, Carmen DeFalco and Marc Silverman interviewed KC Johnson. As expected, most of the conversation centered around Eddy Curry's playing time and why he seemed to be on a shorter leash than anyone else on the team.

Eventually the question was asked as to why Skiles seems to have so little tollerance for Curry's mistakes, yet he allows Hinrich to play through his.

KC Johnson's response: _There are so many facets to the game of basketball. Whether Hinrich is having a bad shooting night or is turning the ball over, he always finds a way to contribute in other areas. And for that reason he needs to be on the floor. Those who think he should be benched for poor shooting or because he's committed a few turnovers just don't understand the game of basketball._

Now, I'm not saying Johnson is a basketball guru, but I'd probably give him credit for knowing a little more about the game he earns a living writing about than most Bulls fans. And on that basis I think his observations about Hinrich are worth noting.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Hollis Price = future NBA star.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> KC Johnson's: _There are so many facets to the game of basketball. Whether Hinrich is having a bad shooting night or is turning the ball over, he always finds a way to contribute in other areas. And for that reason he needs to be on the floor. Those who think he should be benched for poor shooting or because he's committed a few turnovers just don't understand the game of basketball._


I'm sorry, but this is really a cop out reply by Johnson. Hinrich isn't bringing _so_ much to the table that he is above being benched/have his minutes cut. 

Hinrich has taken 800+ shots, by far the most on the squad, more then 100 more then any other player on the Bulls. If he took his Offensive role and only took 280 something shots like Tyson, it wouldn't be an issue. You can't compare what he's bringing to the table when his shots are taking so much off the table.

You have to ask, is his shooting negating the other things he's bringing? If he took better shots, wouldn't he be bringing a more complete game to the table? Would he not be helping the team more? 

Unlike previous years, he has players on the team who are better scorers then him. He can create and dish out to a player who might actually make it (there are no linton johnsons or paul shirleys soaking up major minutes this year....). Yet he's doing what people hated about Crawford, taking shots early in a possesion, not looking for teamates enough, calling his own number on too many isolations. 

The fact of the matter is, he's jacking up waaay to many shots (bad shots at that), and has been for the better part of the year. Deng, Curry, Crawford, Gordon, Rose, Duhon; they all would have been benched a long time ago for playing the way Hinrich is. Sorry, I like the kid, but he either has to pull it in a bit... or he has to be shown a seat once in a while like every other player.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Jim Ian said:


> I'm sorry, but this is really a cop out reply by Johnson. Deng, Curry, Crawford, Gordon, Rose, Duhon; they all would have been benched a long time ago for playing the way Hinrich is.


Deng, Curry, Crawford, Rose and Duhon don't bring the all-around game that Hinrich does game in, game out. Don't believe Johnson? Ask a coach or two. That's why Hinrich is in the game more often than not.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> If we didn't want Jamal, why do we want Hinrich?


That's a good question. Jamal and Hinrich are both eerily similar. What possible reason could we want Hinrich? 

Does he have some advantage over Jamal we don't know about?

I'm thinking but I cant seem to find one...

What could it be?

The mystery...

...is engulping me...










D









:thinking:


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

the bulls are winning right? so why complain. plus he is a 2nd year guy, who has had some success, so he is confident right now. but he does lead the team in points and assists, so you cant be that mad at him.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> What a gunner. Kirk is turning into Jamal. If we didn't want Jamal, why do we want Hinrich? He is a gunner, and he doesn't gun with efficiency. I am tired of his bull**** of missing open shots.


Will your *WHINING* never end?

<TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=TSN6 width="20%">Chicago</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">MIN</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">FG</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">FGA</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">3P</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">3PA</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">FT</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">FTA</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">OR</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">DR</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">TOT</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">A</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">PF</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">ST</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">TO</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">BL</TD><TD class=TSN2 align=middle width="5%">PTS</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=TSN5><TD width="20%">K.Hinrich</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">41</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">8</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">17</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">2</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">4</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">4</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">6</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">0</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">5</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">5</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">5</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">2</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">4</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">3</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">0</TD><TD align=middle width="5%">22</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

That is the stat line from the game you're whining about.

Its just a thought, but if the whining was limited to the game thread where every third post rags Hinrich or bemoans Skiles as an idiot, that Mark Twain quote wouldn't be so fitting. At least we understand the game threads are a tad reactionary.

You WHINE incessantly about those who in your opinion are knocking Curry's game, but then you're out here ragging some other player. Yup, thats real CLASS.

I'm sorry, but if this is what passes for a Bulls fan in 2005, I hope the bandwagon doesn't get overly crowded this time around.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

tradetheo said:


> the bulls are winning right? so why complain. plus he is a 2nd year guy, who has had some success, so he is confident right now. but he does lead the team in points and assists, so you cant be that mad at him.


Theo, there are many of us here who are like the Blazer faithful. Sadly, there are also folks here who idolize their favorite players over the team.

Is the Blazer board still the 2nd busiest on this site? We should have had a shared game thread. It would be interesting to have the posters for both teams posting in the same thread all night. Guess the mods would have to do their zebra impersonations because I suspect there would be a lot of foul posts!


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

i wish every stat could be round :clown:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Jim Ian said:


> Hinrich has taken 800+ shots, by far the most on the squad, more then 100 more then any other player on the Bulls. If he took his Offensive role and only took 280 something shots like Tyson, it wouldn't be an issue. You can't compare what he's bringing to the table when his shots are taking so much off the table.


That's a weak argument, and easily rebuttled. Hinrich plays, by far, the most minutes on the team: 37.2 min/game. Eddy Curry plays the 2nd most minutes at 28.7 min/game. When you're on the court that much longer than everyone else, it's alot more likely you'll have the most shot attempts. If Hinrich played 28 minutes a game, I guarentee he would have the 3rd or 4th most shot attempts on the team (behind Curry, Gordon, and maybe even Deng). But I think it's obvious that Hinrich is too good of a defender and ballhandler to not have on the floor for 35+ minutes each game...but that's a whole different issue so I won't get into that. 

I think a more telling stat is shot attempts per minute played. Here are the #'s:

Hinrich: 830 attempts/2156 minutes = 0.385
Curry: 629 attempts/1579 minutes = 0.398
Gordon: 711 attempts/1358 minutes = 0.524
Deng: 596 attempts/1510 minutes = 0.395
Nocioni: 400 attempts/1257 minutes = 0.318
Chandler: 292 attempts/1548 minutes = 0.189
Duhon: 316 attempts/1477 mintutes = 0.214

Ranking of shot attempts per minute played goes:
1. Gordon
2. Curry
3. Deng
4. Hinrich
5. Nocioni
6. Duhon
7. Chandler

I would agree with some of you if Hinrich's "chucking rate" was 1st or 2nd on the team, but he's 4th for God's sake. This tells us that Gordon and Curry are the ones getting the most looks while they are on the floor, and when they aren't, it's up to guys like Deng and Hinrich to pick up the scoring slack.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> What a gunner. Kirk is turning into Jamal. If we didn't want Jamal, why do we want Hinrich? He is a gunner, and he doesn't gun with efficiency. I am tired of his bull**** of missing open shots.


Except for the false premise that two players are comparable purely on shooting and discounting all the other equally important areas of the game in which they are completely dissimilar, I totally agree.

Actually, because of the false premise, I don't agree at all. Did you make a similar post last year when it was Crawford missing those shots?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

this thread makes me really sad. 

i have accepted the reality that there will never be a "Kirk Hinrich Appreciation Thread" on this board, but is this really the alternative?

the bulls have a winning record. i guess that isn't enough for some people.




> *Unlike previous years*, he has players on the team who are better scorers then him. He can create and dish out to a player who might actually make it (there are no linton johnsons or paul shirleys soaking up major minutes this year....). Yet he's doing what people hated about Crawford, taking shots early in a possesion, not looking for teamates enough, calling his own number on too many isolations.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, he's jacking up waaay to many shots (bad shots at that), and has been for the better part of the year. Deng, Curry, Crawford, Gordon, Rose, Duhon; they all would have been benched a long time ago for playing the way Hinrich is. Sorry, I like the kid, but he either has to pull it in a bit... or he has to be shown a seat once in a while like every other player.


i think, jim, you mean, unlike last year, singular, not plural. how soon we forget this is kirk's second year in the league.

i think that if deng (why you include him in this list puzzles me) and curry, jamal, ben, jalen and chris (again, not sure why he is in the list) were to play a better ALL-AROUND game, then they wouldn't find themselves "benched a long time ago"...i mean am i missing something here? 

the disdain for kirk shown by many around these parts is troubling. and that's not just because i am a kirk "fanperson" or have his picture in my avatar. i question this attitude because i think basketball is a team sport and not a game of individual accomplishments. and to focus so relentlessly on one aspect of the game is myopic. 

the question of the AMOUNT of shots kirk takes probably should be brought up to skiles, because i think kirk is just doing what he is told to do. maybe post that in the "Scott Skiles Appreciation Thread". oh wait, we don't have one of those either! silly me.

to each his/her own i guess.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> this thread makes me really sad.
> 
> i have accepted the reality that there will never be a "Kirk Hinrich Appreciation Thread" on this board, but is this really the alternative?
> 
> ...


I just wanted this to show up twice in the thread. Good post. We all know what the source of the Hinrich criticism is. Its no coincidence that those who question Hinrich now are the past and current Jamalites of the board. It doesn't matter what Hinrich does, it won't change. 

Even if he starts shooting 44%, they'll just say that we need to trade Hinrich for a bigger shooting guard and move Ben to the point. Its a transparent joke.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> the disdain for kirk shown by many around these parts is troubling. and that's not just because i am a kirk "fanperson" or have his picture in my avatar. i question this attitude because i think basketball is a team sport and not a game of individual accomplishments. and to focus so relentlessly on one aspect of the game is myopic.


I'd like to see Kirk become an all-NBA type player. In order to do so I think he has to improve his shooting. In the meantime, if he's going to continue his low fg% ways, he'd be best served to shoot less, yes? 




> the question of the AMOUNT of shots kirk takes probably should be brought up to skiles, because i think kirk is just doing what he is told to do. maybe post that in the "Scott Skiles Appreciation Thread". oh wait, we don't have one of those either! silly me.
> 
> to each his/her own i guess.


Why is it that when Jamal took the most shots for the Bulls at a low fg% he was a "selfish chucker" while when Kirk is doing the same he's "just doing what he's told?"


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why is it that when Jamal took the most shots for the Bulls at a low fg% he was a "selfish chucker" while when Kirk is doing the same he's "just doing what he's told?"


Jamal took 16.5 shots per game last year. Kirk's just over 14. That's part of it, though last year we didn't really have a choice. It was also the way Jamal got a lot of his shots. Isolations, contested jumpers, early shots in the shot clock. Kirk does all those things from time to time, but generally he shows a little more patience or passes up on bad shots. 

In a way, that makes it all the more frustrating that he doesn't hit at a higher clip. There's some games where he just misses wide open shot after wide open shot.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

The difference, K4E, is that Hinrich's leading the team in shot attempts is due directly to the fact that he plays 30% more minutes than anyone else on the team- as already pointed out to you, Kirk is 4th on the team in shots per minute.

Jamal was 2nd in shots per minute, surpassed only by Marcus "The Black Hole" Fizer, who was only 6th on the team in minutes.

Jamal .469 shots/min
Eddy .390 shots/min
Kirk .304 shots/min
AD .266 shots/min
Gill .388 shots/min
Fizer .474 shots/min

Eddy, and Gill, and AD all shot a higher percentage than Jamal. Kirk shot the exact same percentage overall, but he was 7.3% better on 3's.

So yes, Jamal should have deferred to others more. Kirk defers to others, but he takes the most shots overall because he plays, by far, the most minutes.

It's really rather simple IMO.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Jamal took 16.5 shots per game last year. Kirk's just over 14. That's part of it, though last year we didn't really have a choice. It was also the way Jamal got a lot of his shots. Isolations, contested jumpers, early shots in the shot clock. Kirk does all those things from time to time, but generally he shows a little more patience or passes up on bad shots.
> 
> In a way, that makes it all the more frustrating that he doesn't hit at a higher clip. There's some games where he just misses wide open shot after wide open shot.


That's the thing that kills me with Kirk, all the wide open mid-range jumpers that he misses that I know he's capable of knocking down. Sometimes, I wonder which is worse, watching Jamal brick forced shots with 20 seconds left on the shot clock, or watching Kirk miss a wide open 18-footer in rhythm.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Jamal took 16.5 shots per game last year. Kirk's just over 14. That's part of it, though last year we didn't really have a choice. It was also the way Jamal got a lot of his shots. Isolations, contested jumpers, early shots in the shot clock. Kirk does all those things from time to time, but generally he shows a little more patience or passes up on bad shots.
> 
> In a way, that makes it all the more frustrating that he doesn't hit at a higher clip. There's some games where he just misses wide open shot after wide open shot.


A difference of 2.5 FGA when you admit that last season we didn't a choice?
A little bit more patience?
( i agree with these BTW )

Seems like very subtle differences.

Given the anti-Crawford contingent around here, which is pretty much the pro-Kirk crowd... the small differences you speak of do not seem to match the chasm of BB.net sentiment between the two.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> That's the thing that kills me with Kirk, all the wide open mid-range jumpers that he misses that I know he's capable of knocking down. Sometimes, I wonder which is worse, watching Jamal brick forced shots with 20 seconds left on the shot clock, or watching Kirk miss a wide open 18-footer in rhythm.


Why do you *know* that Hinrich can shoot better than he does while Crawford is a "selfish chucker?"

Kirk takes plenty of 3s early in the shot clock. (that shot does not bother me BTW)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> The difference, K4E, is that Hinrich's leading the team in shot attempts is due directly to the fact that he plays 30% more minutes than anyone else on the team- as already pointed out to you, Kirk is 4th on the team in shots per minute.
> 
> Jamal was 2nd in shots per minute, surpassed only by Marcus "The Black Hole" Fizer, who was only 6th on the team in minutes.
> 
> ...



What you neglect to consider, and VF correctly IMO does, is the lack of other options on last year's team... the Duper and LJ were not supposed to be shooting last year. 

Whole different situation this season.

I guess you are right. Everyone on this board was calculating the shots per minute in their spreadsheet and felt that since Jamal was #2 behind Fizer that he was a "selfish chucker."


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> A difference of 2.5 FGA when you admit that last season we didn't a choice?
> A little bit more patience?
> ( i agree with these BTW )
> 
> ...


Again, your missing all the other phases of the game where Jamal rarely showed up.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Again, your missing all the other phases of the game where Jamal rarely showed up.


Nah.... I'm talking about the "selfish chucker" label. Sub-40% was used ad infinitum... but now that's where Kirk resides you don't see that anymore.

Crawford was getting 5.1 assists, 1.4 steals, 0.4 blocks.... he was contributing in other areas on both sides of the floor.

He needed to improve aspects of his defense and getting to the line more, i agree, but there are flaws in every current Bull's game as well.... yet Crawford was the whipping boy.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> What a gunner. Kirk is turning into Jamal. If we didn't want Jamal, why do we want Hinrich? He is a gunner, and he doesn't gun with efficiency. I am tired of his bull**** of missing open shots.


There is a world between those 2 players. While I won't deny Jamal might have more pure talent , he ain't even close to giving the effort Kirk gives every play. 
you gotta remember Kirk shoots as much as he does for one reason - *Skiles tells him to!!* 

Kirk does exactly what the coach will ask him to do , like it or not , Skiles knows his offensive weapons on our team are limitted , and therefor Kirk bcomes a more often used possibility. 

I agree he missess too much lately , and it's frustrating at times , but he is worth a spot on court also when he ain't shooting well , unlike Jamal. Maybe I'd say Skiles has to ask him to shoot less , and thats exactly what he'll do if asked , again , unlike Jamal.

Now , Babyblue , no offence , but being the huge Eddy fan you R , I think you just fail to see sometimes the importance of atributes in a BB player besides scoring. I'd say *Eddy Olowokandi* is a much closer match. when Eddy does not score he's just a stiff hurting the team , playing below averege defense , rebounding less than Earl Boykins , throwing TO's like crazy , and dragging his team towards his indifferent approach at times. Thats why Eddy does not play when he's not 'in the game'. He just hurts the team badly. Most of all , U cannot have a Center in the league that cannot rebound even if his life depends on it (unless your SF is Shawn Marion and KG is at 4) , simpley cause we cannot score without the ball. Heck , Kirk almost rebounds like Eddy at gaurd , he always does a good job of passing the ball , and he is always 'On' on the defensive end.
Eddy , while being an offensive monster in potential , maybe in future one of the best offensive big men in the league , gives the team Nothing if he ain't scoring (ok , not always , but in general).
Although it's not always an efficient stat , at times inaccurate , there is a very big reason Jamal and Eddy R terrible +/- players , while Kirk is a good one. It starts with the fact that unlike them , Kirk does not have to score to help the team. He plays hard defense to help his team , and us having 31 wins has nothing to do with good offense , as Bullsville wrote in his good article. It has to do almost only with defense , that somehow manages to hide our terrible flaws on offense. And we know already that defense has nothing to do with Jamal or Eddy. So there is your reason , like it or not , accept it or not , see it or not , the game is not only offense , it's so many things beyond it , otherwise players of the like of Rodman or Big Ben would never see playing time in this league.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> A difference of 2.5 FGA when you admit that last season we didn't a choice?
> A little bit more patience?
> ( i agree with these BTW )
> 
> ...


I'm not saying I think that the points I mentioned alone are enough to brand Crawford a selfish chucker. I'm just saying that those things are a couple of explanatory factors. Personally, I don't necessarily think Jamal was trying to be selfish last year, I just thought his decision-making and shot selection were quite lacking. He only really seemed comfortable shooting after setting it up with the dribble, which bogged down the flow of the offense (or what semblence of offense we tried to run). In any event, Jamal and Kirk both had to take more shots than they should have last year, given Eddy's inconsistency, our lack of a SF, and our offensively limited PFs.

Kirk does force some shots, but I rarely feel like the shots he's taking aren't, for lack of a better description, Skiles-approved. I still can't figure out why he misses so many open looks. His mechanics seem fine and he shoots them in rhythm, but he gets front or back iron on so many shots. I also hope he learns to finish somewhat more effectively when he gets into the lane. Learning a decent teardrop shot and being able to draw fouls and still put the ball up to the rim would really make him a more effective scorer.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Jamal took 16.5 shots per game last year. Kirk's just over 14. That's part of it, though last year we didn't really have a choice. It was also the way Jamal got a lot of his shots. Isolations, contested jumpers, early shots in the shot clock. Kirk does all those things from time to time, but generally he shows a little more patience or passes up on bad shots.
> 
> In a way, that makes it all the more frustrating that he doesn't hit at a higher clip. There's some games where he just misses wide open shot after wide open shot.


Yep. I thought the "He's shooting too much" argument didn't make sense last year, and I still think it doesn't make any sense. Last year we were Jamal, a rookie Kirk, sometimes Eddy, and then basically a bunch of guys who sucked.

This year, we're Kirk, Ben, Eddy, Lou, Andres, and Othella.

The simple fact of having more options gives a better distribution of shots and better quality shots.

But within that context, Kirk's relative role and relative ability certainly grew compared to the other options we have this year. Last year he was a rookie. This year he's playing more than anyone else.

Could he be shooting better? Sure. 

But other things being equal, he was the better option. Suppose we play him the way we've tended to play Duhon and Chandler, and not set him up for baskets. Where does that get us? Who takes up the slack?

I'd maybe like to see a few more things run Tyson's way, but I really don't think there's a huge gap that needs to be made up. I mean, suppose Kirk took, on average, 3 fewer shots a game and Tyson took 3 more. Does that really help us a lot?

Only if we're getting Tyson higher quality shots that he converts on. And while I'd like to see that happen, I also recognize it's a hard thing to do. Just passing a guy the ball and telling him to shoot doesn't mean he's going to score at the rate predicted by his field goal %.

The field goal % is not just a measure of his ability, but of the quality of shots the offense (his teammates) can generate for him.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Hey guys, the reason Hinrich plays is because he is our most efficient offensive player and he plays solid defense. No one else on the team offers that.

Through the All-Star break, Hinrich generated 105 points per 100 possessions that he used. Harrington and Duhon (yes, Duhon) generated 101 points. Everyone else generated less than 100 points with Gordon at just under 100 points and Curry at 95 points.

So how can this be with Hinrich shooting such a low percentage? It is because Hinrich generates lots of assists and relatively few turnovers. Curry and Gordon are higher shooting percentage options, but their lower rate of assists and higher rate of turnovers mean that it is less efficient for the Bulls offense to run through them. Curry is a particularly inefficient option, so it makes sense that Skiles often does not play him in key stretches of games.

Note also that both Hinrich and Crawford have improved from last season in efficiency, although the increase is greater for Hinrich.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why do you *know* that Hinrich can shoot better than he does while Crawford is a "selfish chucker?"
> 
> Kirk takes plenty of 3s early in the shot clock. (that shot does not bother me BTW)


Way to make stuff up, I never called Jamal a "selfish chucker". 

And how do I "know" that Kirk is capable of knocking down wide-open mid-range jumpers in rhythm? Because I've seen him do it for several years, although I didn't watch a lot of Kansas basketball, I did see him play a few times a year. 

I'm sure Kirk would tell you that he "knows" he should be hitting more of the wide-open mid-range jumpers in rhythm.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Hey guys, the reason Hinrich plays is because he is our most efficient offensive player and he plays solid defense. No one else on the team offers that.
> 
> Through the All-Star break, Hinrich generated 105 points per 100 possessions that he used. Harrington and Duhon (yes, Duhon) generated 101 points. Everyone else generated less than 100 points with Gordon at just under 100 points and Curry at 95 points.


Hey Dan, thanks for the knowledge bomb. 

I don't think we're talking about Hinrich playing fewer minutes... but taking fewer shots.

Given Hinrich's FG%... would his offensive efficiency go up if he was taking 10 shots a game compared to his current 14+?

Would the team as a whole be more offensively efficient if players like Gordon, Deng, Curry and Chander were taking these shot attempts abandoned by Hinrich?

Just curious.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> What you neglect to consider, and VF correctly IMO does, is the lack of other options on last year's team... the Duper and LJ were not supposed to be shooting last year.
> 
> Whole different situation this season.
> 
> I guess you are right. Everyone on this board was calculating the shots per minute in their spreadsheet and felt that since Jamal was #2 behind Fizer that he was a "selfish chucker."


Nah, some people can watch the games and tell the difference in a good shot and a bad shot. Some people see a great self-alley oop and are thrilled and ready to bask in the glory of a great circus shot that is worth the exact same 2 points as a simple 8th grade layup. Some people are much more impressed by winning basketball than circus shots.

Some people realize that the "there were no other options last season" statement is a joke- like I said earlier, Eddy, AD, Gill and Pargo all shot a higher percentage than Jamal, yet Jamal took more shots than any of them. Kirk shot the exact same percentage, but over 7% better on 3's, yet Jamal took a hell of a lot more 3's than Kirk did. 

I wonder, sometimes, if what Woody Harrelson said to Wesley Snipes in _White Men Can't Jump_ was written about Jamal- "A black man would rather look good and lose than look bad and win".


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I wonder, sometimes, if what Woody Harrelson said to Wesley Snipes in _White Men Can't Jump_ was written about Jamal- "A black man would rather look good and lose than look bad and win".


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Hey, I don't believe that thing about WMCJ and Jamal, I just thought it sounded good at the time.

Although, and I have no proof to back this up, I think there are most definitely NBA players who are more worried about "looking good" than they are about winning.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

bullsville said:


> I wonder, sometimes, if what Woody Harrelson said to Wesley Snipes in _White Men Can't Jump_ was written about Jamal- "A black man would rather look good and lose than look bad and win".


That might not be the way to go in supporting your position re: Crawford.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hey Dan, thanks for the knowledge bomb.
> 
> I don't think we're talking about Hinrich playing fewer minutes... but taking fewer shots.
> 
> ...


The problem is that the tradeoff is usually not a shot for Hinrich versus a shot for Gordon/Curry. If it is, then Hinrich is generating an assist. Usually the tradeoff is Hinrich making something happen versus Gordon/Curry making something happen. For that reason we have to factor in the lower assist rates and higher turnover rates for Gordon and Curry. And when we do, we see that Hinrich generally is a more efficient option.

I don't think it is so easy to easy to separate shooting, assisting, and turnovers. I think they come together in packages and the typical choice is choosing what overall package is better. Focusing only on the shooting part, I think, is misleading for a player like Hinrich who generates more assists because of the fact he is a scoring threat.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Hey, I don't believe that thing about WMCJ and Jamal, I just thought it sounded good at the time.
> 
> Although, and I have no proof to back this up, I think there are most definitely NBA players who are more worried about "looking good" than they are about winning.


I agree with this completely when talking about Jamal - That what he cares about most , how he looks on court and in his Jag...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Don't you see a paralell between Jamal and Kirk. They both are shooting too much at low percentages. Both were good passers, Jamal just never played point guard, because he was shooting guard next to Kirk at the same points for most of the game. Kirk is better at running the fast break, but Jamal is far superior at feeding the post, which doesn't show up as an assist in the league. Most people knock Jamal's defense, but he definitely could guard point guards, he just couldn't guard shooting guards, kind of like Kirk this year, Kirk really shines on defense when guarding point guards, and doesn't shine so bright when guarding shooting guards. In the end Jamal and Kirk are the same players in a different package. Jamal comes in the flashy package, and Kirk in the fundamental package. They both are innefficient scorers, good passers, and both play solid defense on point guards.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I can't believe that Dan is a supporting member... I think bbb.net should be paying him to post here.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Don't you see a paralell between Jamal and Kirk. They both are shooting too much at low percentages. Both were good passers, Jamal just never played point guard, because he was shooting guard next to Kirk at the same points for most of the game. Kirk is better at running the fast break, but Jamal is far superior at feeding the post, which doesn't show up as an assist in the league. Most people knock Jamal's defense, but he definitely could guard point guards, he just couldn't guard shooting guards, kind of like Kirk this year, Kirk really shines on defense when guarding point guards, and doesn't shine so bright when guarding shooting guards. In the end Jamal and Kirk are the same players in a different package. Jamal comes in the flashy package, and Kirk in the fundamental package. They both are innefficient scorers, good passers, and both play solid defense on point guards.



they have computers in detention at your school?

sorry, but jamal and "solid defense" should not be used in the same sentence.


three, two, one....hate on me!



:wink:


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Don't you see a paralell between Jamal and Kirk. They both are shooting too much at low percentages. Both were good passers, Jamal just never played point guard, because he was shooting guard next to Kirk at the same points for most of the game. Kirk is better at running the fast break, but Jamal is far superior at feeding the post, which doesn't show up as an assist in the league. Most people knock Jamal's defense, but he definitely could guard point guards, he just couldn't guard shooting guards, kind of like Kirk this year, Kirk really shines on defense when guarding point guards, and doesn't shine so bright when guarding shooting guards. In the end Jamal and Kirk are the same players in a different package. Jamal comes in the flashy package, and Kirk in the fundamental package. They both are innefficient scorers, good passers, and both play solid defense on point guards.


No I don't!

Again , you're talking about offense , which is only part of the game. They R not even in the same Galaxy on defense (which is clearly the reason we have 31 wins with one of the worst offenses in the league) , They R not in the same galaxy when it comes to hard work (also in practice) , not on the same galaxy when it comes to character and doing what coach asks (it's clear Kirk shoots so much beacause Skiles pushes him to , otherwise he wouldn't be on court so much) , and Kirk is a better ditributer. Also Kirk missess more worthy shots than Jamal , who missess more shots he should not take. 

*Jamal is about Jamal , Kirk is about the team.* 

Don't U see it??!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Regarding Crawford. I think a lot of you really have a misperception about him. Crawford is a good player that really is very coachable and trys to make his team better. His HS coach said he would take Crawford to build an NBA team around over any player he has coached or seen because Jamal is such a good leader and has great basketball knowledge. Our very own coach Skiles described Crawford as a hard worker and a good player who did what they wanted him to. And remember he also fought back from the ACL injury early, was one of the more prolific workers in the Berto, and has always worked on his game. 

It's easy to turn the lens a little and see what you want to see instead of whats really there. But the people who know Jamal and have worked with him obviously respect him so it really doesn't appear that he just wants to "look good", "get paid", "be the man", or whatever inane foolishness people want to ascribe to him.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Nah.... I'm talking about the "selfish chucker" label. Sub-40% was used ad infinitum... but now that's where Kirk resides you don't see that anymore.


But because he does just about everything else better than Jamal, its easier to forgive him for the shooting (although I have been critical of it).


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> His HS coach said he would take Crawford to build an NBA team around over any player he has coached or seen because Jamal is such a good leader and has great basketball knowledge.



That's great, but almost every single player in the NBA has a high school coach who says glowing things about them.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Nah.... I'm talking about the "selfish chucker" label. Sub-40% was used ad infinitum... but now that's where Kirk resides you don't see that anymore.


Doesn't sound like my tone, but for the record I'm with everybody else who can't understand why Kirk remains sub-40. 

Just curious, Jason Kidd is a .402 lifetime shooter (.391 this year), should he shoot a lot less too? Or is it just a fact that players who do a lot of different things and bring a great deal more than just scoring to their team won't be evaluated as harshly on FG% alone?

Would the board be singing the praises of Gordon if he was shooting sub-40 right now? If he was sub-40, we could probably knock off a bunch of his 4th quarter double digit performances and throw out a few game winners if that were the case. Gordon only brought scoring and for the most part Jamal did too.

Really, I think this all boils down to those who hate Kirk have something they can really take him to the woodshed for right now. He's been shooting poorly pure and simple.

It's been pointed out ad nauseum that Hinrich and Crawford shoot about the same % and Crawford got beaten up for it last year. Of course the Kirk crowd will counter that he's guarding 2's, still running the offense, he's typically giving up a height advantage on both ends of the floor, and anyone who has ever played the game knows that giving that much effort on both ends of the floor invariably can lead to your offensive game suffering. Many offensive players simply "rest" on the defensive end. Of course, Jamal had his excuses too - only played 17 college games, every coach he ever had hated him, he had to learn to play the 2, he had to learn to catch and shoot, his teammates sucked.

Really, where does it ever end and when do we appreciate the players we have and what they bring to the table. 

One thing that has really struck me as the Hinrich Sucks Club marches on in retribution for the the loss of Jamal. The Eddy Curry threads revolve around Eddy's play, does it help or hurt, how to motivate him, will he become dominant, how to re-sign him. The Kirk Hinrich threads revolve around voting him off the island. Its all just a little too transparent. Those who are pissed off that Jamal is gone are gonna ride Hinrich until he's gone too.

I don't care whether Curry or Hinrich goes so long as the Bulls get better. Personally, I'd like to see them both stay. 

It'd also be nice if we didn't have Kirk Crawford threads touting him as something akin to an NBDL player - especially when he leads us to a win with 22 pts on 47% shooting, 50% from long distance, 5 reb, 5 ast, 4 steals.

If this thread and its creation doesn't help illustrate who some of the most devoted HATERS are, then perhaps I'll have to draw you a picture.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Doesn't sound like my tone, but for the record I'm with everybody else who can't understand why Kirk remains sub-40.
> 
> Just curious, Jason Kidd is a .402 lifetime shooter (.391 this year), should he shoot a lot less too? Or is it just a fact that players who do a lot of different things and bring a great deal more than just scoring to their team won't be evaluated as harshly on FG% alone?
> 
> ...



I don't think thats entirely true. I have always been a Crawford fan, probably his biggest, and I was sad to see him go but I have been impressed with Hinrich's play for the most part. I was upset when we drafted him because I didn't think he would be this good but he quickly changed my mind and I think he's a great player, despite his fg%.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> I don't think thats entirely true. I have always been a Crawford fan, probably his biggest, and I was sad to see him go but I have been impressed with Hinrich's play for the most part. I was upset when we drafted him because I didn't think he would be this good but he quickly changed my mind and I think he's a great player, despite his fg%.


Ace, I don't think I'd ever characterize you as a hater. You were an ardent Crawford supporter, but its clear you're pretty much a team first guy.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Ace, I don't think I'd ever characterize you as a hater. You were an ardent Crawford supporter, but its clear you're pretty much a team first guy.



Thanks! I'm definitley all for whatever is best for the team even though I am a Crawford fan.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Ace, I don't think I'd ever characterize you as a hater. You were an ardent Crawford supporter, but its clear you're pretty much a team first guy.


And dude, with a screen name like Mr. T you really need a "I pity the foo" comment as a sig :biggrin: :banana:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Very interesting. If you make a complaint about how bad Kirk is shooting, then you get made as a hater. But if you make a complaint about say Eddy Curry, then it is just wanting whats best for the team. I didn't ever say Kirk didn't bring other things to the game, I just said he is a crappy shooter which he is. PPG and RPG and APG all can depend on a lot of factors such as how much you play, if you fish for assist or not, the type of offense, and what not, but FG% is not a circumstantial stat. That stat is made up of whether you make it or miss it, and Kirk misses it too much, while taking too many shots. Fact is fact, we got 9 guys that shoot at a higher percentage then Hinrich, Hinrich should be one of the guys that take the least shots for us, not one of the top ones.

Also it seems like you are a kirk hater if you liked Jamal. Fact is fact, Jamal was run out of town because of his missed shots, and shooting early in possessions. Now that Kirk is doing the same thing, you can't make a peep about it without being labeled a hater.

As another poster pointed out, Jamal is about himself, and Kirk is about the team. Then if Kirk is all about the team, to posters, *then why* was it that a poster credited Kirk with being the reason we won last night. I'm sure that Eddy Curry's 25 points 8 rebounds had nothing to do with it, or Tyson Chandler's 9 points 13 rebounds, or Andres Nocioni's 14 points. Some posters like to talk all about its all about how the team does, but when a player like Hinrich or Gordon stand out, they won us the game, not the entire team. Eddy Curry had an outstanding game, so did Chandler, so did Nocioni, and Hinrich did too. Hinrich is part of the team, and the team won the game for us, not Kirk. Kirk was just part of the win, not the reason for the win, just one of the reasons for it, not THE reason.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Why are we bickering like a bunch of school children? God forbid we enjoy the success our team is having.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I keep reading some people saying that Jamal and Eddy are decent defenders, or not bad defenders, and they can't understand why Kirk gets a "free pass" for "doing the little things".

I'm at a loss, but all I can figure is that these people don't know what the little things are, don't know how to recognize them in a game if they see them, and are very impressed by offense, the other 80% of the game be damned.

Is it just me?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Fact is fact, Jamal was run out of town because of his missed shots, and shooting early in possessions. Now that Kirk is doing the same thing, you can't make a peep about it without being labeled a hater.


I do not agree!

I think Jamal is not here cause of all the rest of his game (defense,BB IQ) and character , not his offense.Babyblue - Game is more than offense.

Kirk is doing the same in low FG% - *But all the rest about him is different!!!* 

He plays D , He's positive in Lockeroom , He plays and trains hard , He does what coach asks him to , And teamates see and follow.

And U're not a hater , dwefinitly a Bulls lover and Eddy above all - but U gotta accept Offense is just a part of team play , it ain't even half , and thats why there is no comparison, None!


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

bullsville said:


> I keep reading some people saying that Jamal and Eddy are decent defenders, or not bad defenders, and they can't understand why Kirk gets a "free pass" for "doing the little things".
> 
> I'm at a loss, but all I can figure is that these people don't know what the little things are, don't know how to recognize them in a game if they see them, and are very impressed by offense, the other 80% of the game be damned.
> 
> Is it just me?


I totally agree with your point.

BB is far more than offense. Ask Rodman , Big Ben , Mark Eaton - all "offensive Monsters". And it ain't only offense and defense - It's also character , playing hard all the time , training hard in practice , not crying to other teamates behind the curtain , doing what coach asks U too , and many other things I can't think of right now. Offense is important no doubt - gotta put the ball in the hoop to win , but - U gotta get the ball 1st , gotta stop opponent , gotta train hard to be in shape etc...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

_He plays D , He's positive in Lockeroom , He plays and trains hard , He does what coach asks him to , And teamates see and follow._ 

Jamal played D, he just wasn't good enough to be able to guard shooting guards good.

Jamal was positive in the lockeroom.

He played hard.

He trained hard.

He did what coach Skiles asked of him.

I am not sure if the teammates see and followed him, and the same is not true about Kirk Hinrich. Everyone on this team, well most: Eddy Curry, Kirk Hinrich, Luol Deng, Tyson Chandler; they aren't seeing and following Kirk Hinrich, they are listening to what their coach has to say, and following that. Jamal did the same thing last year, only it wasn't a team wide effort. It was just Kirk, Jamal, and Eddy.

Kirk is the stereotypical hardworker. He just works hard.

Jamal worked hard, he tried to play like Skiles wanted him to, he played and worked hard.

Eddy stayed after practice to work on skills with Scott Skiles, and up to this date, Eddy still stays after practice and works with Scott Skiles on his skills. 

last year we had:

Tyson Chandler doing nothing in the work hard category, unless you count sititng out games as working hard.

Antonio Davis is a good leader and works hard when he is out there, but last year, and this year he sits out many practices.

Eddie Robinson was working hard for a good month or so, but after the 1 minute game, Eddie just shut down.

People try to characterize Jamal, Eddie Robinson, and Jalen Rose all in this same group, this cancerous, not hard working, no defense team. The only one of those 3 that belong in that group is Eddie Robinson. People stereotype Jalen and Jamal unfairly. People forget all of Rose's key defensive stops at ends of games, or Jamal coming up big enabling us to get wins last year. Eddie Robinson is the only one that belongs in that group.

Now compare that to last year, this is what we have.

Eddy Curry and Kirk Hinrich are the two guys that worked hard last year that have returned.

Tyson Chandler conquered his durability problem in the offseason, allowing him to work harder.

Then we brought in 5 rookies, Chris Duhon, Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Andres Nocioni, and Jared Reiner all that work hard.

People can make Reiner out to be a scrub and all, but he is different from the NBDL's of last year. Reiner is a hardworking scrub, while those guys were just scrubs. 

Fact is fact, we added 5 hardworking rookies, and Tyson is working hard now. 

Its not because we lost Jamal that we became a good team, just because the hard work thing is a team-wide thing, and not just 3 guys working hard.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

bullsville said:


> I'm at a loss, but all I can figure is that these people don't know what the little things are, don't know how to recognize them in a game if they see them, and are very impressed by offense, the other 80% of the game be damned.
> 
> Is it just me?


???


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

Is it really the "Jamalites" that have made this a 4 page thread overnight?

Or is it the "Captain Kirk can do no wrong" camp?

.... looking the whole thread over kinda makes your wonder. From the looks of this post, you'd think slugger walked into church with a "christ is my bizzle" shirt or something. The reaction immediately went anti-crawford and uber pro-hinrich. why? There isn't a Mike Jordan/Harold Minor chasm between these 2 guards here. I mean, is Crawford THAT bad a player to some of you? Is Kirk so above ANY KIND of critisism? I mean seriously, a questioning word is said about the guy and immediately 3 or 4 posters spring to his defense. Does he really have that many "boos"? 

yodork- you really made me think when you brought out the shots-per-minute ratios. Hinrich plays so many minutes, maybe it just seems watching the game that he makes more mistakes/bad shots. But what your saying is, it's just because he's playing so many minutes. Very interesting... It's something to think about. props to you, as you really do have a very good point. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsville said:


> ???


I'd like to know what these little things are.

Like diving for balls. That is pretty much the only one I can think of. There are not that many "little things" in the game. Although if you mean like boxing out text bookly like Eddy Curry does, or sacrificing your body for the charge like Nocioni does, diving for loose balls like Duhon does, what exactly is the little thing that Kirk does again?

The little things is just something that people make up to make Kirk look like Kirk is more then he is doing. Why don't people just accept that Kirk doesn't have this huge basketball iq, and doesn't do this array of little things, and that he is just a medioqure scorer, a good passer, a good ball controller, and a good defender. No need to make things up that aren't true. He does understand defense good for his basketball IQ, but he does not have much offensive basketball IQ. Like he doesn't understand where to throw the ball for the post entry pass, or that he is a higher percentage shooter when he is coming into the shot rather then fading back. Kirk is just a good player as of now, not great, not a star, he doesn't have this basketball iq equivelent to Einteins' normal iq, he just has an above average basketball iq. People need to accept that Kirk is just a plain good player, not make up these little things or great basketball iq excuses.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Jamal was positive in the lockeroom.
> 
> He played hard.
> 
> ...


I Think U're wrong on all counts , but wer'e all entitled to our own opinion.

I think Jamal had a terribly negative Influence on team chemistry , toughness , and their ability to win.

If Jamal had done all those things U say about him , he'd probably be close to a starting allstar with his talent , but he ain't.

I think the last reason Jamal is out of town is offense.

Anyway - our W/L ratio speaks for itself - don't U think Babyblue?!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullet said:


> I Think U're wrong on all counts , but wer'e all entitled to our own opinion.
> 
> I think Jamal had a terribly negative Influence on team chemistry , toughness , and their ability to win.
> 
> ...


Who says we aren't a better team this year if we kept Jamal, no? Last year we had Jamal, Eddy, and Kirk. We had to depend on *3* players to get us wins. This year we have Tyson, Eddy, Kirk, Gordon, Deng, Duhon all of which are playing great ball and helping us win. Last year we had 3 people who were big contributers to winning basketball, this year we have much more. Last years team was a wreck, it was bad. This years team certainly doesn't reak of NBDLers.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I'm at a loss, but all I can figure is that these people don't know what the little things are, don't know how to recognize them in a game if they see them, and are very impressed by offense, the other 80% of the game be damned.

Is it just me?




BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> I'd like to know what these little things are.
> 
> Like diving for balls. That is pretty much the only one I can think of. There are not that many "little things" in the game.



I guess it's not just me...


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Who says we aren't a better team this year if we kept Jamal, no? Last year we had Jamal, Eddy, and Kirk. We had to depend on *3* players to get us wins. This year we have Tyson, Eddy, Kirk, Gordon, Deng, Duhon all of which are playing great ball and helping us win. Last year we had 3 people who were big contributers to winning basketball, this year we have much more. Last years team was a wreck, it was bad. This years team certainly doesn't reak of NBDLers.


Noone can say how we'd look with Jamal - my personal opinion is we'd be much worse , simply cause Jamal would have the ball in his hands on the expense of anyone else on our team now.

Pax made moves to lose the players he thought don't have a place on the team as he sees it , and U cannot argue he did a good Job looking at the standings , while being such a young team. He lost the players he did not want , brought the players he did , and it worked. Don't forget U're talking about 3 rookies , and thats why nobody said before season starts wer'e gonna be a playoff team (almost).Last year more people (including me) gave us playoffs chance before the season started unlike this year.There is also the terrible season for Knicks that was unexpected , and they got stronger with Jamal (supposed to at least). Pax did the right moves imo!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Jamal did not get traded because Paxson felt it made us a better team this year, but a better team in the future. Lets be realistic, Paxson had a plan to resign the bigs. Eddy Curry is the given, you don't give away a guy that will be a top scorer in the league and let him walk. So then Jamal was moved so we could keep Tyson Chandler. Everyone knows that Jerry Reindsdork is a cheap skate. Paxson traded Jamal Crawford in order for us to have proper money to resign Tyson. It is pretty evident.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsville, instead of just talking up these little things, please explain what these little things are, and which of these little things Kirk brings to the game.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> bullsville, instead of just talking up these little things, please explain what these little things are, and which of these little things Kirk brings to the game.


Here's a good start for you, BBS- 

Think of all the things that us haters say about Eddy. The ones that make you say "you guys are nit-picking", those are most likely the little things.

You know, like having enough sense not to run over to Michael Finley 90 feet from the basket with 10 seconds left in a tie game. *Court sense*, that's a "little thing" that doesn't show up in the box score.

Or let's say Kirk gets an outlet pass of a defensive rebound with 35 seconds to play in the quarter, and he runs up and shoots a quick 3 with 32 seconds left and 20 on the shot clock. That's not a quick shot, that's called "getting a 2 for 1", meaning 2 possesions for you. If you hit the shot, great, but either way you're getting the last possesion of the quarter. *Recognizing and getting the 2 for 1 at the end of a quarter*, that's a "little thing" that doesn't show up in a box score.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsville said:


> Here's a good start for you, BBS-
> 
> Think of all the things that us haters say about Eddy. The ones that make you say "you guys are nit-picking", those are most likely the little things.
> 
> ...


For the court sense that is a bad example to pick. We broke it down during that game, looked at replays, and came to a conclusion that it wasn't a foul.

Once again, that 2-1 thing is a team wide thing. 

The little things arguement, is a weak arguement, it holds no substance.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> For the court sense that is a bad example to pick. We broke it down during that game, looked at replays, and came to a conclusion that it wasn't a foul.


I see I'm truly dealing with a green student here. 

I was watching, I know Eddy didn't actually foul him, well he did make contact but it's because M Finley had enough "court sense" to jump into Eddy, who for some reason was running hard at Finley even though the game was tied. MF ate up Eddy's stupidity for running at him, and we lost.



> Once again, that 2-1 thing is a team wide thing.


LOL @ you Grasshopper, you asked for a "little thing" that Kirk does well, and I named it. But instead, you turn it around as "it's a team thing", nice try young man.



> The little things arguement, is a weak arguement, it holds no substance.


Hey, I tried to help you out, I could make a list of 100 things I see during games, but I would rather enjoy watching the game than take notes during the game. 

If you ever make it to Florida, stop by my house and we'll watch some game tape and I'll show you what I'm talking about. You asked what the "little things" are, I named a couple, and you dismissed them by saying "Eddy didn't actually touch Finley" and "the thing Hinrich does well is a team problem"?????????????

I really don't get it, but I tried to help.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Jamal did not get traded because Paxson felt it made us a better team this year, but a better team in the future. Lets be realistic, Paxson had a plan to resign the bigs. Eddy Curry is the given, you don't give away a guy that will be a top scorer in the league and let him walk. So then Jamal was moved so we could keep Tyson Chandler. Everyone knows that Jerry Reindsdork is a cheap skate. Paxson traded Jamal Crawford in order for us to have proper money to resign Tyson. It is pretty evident.


I agree with this assessment. At the right price Pax would have signed Jamal but not at the expense of losing our bigs. He planned for the future and overall it's looking ok. You make good points throughout the thread (except the argument about the little things, and about Jamal's d and Kirk's ability to feed downlow.)

and that foul on Finley, it was a foul. Eddy apologized afterwards.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I'd like to add off court 'little things' to Bullsville:

Imagine the team as a unit , that spends lots of time together. Now when a guy like Jamal comes to Eddy and says (no proof of course) :"this sob coach/managment brings PG to replace me" or Kirk saying 'I ain't playing well , gotta work harder" - which one of the phrazes will make Eddy realise he's gotta work to be better. 
Or when Eddy sees Kirk and Duhon working their *** off in practice , next to Jamal (or someone else like ERob) that come to practice to meet the guys and Eddy his good freind and just do what he needs to pass.
Or seeing guys like Noci bleed on court (not litterely) for the stupid ball and then see a guy like Jamal play alone.

It's a team unity thing , the feeling playing as a Unit , where everybody plays for the team , not for stats , what do U think it does for a talented but easily influenced (so it seems to me ) Eddy.

When everybody around U plays as hard as they can - U'd have to straighten the line with the rest , you'll feel uncomfortable not working hard , while when U have a top player in the team not working as hard , U'll choose his side for convenience.

Lockeroom approach - Hating the lossess , not saying it's the Ref or coach or fans , but we have to play harder.

Those R small things that make a team into a strong Unit , opposed to a money making group of individual.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> And dude, with a screen name like Mr. T you really need a "I pity the foo" comment as a sig :biggrin: :banana:


You miss it under *Mr. T*?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> I'd like to know what these little things are.
> 
> Like diving for balls. That is pretty much the only one I can think of. There are not that many "little things" in the game. Although if you mean like boxing out text bookly like Eddy Curry does, or sacrificing your body for the charge like Nocioni does, diving for loose balls like Duhon does, what exactly is the little thing that Kirk does again?
> 
> The little things is just something that people make up to make Kirk look like Kirk is more then he is doing. Why don't people just accept that Kirk doesn't have this huge basketball iq, and doesn't do this array of little things, and that he is just a medioqure scorer, a good passer, a good ball controller, and a good defender. No need to make things up that aren't true. He does understand defense good for his basketball IQ, but he does not have much offensive basketball IQ. Like he doesn't understand where to throw the ball for the post entry pass, or that he is a higher percentage shooter when he is coming into the shot rather then fading back. Kirk is just a good player as of now, not great, not a star, he doesn't have this basketball iq equivelent to Einteins' normal iq, he just has an above average basketball iq. People need to accept that Kirk is just a plain good player, not make up these little things or great basketball iq excuses.


I don't even know how to respond to this other than to say you really have a shallow understanding of the intricacies of the game. There are not many little things in the game of basketball? Good grief.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't even know how to respond to this other than to say you really have a shallow understanding of the intricacies of the game. There are not many little things in the game of basketball? Good grief.


care to make a list?


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

:whofarted


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

bbertha37 said:


> :whofarted


That sums it up for me.

I've really got to get back to work.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

The premise that any player plays basketball in a way that is above criticizing them means they play perfectly , 

does anyone think kirk hinrich is perfect ?

i dont , i think he is a very good player , but perfect is a far stretch for him imo , those who find problems with other for pointing out flaws in a non perfect player are posters i might find fault with.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Well, you can't argue with the little things. It's the little things that make up life. [throws a grenade]


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> _He plays D , He's positive in Lockeroom , He plays and trains hard , He does what coach asks him to , And teamates see and follow._
> 
> Jamal played D, he just wasn't good enough to be able to guard shooting guards good.
> 
> ...



:whofarted


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

<ul>
<li>driving with the foreknowledge that you're going to get fouled hard
<li>taking the charge
<li>being the right position on defense
<li>being in the right position on offense
<li>making the extra pass to hit the open man
<li>catching and shooting rather than dribbling twice to blow the play
<li>not taking off-balance fadeaway jumpers with 10 tics on the clock
<li>setting effective screens regardless of the size of the opponent
<li>forcing the opposing PG to pick up his dribble
<li>mixing it up downlow to grab the rebound
<li>following your shot when the opportunity permits to get the board
<li>calling and switching on picks
<li>denying your opponent the ball
<li>having enough court sense to stay between your opponent and the ball
<li>having enough court sense to stay between your opponent and the rim
<li>forcing your opponent to go to his weak hand and lead him into help defense
<li>never leaving your feet unless you're positive that you're shooting or passing
<li>playing defense by moving your feet, not your hands
<li>never leave your feet until you're sure your opponent is shooting
</ul>

This is just a short list of "little things". I'm sure the others have plenty more to add. Whether Kirk or Eddy/Jamal do more can be debated. The merit of these things cannot.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Very interesting. If you make a complaint about how bad Kirk is shooting, then you get made as a hater. But if you make a complaint about say Eddy Curry, then it is just wanting whats best for the team. I didn't ever say Kirk didn't bring other things to the game, I just said he is a crappy shooter which he is. PPG and RPG and APG all can depend on a lot of factors such as how much you play, if you fish for assist or not, the type of offense, and what not, but FG% is not a circumstantial stat. That stat is made up of whether you make it or miss it, and Kirk misses it too much, while taking too many shots. Fact is fact, we got 9 guys that shoot at a higher percentage then Hinrich, Hinrich should be one of the guys that take the least shots for us, not one of the top ones.
> 
> Also it seems like you are a kirk hater if you liked Jamal. Fact is fact, Jamal was run out of town because of his missed shots, and shooting early in possessions. Now that Kirk is doing the same thing, you can't make a peep about it without being labeled a hater.
> 
> As another poster pointed out, Jamal is about himself, and Kirk is about the team. Then if Kirk is all about the team, to posters, *then why* was it that a poster credited Kirk with being the reason we won last night. I'm sure that Eddy Curry's 25 points 8 rebounds had nothing to do with it, or Tyson Chandler's 9 points 13 rebounds, or Andres Nocioni's 14 points. Some posters like to talk all about its all about how the team does, but when a player like Hinrich or Gordon stand out, they won us the game, not the entire team. Eddy Curry had an outstanding game, so did Chandler, so did Nocioni, and Hinrich did too. Hinrich is part of the team, and the team won the game for us, not Kirk. Kirk was just part of the win, not the reason for the win, just one of the reasons for it, not THE reason.


Dude, theres a difference between making a complaint and WHINING about it every day. Need I tell you where you come down?

You are killing me. FG% is something Eddy has in his corner so you try to play it as the most important stat. Thats laughable. Have you read Hollinger? Reading is fundamental, no? Yeah, FG% says everything. Only an intellectually challenged youth could compare a centers FG% with a guards and try to draw some sort of comparison. Just as an example how many dunks did Eddy get tonight? Uncontested? All but one as I remember it. How many uncontested layups did Hinrich or the guards get? Now THATS a legitimate comparison. I'll grant you this though, guards typically DON'T OUT REBOUND CENTERS.

I also see you're quick to jump in with Eddy's 25 points (surprise, surprise). Eddy had a great game. I'm glad- we won. I'm glad I hope Eddy plays like that for the rest of eternity (as long as he's a Bull). I also pointed out Tyson had a great game in another thread as well. I actually started another thread about Tyson. But back to Eddy in the light of him being your super-hero idol, he also got about 3 dunks in the last couple of minutes as we pulled out to a 16 point lead. I suppose one could return the pettiness you display and discount those by suggesting it took these to surpass Hinrich as the leading scorer. But who cares (other than you)? I sure don't. The Bulls won and I was pretty happy with that especially as poorly as they were playing most of the night. But theres also no denying that offensively, Hinrich was leading the charge tonight. Or does only Ben Gordon get credit? 

People like you whine about Hinrich's play and then when he helps lead us to a win you're out here HATING on him as usual. Apparently the spotlight didn't shine bright enough on Eddy for you. It must be pretty rough to see Hinrich get the lions share of the accolades when Eddy went for 25/8. Sorry, just not my idea of team first.

BTW, I thought the standard for leading the team around here was 10-point fourth quarters leading to wins. Did Hinrich do that? And he did it with the game in the balance. Did you not notice that after a 1-6 start did Hinrich finish 7-11 in the 3rd and 4th quarters when we won the game? Everyones quick to rip on his "clutch" factor, well give him credit when you get what you're whining for. He was also clutch in the Milwaukee game. As a reward why not give the immature posting a break for a day.

Hinrich didn't win the game by himself as you're trying to mockingly suggest. And I've got news for you, Ben Gordon doesn't win the games by himself either.

Instead of spewing garbage, why don't you answer the bell? I posted Hinrich's stat line after you started a thread HATING on him. And how have you followed it up? More WHINING about Hinrich. 

So exactly what is your point? The Bulls win and your arch-nemesis had a great game - a game you've supposedly been clamoring for. And what do we get? *Kirk Crawford*. 

You can't deny the hate.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

What I find pretty funny about this whole thread is that we're talking so much about Kirk-hater or Jamal-hater factions, and the very title of this thread insinuates that BOTH players suck.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

bullsville said:


> I'm at a loss, but all I can figure is that these people don't know what the little things are, don't know how to recognize them in a game if they see them, and are very impressed by offense, the other 80% of the game be damned.
> 
> Is it just me?


I swear to God its like trying to win one for the *Gipper*, if you know what I mean. :biggrin:


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)




----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

happygrinch said:


> The premise that any player plays basketball in a way that is above criticizing them means they play perfectly ,
> 
> does anyone think kirk hinrich is perfect ?
> 
> i dont , i think he is a very good player , but perfect is a far stretch for him imo , those who find problems with other for pointing out flaws in a non perfect player are posters i might find fault with.


First, a resounding no. Each player is flawed. I always laughed at how they'd point out the leading scorers...Allen Iverson scored 32 to lead Philly...of course he shot 12 of 85 to do it. Is that really leading?

I agree, Hinrich is a very good player. I think Tyson is a very good defensive player. I think Eddy can be a very, very good offensive player.

But even you Grinch, as a Jamal fan, ought to recognize you're gonna start a fight if you initiate a flaming thread like this.



> *Kirk Crawford*
> <HR style="COLOR: #253080" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->What a gunner. Kirk is turning into Jamal. If we didn't want Jamal, why do we want Hinrich? He is a gunner, and he doesn't gun with efficiency. I am tired of his bull**** of missing open shots.


Posts like this are better left to game threads where heat of the moment stuff is a little more acceptable.

The flaming title alone was meant to get the exact four page reaction it has gotten. But, to throw up a thread like this and then KNOCK the people who have been invited to defend Hinrich by the threads very nature is downright ludicrous.

Exactly what did the initial poster expect? I'd say he got EXACTLY what he expected and wanted.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Oops.


----------



## svanacore (Nov 21, 2004)

Mr. T said:


> Hinrich didn't win the game by himself as you're trying to mockingly suggest. And I've got news for you, Ben Gordon doesn't win the games by himself either.
> 
> *Kirk Crawford*.
> 
> You can't deny the hate.


Except against Shaq-less Miami.

But seriously, Curry deserved as much credit as anyone in last nights game but Kirk deserves a lot of credit too. In the first half he was Kirk Crawford but in the second half he was some German dude.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ViciousFlogging said:


> What I find pretty funny about this whole thread is that we're talking so much about Kirk-hater or Jamal-hater factions, and the very title of this thread insinuates that BOTH players suck.


Unfortunately, its not a delicious irony by any stretch of the imagination. :nah:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

svanacore said:


> Except against Shaq-less Miami.
> 
> But seriously, Curry deserved as much credit as anyone in last nights game but Kirk deserves a lot of credit too. In the first half he was Kirk Crawford but in the second half he was some German dude.


I think Curry, Chandler and Hinrich all stepped up huge. Too bad we don't have a single thread along those lines.

As for the reference, man I hope you're not pulling a Tommy Heinsohn! :smilewink


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Mr. T said:


> Dude, theres a difference between making a complaint and WHINING about it every day. Need I tell you where you come down?
> 
> You are killing me. FG% is something Eddy has in his corner so you try to play it as the most important stat. Thats laughable. Have you read Hollinger? Reading is fundamental, no? Yeah, FG% says everything. Only an intellectually challenged youth could compare a centers FG% with a guards and try to draw some sort of comparison. Just as an example how many dunks did Eddy get tonight? Uncontested? All but one as I remember it. How many uncontested layups did Hinrich or the guards get? Now THATS a legitimate comparison. I'll grant you this though, guards typically DON'T OUT REBOUND CENTERS.
> 
> ...



Mr. T, you are clueless. I started this thread before last nights game. Kirk Hinrich has struggled all year at shooting. You bring up Eddy getting uncontested dunks at the end of the game, well on sp00ks list of little things, being in the right position on offense is just doing the little things, and guess what, Curry does the little things. Curry is making those wide open shots, do you want him to miss them? Hinrich should make his wide open shots to "pad his stats" but Hinrich misses a lot of wide open looks. 

Kirk had a nice game last night, no doubt, but that is like taking Antawn Jamison's best career game and interpreting it as the norm like you try to make of Kirk's game last night. Jamison got 50 points, does that make him one of the best players in league history? 

Fact is fact, Kirk is a poor shooter. You try this into another "I hate Kirk thread" and an "Eddy Curry sucks" thread. This is just a thread about Kirk's poor shooting. You try to knock Curry for his fg%, he is #7 in the league, last I checked just being a big man doesn't mean you have a high field goal percentage. 

The bottom line is that Kirk Hinrich takes a lot of the teams shots, doesn't shoot at a good percentage guard or player wise, and the *bottom line is that Kirk has to shoot better.* if you like it or not.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Mr. T, you are clueless. I started this thread before last nights game. Kirk Hinrich has struggled all year at shooting. You bring up Eddy getting uncontested dunks at the end of the game, <b>well on sp00ks list of little things, being in the right position on offense is just doing the little things, and guess what, Curry does the little things.</b> Curry is making those wide open shots, do you want him to miss them? Hinrich should make his wide open shots to "pad his stats" but Hinrich misses a lot of wide open looks.


It's pretty telling that you focus on "being in position on offense" and apply that to Eddy. Did you simply ignore everything else on that list? Your homerism and inability to objectively critique Curry is now beyond humor - one can almost classify this as a disease.

But I digress. In your opinion, how does Eddy rank in the area of "little things"? And if you can, please give an objective opinion on Kirk and Duhon and their contribution of "the little things".

Also, if others would like to contribute to the list please do so. A couple more things I'd like to add:
<ul>
<li>contest every shot
<li>fight through every screen
<li>making clean, crisp passes
<li>knowing where/how to cut
<li>getting a hand on every loose ball
<li>do not turn the ball over
</ul>

BBS, if you haven't caught onto the theme it's pretty much just playing smart basketball.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> That's a weak argument, and easily rebuttled. Hinrich plays,
> I think a more telling stat is shot attempts per minute played. Here are the #'s:
> 
> Hinrich: 830 attempts/2156 minutes = 0.385
> ...


Frickin' owned.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Frickin' owned.


That still doesn't change the fact that Kirk shoots poorly. He might not be taking the most on the team, but he still takes a lot of shots, and doesn't make a good clip of them. Eddy, Deng, and Gordon are all more efficient scorers. All Hinrich has to do to shut me up on this subject is to shoot 43% from the field. He just needs to get his fg% for the year up to that to shut me up, or he can explode big in the playoffs to shut me up on this topic. This is the only thing that bothers me about Kirk.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> All Hinrich has to do to shut me up on this subject is to shoot 43% from the field. He just needs to get his fg% for the year up to that to shut me up, or he can explode big in the playoffs to shut me up on this topic. This is the only thing that bothers me about Kirk.


I'm sure Kirk is up at night worried about your scathing criticism.

One of the flaws of your argument is that you seem to believe that every shot Kirk takes is at the expense of Gordon, Curry, etc. Kirk shoots lots of shots at the end of the shot clock when nobody else can bail out the team. It's not like Eddy where most of the time people go to him earlier in the 24 second clock and he can either take the high percentage shot or dish out when the opportunity isn't there. I agree that Kirk does miss some open looks and it's mystifying that he doesn't shoot at a higher clip. However, comparing him to Eddy is apples and oranges. If Eddy would do his job on the other aspects of his game, then he'd be getting so many minutes that he'd be shooting plenty.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> First, a resounding no. Each player is flawed. I always laughed at how they'd point out the leading scorers...Allen Iverson scored 32 to lead Philly...of course he shot 12 of 85 to do it. Is that really leading?
> 
> I agree, Hinrich is a very good player. I think Tyson is a very good defensive player. I think Eddy can be a very, very good offensive player.
> 
> ...



1st lets get away from the labels i am a fan of basketball in general and of no individual player labelling me a "Jamal fan" is a quick way to get a response you wont like very much.

and ...you cant lead if no one follows , for instance no one really follows kirk they follow skiles like kirk does , on the 76ers they do follow iverson , and if he goes 12 for 85 they will still follow him, they are willing to let him be the offense , thats what following means that you are willing to go down with a guy's shooting possibly even a game like that ....no one remotely thinks thats the case with kirk , if he goes 4-17 there will be calls for him to be benched and he has not established himself as the kind of offensive threat that even if he is having a horrible game the team should still hitch its fate to him, I think all of bull fandom is quick to say "kirk stop shooting and give gordon or curry the ball", no one will say that about iverson, he's a dominant force and everyone acknowledges that.

and by page 7 who cares what the initial poster expected he had his say others had theirs and the thread isn't really in that place anymore, more level heads have long since surfaced as far as kirk's importance and his bad shooting, but also just because you dont like the way the message was brought to you doesn't mean the message has no merit ....kirk does have a very similar shooting % to crawford ...in fact its lower in every way the last time I checked, if the % made jamal a chucker , it doesn't exactly make kirk the mother teresa of basketball.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

just like to say that Dan Rosenbaum killed this thread on page 3

it just doesn't know its dead yet :dead:



> Hey guys, the reason Hinrich plays is because he is our most efficient offensive player and he plays solid defense. No one else on the team offers that.
> 
> Through the All-Star break, Hinrich generated 105 points per 100 possessions that he used. Harrington and Duhon (yes, Duhon) generated 101 points. Everyone else generated less than 100 points with Gordon at just under 100 points and Curry at 95 points.
> 
> So how can this be with Hinrich shooting such a low percentage? It is because Hinrich generates lots of assists and relatively few turnovers. Curry and Gordon are higher shooting percentage options, but their lower rate of assists and higher rate of turnovers mean that it is less efficient for the Bulls offense to run through them. Curry is a particularly inefficient option, so it makes sense that Skiles often does not play him in key stretches of games


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Mr. T, you are clueless. I started this thread before last nights game. Kirk Hinrich has struggled all year at shooting. You bring up Eddy getting uncontested dunks at the end of the game, well on sp00ks list of little things, being in the right position on offense is just doing the little things, and guess what, Curry does the little things. Curry is making those wide open shots, do you want him to miss them? Hinrich should make his wide open shots to "pad his stats" but Hinrich misses a lot of wide open looks.
> 
> Kirk had a nice game last night, no doubt, but that is like taking Antawn Jamison's best career game and interpreting it as the norm like you try to make of Kirk's game last night. Jamison got 50 points, does that make him one of the best players in league history?
> 
> ...


It seems you play as loosely with the facts as you do the stats. I never made any such correlation between Hinrich's play last night and a normal Hinrich outing. As a matter of fact, if one were to interpret my intent, it would be that Hinrich DID NOT have a normal outing. How else could anyone with one iota of common sense rationalize a call to postpone the immature, hateful posting given an outing that should have been satisfactory to all? Even a grade schooler would be certain to understand this means Hinrich raised his level of play.



> You try this into another "I hate Kirk thread" and an "Eddy Curry sucks" thread.


Actually, it was you who started another "I hate Kirk thread". Perhaps you ought to read what you write or better yet not write it at all.

Kindly direct me to the post where I suggested Eddy Curry sucks. You are supremely delusional. I have never said Eddy Curry sucks. How many times must I say Eddy had a great game last night? 



> You try to knock Curry for his fg%, he is #7 in the league, last I checked just being a big man doesn't mean you have a high field goal percentage.


You're right. I see a lot of perimeter scorers in the top ten in FG%. Makes it all the more obvious what a valid comparison Hinrich vs. Curry is don't you think? Look at all the pure shooters in the top ten too. Damn, I can't believe Hinrich isn't in there.

<TABLE class=gSGTable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=600 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=gSGRowEven>1. Shaquille O'Neal (Miami Heat) 


</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>508</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>853</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>.596</TD></TR><TR><TD class=gSGRowOdd>2. Amare Stoudemire (Phoenix Suns) 


</TD><TD class=gSGRowOdd align=right>585</TD><TD class=gSGRowOdd align=right>1,025</TD><TD class=gSGRowOdd align=right>.571</TD></TR><TR><TD class=gSGRowEven>3. Yao Ming (Houston Rockets) 


</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>406</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>737</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>.551</TD></TR><TR><TD class=gSGRowOdd>4. Udonis Haslem (Miami Heat) 


</TD><TD class=gSGRowOdd align=right>280</TD><TD class=gSGRowOdd align=right>517</TD><TD class=gSGRowOdd align=right>.542</TD></TR><TR><TD class=gSGRowEven>5. Antonio McDyess (Detroit Pistons) 


</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>228</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>424</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>.538</TD></TR><TR><TD class=gSGRowOdd>6. Ruben Patterson (Portland Trail Blazers) 


</TD><TD class=gSGRowOdd align=right>238</TD><TD class=gSGRowOdd align=right>448</TD><TD class=gSGRowOdd align=right>.531</TD></TR><TR><TD class=gSGRowEven>7. Eddy Curry (Chicago Bulls) 


</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>333</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>629</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>.529</TD></TR><TR><TD class=gSGRowOdd>8. Mark Blount (Boston Celtics) 


</TD><TD class=gSGRowOdd align=right>251</TD><TD class=gSGRowOdd align=right>475</TD><TD class=gSGRowOdd align=right>.528</TD></TR><TR><TD class=gSGRowEven>9. Brad Miller (Sacramento Kings) 


</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>319</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>609</TD><TD class=gSGRowEven align=right>.524</TD></TR><TR><TD class=gSGRowOdd>10. Carlos Boozer (Utah Jazz) 


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Did you happen to notice guys like Michael Redd and Ray Allen don't crack the top 50 either? But hey, Curry is a better shooter than them too.

When it comes to being clueless and advancing clueless arguments, don't sell yourself short.

Poster after poster has tried to educate you, but you prefer to remain entrenched with your narrow views and stereotypes. My favorable posts regarding Eddy Curry are bountiful, but they don't serve your argument or stereotypes so you choose to ignore them and proceed with fictional arguments in their place.

There is no point debating anything with you further. You are so poorly equipped to debate a topic - any topic, you simply "make things up as you go along". As the commercial suggests, "Just say No" - I'll simply remove myself from your basketball fantasy land.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

happygrinch said:


> 1st lets get away from the labels i am a fan of basketball in general and of no individual player labelling me a "Jamal fan" is a quick way to get a response you wont like very much.
> 
> and ...you cant lead if no one follows , for instance no one really follows kirk they follow skiles like kirk does , on the 76ers they do follow iverson , and if he goes 12 for 85 they will still follow him, they are willing to let him be the offense , thats what following means that you are willing to go down with a guy's shooting possibly even a game like that ....no one remotely thinks thats the case with kirk , if he goes 4-17 there will be calls for him to be benched and he has not established himself as the kind of offensive threat that even if he is having a horrible game the team should still hitch its fate to him, I think all of bull fandom is quick to say "kirk stop shooting and give gordon or curry the ball", no one will say that about iverson, he's a dominant force and everyone acknowledges that.
> 
> and by page 7 who cares what the initial poster expected he had his say others had theirs and the thread isn't really in that place anymore, more level heads have long since surfaced as far as kirk's importance and his bad shooting, but also just because you dont like the way the message was brought to you doesn't mean the message has no merit ....kirk does have a very similar shooting % to crawford ...in fact its lower in every way the last time I checked, if the % made jamal a chucker , it doesn't exactly make kirk the mother teresa of basketball.


I thought you were a self acknowledged fan of Jamal. I thought that was your clear posting history. If I am wrong, I stand corrected.



> I always laughed at how they'd point out the leading scorers...Allen Iverson scored 32 to lead Philly...of course he shot 12 of 85 to do it. Is that really leading?


My point is the underlying data would show that the guy shot at a horrendous clip. Would they have been better off if another player who went say 6-10 shot more? We'd certainly argue that into a 10-page thread on the Bulls board, but perhaps since it would be Iverson there would be no need for such a debate. I'll keep that in mind when we get our franchise player/scorer.



> just because you dont like the way the message was brought to you doesn't mean the message has no merit


Personally, I DON'T like the way the message was delivered in a "trolling" fashion. The theme is nothing new. A quick way to get a response you wont like very much, is to troll on while ragging our players. Maybe it works for you, it doesn't work for me.

Kirk does have problems with his shooting and I've acknowledged that. The only one making the comparisons to mother teresa seems to be you.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

How 'bout an _"attaboy"_ for the job Hinrich did on Ray Allen tonight? 

Allen was 4-16 in 41 minutes against the Bulls. Considering he was coming off 32 and 27 point games against Houston and Phoenix this week I'd say Ol' Kirk did a fair job on a player who'd been on a roll.

Then again, maybe Hinrich had nothing to do with it. Maybe Ray just had an off nite.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

One drawback to Gordon's defensive improvement is the burden it creates for Kirk Hinrich, who rarely guards point guards anymore. Friday night, he matched up against Ray Allen, ceding two inches and running off countless screens.

"It's tough," Hinrich said. "Usually if you play really good defense on a guy your size and challenge shots, it's tough for him to make a shot. But now guys just see over me. *It's that much more work.*"

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...llsbits,1,223359.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

I think if we're going to have a well-rounded discusion of Kirk's performance this season it's important to take note of what he said. Without using it as an excuse in any way, Hinrich attests to the fact that for him, defending two-guards takes much more energy than matching up with other point guards.

Now, given the fact that he's working harder on defense this season and that his minutes per game have actually increased from last year's 35.6mpg to this season's 37.3mpg, is it possible that other aspects of his game may be adversly effected to some degree?

I've contended all along that Hinrich's best position is as a PG. If you want to see him at the top of his game, you play him at the point. However, this season he's doing what's in the best interest of his team by playing out of position.

Context, people...if you're going to evaluate a player you can't single out one aspect of his game without giving consideration to the circumstances under which he's asked to perform. It's only fair.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Kismet said:


> Context, people...if you're going to evaluate a player you can't single out one aspect of his game without giving consideration to the circumstances under which he's asked to perform. It's only fair.




Last season the "context" you speak of was called "an excuse" in regards to JAMAL.

Sub-40%. 

I gotta stick with it since I heard it so many times on this board.

Sub-40%.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> You're right. I see a lot of perimeter scorers in the top ten in FG%. Makes it all the more obvious what a valid comparison Hinrich vs. Curry is don't you think? Look at all the pure shooters in the top ten too. Damn, I can't believe Hinrich isn't in there.


OK, let's compare Hinrich to the other PT eligible NBA guards.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/byposition?pos=PG,SG,G&conference=NBA&year=season_2004&sort=21

(sorted by FG%)

(hint: scroll down)


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Last season the "context" you speak of was called "an excuse" in regards to JAMAL.
> 
> Sub-40%.
> 
> ...


Position-wise and technically speaking you're right.

Two big differences seem to stand out, though. First of all, did Jamal put as much effort into his defense last year as Kirk is this season? Case in point: Hinrich has to be knocked off his feet for him not to fight over a screen. Last season Jamal chose to slide under screens at least half the time (and that was a big improvement over past seasons).

Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, Crawford has spent the majority of this season in NY playing the same position he did for the Bulls last year: shooting guard. So a logical case could be made that he really wasn't playing out of position last year afterall.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Last season the "context" you speak of was called "an excuse" in regards to JAMAL.
> 
> Sub-40%.
> 
> ...


So the logic here is that it was wrong to single out Crawford's low shooting percentage as being a great indicator of his value (or lack of value), so you are going to do the same thing with Hinrich.

In other words, you are going to point out the hypocrisy of many on this board by being a hypocrite yourself. I am not sure that logic is all that useful.

This obsession of yours with Crawford is scary. I bet it would nearly kill you to go a week without mentioning Crawford (either directly or indirectly) in a post.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> So the logic here is that it was wrong to single out Crawford's low shooting percentage as being a great indicator of his value (or lack of value), so you are going to do the same thing with Hinrich.
> 
> In other words, you are going to point out the hypocrisy of many on this board by being a hypocrite yourself. I am not sure that logic is all that useful.


Perhaps as useful as you're going to get in a thread entitled "Kirk Crawford."




> This obsession of yours with Crawford is scary. I bet it would nearly kill you to go a week without mentioning Crawford (either directly or indirectly) in a post.


I doubt it would kill me.... although these message boards do have some addictive qualities.

Thanks for the psycho-analysis though. Sorry if I'm "scary." Deal with it.


----------



## svanacore (Nov 21, 2004)

Kismet said:


> Position-wise and technically speaking you're right.
> 
> Two big differences seem to stand out, though. First of all, did Jamal put as much effort into his defense last year as Kirk is this season? Case in point: Hinrich has to be knocked off his feet for him not to fight over a screen. Last season Jamal chose to slide under screens at least half the time (and that was a big improvement over past seasons).
> 
> Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, Crawford has spent the majority of this season in NY playing the same position he did for the Bulls last year: shooting guard. So a logical case could be made that he really wasn't playing out of position last year afterall.


Well, I think it's obvious to anyone that the reason Jamal plays SG is because Marbury is the Pg.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Kismet said:


> Position-wise and technically speaking you're right.


 :jawdrop:



> Two big differences seem to stand out, though. First of all, did Jamal put as much effort into his defense last year as Kirk is this season? Case in point: Hinrich has to be knocked off his feet for him not to fight over a screen. Last season Jamal chose to slide under screens at least half the time (and that was a big improvement over past seasons).


Kirk is a better defender than Crawford.... I agree.



> Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, Crawford has spent the majority of this season in NY playing the same position he did for the Bulls last year: shooting guard. So a logical case could be made that he really wasn't playing out of position last year afterall.


I think we'd both agree that Jamal is a guard that can play the 1 or the 2.... depending on where his team needs him.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Kismet said:


> How 'bout an _"attaboy"_ for the job Hinrich did on Ray Allen tonight?
> 
> Allen was 4-16 in 41 minutes against the Bulls. Considering he was coming off 32 and 27 point games against Houston and Phoenix this week I'd say Ol' Kirk did a fair job on a player who'd been on a roll.
> 
> Then again, maybe Hinrich had nothing to do with it. Maybe Ray just had an off nite.



tsk, tsk, kismet. you should know better than to expect that. 

this thread is about _shooting_. not _defense_. 

and oh how i chuckled the other night when the guys on nba tv called marbury and crawford "the worst defensive backcourt in the entire league".

but that's not what this thread is for. 

you know there are a few guys here who rag on kirk and his shooting percentages, but you know that they do appreciate all the rest that he brings. heck even babyblue gave kirk props for his defense last night in the game thread. and then, there are guys, who, _no matter what_ can't see the forest for the trees. and they are stuck on this one thing. 





"myopic". look _that_ up on your thesaurus k4e :wink: :angel:





meanwhile: kirk's work last night against ray allen was masterful, wasn't it? he got ray so riled up he was throwing elbows and muttering to himself. just frustrated the **** out of him. it was great. wow. we beat the SONICS! on the ROAD! total TEAM effort! how great is that?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> OK, let's compare Hinrich to the other PT eligible NBA guards.
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/byposition?pos=PG,SG,G&conference=NBA&year=season_2004&sort=21
> 
> ...


Stick with the argument: Curry vs. Hinrich FG%


----------



## FreeSpeech101 (Jul 30, 2004)

Thought I'd chime in...

I think Kirk is the kind of basketball player that every team needs if they want to win. Nevertheless, I don't see him as a starter on a team that makes the finals. Perfect 6th,7th or 8th man in my opinion, as it is obvious that the future PG of this team is Gordon.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> you know there are a few guys here who rag on kirk and his shooting percentages, but you know that they do appreciate all the rest that he brings. heck even babyblue gave kirk props for his defense last night in the game thread.


And then proceeded to rip him in todays thread for his shooting.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> meanwhile: kirk's work last night against ray allen was masterful, wasn't it? he got ray so riled up he was throwing elbows and muttering to himself. just frustrated the **** out of him. it was great. wow. we beat the SONICS! on the ROAD! total TEAM effort! how great is that?


I loved the way Jones acting job on AD was a tech, but Allen elbowing Kirk twice was a foul on Kirk. Kirk was definitely in Allen's grill and he didn't like it. I thought this was supposed to be a blue collar city? Sometimes I wonder, wheres all the appreciation for defense?

Like DaBullz said, what defense? Ray just had an "off night". Given that logic we probably could have just rested Kirk for tomorrows game and used Pargo or Pike on Ray, "off night" and all.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> and oh how i chuckled the other night when the guys on nba tv called marbury and crawford "the worst defensive backcourt in the entire league".


Why would you chuckle?

Why U loathin' on Jamal?!!?!?!

Would you chuckle if someone called Kirk the worst shooting guard in the NBA?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/byposition?pos=PG,SG,G&conference=NBA&year=season_2004&sort=21




> "myopic". look _that_ up on your thesaurus k4e :wink: :angel:


Okie-dokie.

"narrow-minded"
"bigoted"
"prejudiced"
"intolerant"

Damn.... that's cold.  
I'll be heading up to the roof after I submit this post.



wait... there's a note at the bottom....

"see MIZ and Kirk relationship"

:biggrin: :banana: :banana:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Kirk is the worst shooting guard in the league.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Kirk is the worst shooting guard in the league.


 :laugh:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

^okay I chuckled at that


----------



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

Mr. T said:


> And then proceeded to rip him in todays thread for his shooting.


Err. . .I'm no Dan Rosenbaum but 3/16 isn't going to help anyone win a FG% title.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why would you chuckle?
> 
> Why U loathin' on Jamal?!!?!?!
> 
> ...




 



you're killin' me man. makin' miz kinda sad. i'll meet you up on the roof and we can talk it over. share a laugh. c'mon. drinks are on me. no? ok. 
i see what i see and you see what you see. the end. 









:cheers:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> I thought you were a self acknowledged fan of Jamal. I thought that was your clear posting history. If I am wrong, I stand corrected.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not calling mother teresa as much as i am saying people are putting a halo on him and truthfully there are no players who deserve it , there are no perfect players and if I were to start trying to find the players who are most perfect , i wouldn't start with kirk , i doubt most sensible fans would . playing a style of basketball you enjoy is not reason enough to wash aside 

my assessment of kirk is basically what skiles has called him , a "guard" not really a pg not really a 2, you can call him a throwback to before people got too caught up in the pg, sg labels , i dont think he can break down defenses well enough to be a top pg and i dont think he's big enough to be top 2 ( and before anyone brings up 6'3 or 6'4 guards who were big enough apparently , he isn't a joe dumars or someone who was just good enough to transend his size problems , it can be done just not by him.) I also think jamal is in the same boat as being a "guard" but both of them have the same problem, that neither of them is really big enough to be a fulltime 2 , because about 25 % of the time they wont be guarding real 2's just small small forwards who are too big and strong for them(posey's, paul pierces, ricky davis and such) they would better be matched with a another playmaking 2 with size and toughness enough to defend 2's and maybe alil bigger , a top end guy would be dwayne wade , but i'm sure penny hardaway or boris diaw would do just fine , would it make their teams better ...maybe , maybe not it depends on alot of other factors , but it would imo improve the play of kirk, jamal or a player like them, it would lessen the burden placed on them .

and as to the thread starter its babyblueslugga7 not a troll , a curry enthusiast to some , but from what i gather a bulls fan,

me personally i am a fan of a lot of players , i like to watch the games and enjoy most styles of the game i see in the nba, i find it kind of funny though people who enjoy kirk's style of basketball , would pit it against jamal's , most of whom if they have been around awhile i would say did the same with jay williams as well, and somewhat , vehemently when really the gaps in all 4 players aren't really all that wide , from a slightly above avg. starter on down to a top reserve, but probably starter level player...not really enough of a gulf for all the chatter about it most likely , in the scheme of things , and definitely no one is the end of basketball as we know it..all of them seem like good enough kids , no saints, no mass murderers or felony convictions(gordon comes the closest though )..but darn it if there isn't a 120+ page thread about a one of them on this board right now.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Err. . .I'm no Dan Rosenbaum but 3/16 isn't going to help anyone win a FG% title.


I'm no Dan Rosenbaum but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the guy gets gassed out there. Did you see him look like he was asking out against Portland and Skiles saying no? I'll bet he's the envy of the NBA getting to go out there and guard bigger more physical two's every night when he could be an excellent point guard.

I really don't understand why the guy can't be our best perimeter defender, run the team and be a stud on offense. I mean, its not like half this board thought he sucked when Paxson picked him or anything.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

FreeSpeech101 said:


> Thought I'd chime in...
> 
> I think Kirk is the kind of basketball player that every team needs if they want to win. Nevertheless, I don't see him as a starter on a team that makes the finals. Perfect 6th,7th or 8th man in my opinion, as it is obvious that the future PG of this team is Gordon.


Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Looking at the past 20 years or so, there aren't a whole lot of teams who win championships with flashy high-scoring point guards. Isiah Thomas and the Pistons is the only one that comes to mind at all. Most of the others have a point guard who can play defense, take care of the ball, and thrive in a team-oriented offense. This is exactly what Hinrich brings to the table. As long as he has guys to pick up the primary scoring slack (i.e. Gordon, Curry, and Deng), Hinrich can sit back as a 4th scoring option and focus on the things he does best: playing defense, dishing assists, and taking care of the ball. In this role, Hinrich is certainly a guy who can start on a championship caliber team.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

happygrinch said:


> I'm not calling mother teresa as much as i am saying people are putting a halo on him and truthfully there are no players who deserve it , there are no perfect players and if I were to start trying to find the players who are most perfect , i wouldn't start with kirk , i doubt most sensible fans would . playing a style of basketball you enjoy is not reason enough to wash aside
> 
> my assessment of kirk is basically what skiles has called him , a "guard" not really a pg not really a 2, you can call him a throwback to before people got too caught up in the pg, sg labels , i dont think he can break down defenses well enough to be a top pg and i dont think he's big enough to be top 2 ( and before anyone brings up 6'3 or 6'4 guards who were big enough apparently , he isn't a joe dumars or someone who was just good enough to transend his size problems , it can be done just not by him.) I also think jamal is in the same boat as being a "guard" but both of them have the same problem, that neither of them is really big enough to be a fulltime 2 , because about 25 % of the time they wont be guarding real 2's just small small forwards who are too big and strong for them(posey's, paul pierces, ricky davis and such) they would better be matched with a another playmaking 2 with size and toughness enough to defend 2's and maybe alil bigger , a top end guy would be dwayne wade , but i'm sure penny hardaway or boris diaw would do just fine , would it make their teams better ...maybe , maybe not it depends on alot of other factors , but it would imo improve the play of kirk, jamal or a player like them, it would lessen the burden placed on them .
> 
> ...


I agree with that - there is no perfect player, but I think thats an obvious point unless one is into hero worship. I'd also agree that essentially Jamal, Jay and Kirk all seem like good kids. Ben was the only one to my knowledge that had an issue that could truly go to character. 

Offensively, I don't deny Kirk has been disappointing. Some of that is due to expectations and demands. I think we expected him to progress in terms of FG efficiency and it hasn't happened. I think he'd be doing much better if he hadn't moved to the 2 and I'd probably disagree somewhat with Skiles assessment that they're all just guards. Its pretty easy to disagree when Kirk's trying to defend Tracy McGrady or Kobe Bryant or Rashard Lewis. Kirk shouldn't be expected to guard them any more than we'd expect Luol Deng to guard Shaq. I think that has affected his offense. No excuses, just an honest and I believe undeniable observation. I think Kirk is suited more to PG where he could definitely by our pg of the future. That said, Gordon is a splendid talent and he has to get on the floor more. 

I think Skiles has made the most of our backcourt with its lack of size, but Paxson definitely needs to obtain a tall athletic defensive two this summer. Unfortunately, that may only delay the eventual decision on what the permanent backcourt may look like.


----------



## svanacore (Nov 21, 2004)

Mr. T said:


> I'm no Dan Rosenbaum but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the guy gets gassed out there. Did you see him look like he was asking out against Portland and Skiles saying no? I'll bet he's the envy of the NBA getting to go out there and guard bigger more physical two's every night when he could be an excellent point guard.
> 
> I really don't understand why the guy can't be our best perimeter defender, run the team and be a stud on offense. I mean, its not like half this board thought he sucked when Paxson picked him or anything.


If he was gassed, he'd shoot the ball better at the beginning of the games. Seems to me starts 1-7 a lot.

Sometimes he comes back, sometimes he doesn't though.

THis thread should have ended already.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I think the last 4-16 game by Kirk Defined the difference between him and JC. He brings it to the table regardless to his shooting!


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

svanacore said:


> If he was gassed, he'd shoot the ball better at the beginning of the games. Seems to me starts 1-7 a lot.
> 
> Sometimes he comes back, sometimes he doesn't though.
> 
> THis thread should have ended already.


Good points on all counts. 

I do think he has worn down as the season goes on which could be responsible for some of that. Bottom line for me - I'd like to see him shoot much better. Should he still be on the floor and does he still make us better? Absolutely.


----------



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

Mr. T said:


> I'm no Dan Rosenbaum but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the guy gets gassed out there. Did you see him look like he was asking out against Portland and Skiles saying no? I'll bet he's the envy of the NBA getting to go out there and guard bigger more physical two's every night when he could be an excellent point guard.
> 
> I really don't understand why the guy can't be our best perimeter defender, run the team and be a stud on offense. I mean, its not like half this board thought he sucked when Paxson picked him or anything.


I thought the defense was pretty good. I hadn't even mentioned that. All I focused on was shooting.

So Fool Pitier, when you're tired you keep on shooting ? 

I don't understand what good it does to miss 13 shots.

I don't think he was like "Oh here guys, here's intended miss #12 just to throw the Sonics off once again so we could lull them into thinking that they've got this game won and so Ben Gordon and Tyson Chandler can really do their thing." Yeah.

In those 13 misses, don't you think he could've given at least some of them to other players ? 

As a former point guard and current assists leader for this team, isn't he supposed to find others for the basket ? 

Or is he too disoriented and so one-minded from playing defense to that too ?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I, too, am extremely disappointed that we won the Sonic game. With Kirk shooting so poorly, I wish we would have lost. I blame him the the loss that could have been. To only beat a miserable team like the Sonic by 3 measly points is ridiculous and demands accountability.

Fire Kirk!

Fire Pax!

Fire Skiles!


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

FreeSpeech101 said:


> I think Kirk is the kind of basketball player that every team needs if they want to win. *Nevertheless, I don't see him as a starter on a team that makes the finals.* Perfect 6th,7th or 8th man in my opinion, as it is obvious that the future PG of this team is Gordon.


Ron Harper
Luke Longley
John Paxson
Bill Cartwright
Derek Fischer
Bruce Bowen

...all starters on teams with repeated championships. If these guys can do it, what's to say Mr. Hinrich can't?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Kirk making those wide open jumpers and missing them is the difference between the Bulls being an elite team in the East rather then just a nice team in the East. He shot 4-16 last night. If he could have tacked on 3 of those open jumpers he missed, that would make it 7-16, 6 more points which makes it an easier win for us, makes Kirk's Ppg go up, and his fg%. Win win situation for evferyone


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

Wynn said:


> I, too, am extremely disappointed that we won the Sonic game. With Kirk shooting so poorly, I wish we would have lost. I blame him the the loss that could have been. To only beat a miserable team like the Sonic by 3 measly points is ridiculous and demands accountability.
> 
> Fire Kirk!
> 
> ...


some people need to be hit by a bus before they realize they've wandered into the street


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> Kirk making those wide open jumpers and missing them is the difference between the Bulls being an elite team in the East rather then just a nice team in the East. He shot 4-16 last night. If he could have tacked on 3 of those open jumpers he missed, that would make it 7-16, 6 more points which makes it an easier win for us, makes Kirk's Ppg go up, and his fg%. Win win situation for evferyone


That's pretty funny.

Do you know the difference between Kirk shooting his current 39% and Kirk shooting 45%? 1.977 points per game, when you figure how many shots Kirk takes. (And don't ask me how I got that figure, but it's right- you're #2 in a class of over 500, I'm sure you can do the math)

We have lost 2 games by one point this season and none by 2 points. So, I guess Kirk's 2 points per game means we are 32-27 instead of 34-25. Which would make us 4th in the East (3rd best record) by one game instead of tied for 5th in the East (4th best record), one game behind the #4 seed.

Trade Kirk!!!

Fire Skiles!!!

Fire Pax!!!


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Whether we win by 1 or win by 20 it's all the same. Notch another one in the win column. 

The reason why this thread will reach the popularity of the Crawford thread is because certain individuals are resentful that Hinrich came in and within one year made their favorite player expendable. 

Let's examine what the original premise of the thread was. We ran Crawford out because of his ****ty shooting. Why aren't we running Kirk out of town? There's an implication in that statement that Kirk is no better than Jamal, i.e. doesn't provide anything more than shooting the ball and scoring. Anyone that saw the game last night knows otherwise. Kirk threw up enough bricks to build the Great Wall, yet I know without his defensive contributions we have no chance to win the game. Kirk was voted as team captain in just his second year of the league and to think that his attitude and moxie hasn't had an effect on this impressionable squad is ignoring the obvious. 

So let's get this thread back on track. Yes, Kirk is shooting at an incredibly ****ty percentage, much like JC before him. <b>Does he provide enough in order aspects of the game to justify keeping him on the team?</b> Isn't this the question this thread was getting at? Anyone who answers no is just kidding themselves.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Good points on all counts.
> 
> I do think he has worn down as the season goes on which could be responsible for some of that. Bottom line for me - I'd like to see him shoot much better. Should he still be on the floor and does he still make us better? Absolutely.


well its a catch 22 really i remember the beginning of the season when he had the extra muscle and he basically sucked on defense .

he got stronger , but he got slower with the extra weight , he was in foul trouble just about every game for the 1st month and opposing point guards had an absolute field day on him(and duhon, the box scores are for everyone to see they shot about 50% from the field the 1st month possibly higher) and he still had trouble with the bigger 2's.

sometimes gaining weight is not the answer even if it is all muscle .


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

happygrinch said:


> well its a catch 22 really i remember the beginning of the season when he had the extra muscle and he basically sucked on defense .
> 
> he got stronger , but he got slower with the extra weight , he was in foul trouble just about every game for the 1st month and opposing point guards had an absolute field day on him(and duhon, the box scores are for everyone to see they shot about 50% from the field the 1st month possibly higher) and he still had trouble with the bigger 2's.
> 
> sometimes gaining weight is not the answer even if it is all muscle .


It was partly the extra weight, but mostly the new defensive rules. He had to adjust to them, and that is why he got torched in the first month.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> It was partly the extra weight, but mostly the new defensive rules. He had to adjust to them, and that is why he got torched in the first month.


i dont buy it , everyone played by the same rules , not everyone was clocking the extra weight that kirk was ,i cant think of one player in the nba who had the foul problems kirk had especially from the guard position.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

With 5.9 seconds left, Chandler blocked a jump shot by *Ray Allen, who was so visibly frustrated by Kirk Hinrich's relentless defense all game that he berated officials.*

I am quite confident that you have never heard a sentence like that with the words
"Jamal Crawford" substituted for "Kirk Hinrich".

Carry on.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

happygrinch said:


> i dont buy it , everyone played by the same rules , not everyone was clocking the extra weight that kirk was ,i cant think of one player in the nba who had the foul problems kirk had especially from the guard position.


The Piston's perimeter guards had trouble adapting to the new rules, as well. That's why the Piston's defense isn't amazing this year. Last year they held like 3 straight opponents under 70 or something ridiculous. They haven't gotten close to it this year. John Hollinger wrote an article for SI about it. Contact on the perimeter is not allowed this year, and Kirk had to change the way he played defense.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

What say we rename the thread to "Hinrich Update"? It looks like its here to stay?

Anyone interested in an "Artest Update" thread? Hows his record label doing?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

A question for the deep or not so deep thinkers...

Would Kirk's FG% be higher if we played without the hoops like those NCAA commercials for ESPNs college hoop packages?


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

bullsville said:


> With 5.9 seconds left, Chandler blocked a jump shot by *Ray Allen, who was so visibly frustrated by Kirk Hinrich's relentless defense all game that he berated officials.*
> 
> I am quite confident that you have never heard a sentence like that with the words
> "Jamal Crawford" substituted for "Kirk Hinrich".
> ...



Opps.



> From His College Days...
> 
> 
> It was only fitting that this game would ride and end with some increditable defense by Jamal Crawford. His two blocked shots in the last :08 seconds finally secured it for Michigan.


But that's just college right? He certainly doesn't do that in the big leagues... right?

Opps.


> Crawford Shuts down Lebron in Bulls win
> 
> 
> In a mostly head-to-head matchup with good friend LeBron James, Crawford snapped out of a slump and helped the Bulls do so as well with a much-needed 87-80 victory over Cleveland.
> ...



But that's just LeBron James... who's he?


...Next?


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Jim Ian said:


> Opps.
> 
> 
> But that's just college right? He certainly doesn't do that in the big leagues... right?
> ...



Clearly, you misunderstood.

Bullsville was saying you would never find a quote with Crawford being substitued for Hinrich in stopping RAY ALLEN.

:biggrin:


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

Vintage said:


> Clearly, you misunderstood.
> 
> Bullsville was saying you would never find a quote with Crawford being substitued for Hinrich in stopping RAY ALLEN.
> 
> :biggrin:


 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :sfight: :starwars:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Well, I saw LeBron be impressed by Jamal's offense, but I didn't know that LeBron was so frustrated all game that he berated the officials. That's the part I was getting at, that Kirk was so physical with Allen that he was visibly frustrated.

Jamal could be a better defender than Hinrich if he were so inclined, I have no doubt about that. He has the long arms, quickness and speed to be a very impressive defender- so why isn't he? That's one of the big reasons I became a "hater", after 4 years he still didn't care all that much about defense.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

Vintage said:


> Clearly, you misunderstood.
> 
> Bullsville was saying you would never find a quote with Crawford being substitued for Hinrich in stopping RAY ALLEN.
> 
> :biggrin:


Lol, damn, I think you got me there.

Proofs in the pudding though. He shut down one of the best players in the NBA. But thats one game. The next game he might have been not so good. That's why Jamal is an average, inconsistent defender, though from reading some posts you'd think the poor guy was terrible every game out there. Which he is not. He's just average, and thats... by definition, neither awful nor great.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Jim Ian said:


> Lol, damn, I think you got me there.
> 
> Proofs in the pudding though. He shut down one of the best players in the NBA. But thats one game. The next game he might have been not so good. That's why Jamal is an average, inconsistent defender, though from reading some posts you'd think the poor guy was terrible every game out there. Which he is not. He's just average, and thats... by definition, neither awful nor great.


LOL, yeah I owe Vintage one. :biggrin:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

4-14 12 points was ray allens shooting #s with jamal on the court 

3-6 for 7 points the remainder of the time , i would say it wouldn't matter much if allen was complaining to officials because the sonics won , but it does show that the idea that jamal cant guard his own shadow or just doesn't play defense at all is notion that is proven wrong quite enough that people may want to stop saying it like it was the gospel.


----------

