# Poll: Hinrich or Paul?



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

Which player would you want to build your team around? Giving your honest unbiased vote. Don't say neither. These are the only 2 pgs on the board for you to choose from so you have to choose one.


----------



## Hairy Midget (Nov 28, 2005)

Chris Paul for sure.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

what kind of *edit* question is that? Chris Paul


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

Hinrich because defense matters.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

K-Dub said:


> Hinrich because defense matters.


Exactly. Chris Paul's defense is horrible, and the gap betweens his and Hinrich's defense is a lot larger than the gap between him and Hinrich on offense.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

sloth said:


> Exactly. Chris Paul's defense is horrible, and the gap betweens his and Hinrich's defense is a lot larger than the gap between him and Hinrich on offense.


This may be true for now but Paul's offensive game may get to an even higher level in years to come. Then again, Hinrich was the only one in the postseason that could slow down Dwayne Wade. I'm going to have sleep on this one.


----------



## Quis (Jul 7, 2006)

I'd take 1 Chris Paul over 3 Kirk Hinrichs. Hinrich is yet another Bulls player massively overrated by [strike] their delusional fans. [/strike] Tell me when the pale ******* learns to shoot.


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

Paul.

Hinrich's the better defender, but I think the offensive gap is bigger than the defensive one.

And Paul is nearly 5 years younger, for whatever that's worth.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

This would be a lot more interesting on the bulls forum.Really Hinrich is 4 years and 4 months older than Paul and the only statistics in which he has an edge are .2 blocks and a few percentage points in 3pt field goal shooting.The Bulls fans are perfectly aware of the fact that he's not a great point guard and they know that he's average at best as a shooting guard.So it'd be really telling to see how any serious argument could be made for him.

Of course Hinrich is a better defender,but he's not really that good at guarding point guards and the Bulls usually have him on the shooting guard.I really don't even think of Hinrich as a true point guard because I never see him create much.He's like the Vanilla Ice of NBA point guards.It's hard to really see why some people hype him so much after you watch him play.He's a solid player who does some good things,but he's not outstanding at playing the position that people claim he's so good at.


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

Quis said:


> I'd take 1 Chris Paul over 3 Kirk Hinrichs. *Hinrich is yet another Bulls player massively overrated by their delusional fans. Tell me when the pale ******* learns to shoot*.


Hinrich eFG%: .477
Paul eFG%: .456

Have you been smokin marijuwana? Marijuwana is bad.. mmkay.


----------



## Smez86 (Jun 29, 2006)

Hinrich is a top 10 defender amongst guards, but his shot is inconsistent and passing skills are average.

Paul, although inconsistent in certain areas and having spotty fundamentals, he was only a rookie and he was still amazing.

Paul is a game changer and that's what you build a team around.


----------



## Fray (Dec 19, 2005)

Obviously Chris Paul since he is only a rookie and will get much much better. In a couple years he won't be compared to players like Hinrich.


----------



## Shady* (Jul 3, 2005)

Hinrich was being given the garbage time in Team USA against Senegal while Paul was resting on the bench, right?


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

K-Dub said:


> *Hinrich eFG%: .477
> Paul eFG%: .456*
> 
> Have you been smokin marijuwana? Marijuwana is bad.. mmkay.


Where'd you find these numbers?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

girllovesthegame said:


> Where'd you find these numbers?


I'll give you all the advanced numbers from knickerblogger.net's stat page.You'll note that Paul's TS% is in fact higher.The Jamal Crawford thing is just for a certain poster on the Bulls' board who could turn it into the freaking Odyssey.

<TABLE width=800><TBODY><TR class=headorange><TD width=21>RANK​</TD><TD width=21>TEAM​</TD><TD width=250>NAME​</TD><TD width=21>POS​</TD><TD class=colSpacer width=1> </TD><TD width=21>G​</TD><TD width=35>MIN/G​</TD><TD width=45>PTS/40​</TD><TD class=colSpacer width=1> </TD><TD width=40>eFG​</TD><TD width=40>FT%​</TD><TD width=40>TS%​</TD><TD width=40>FT/FG​</TD><TD class=colSpacer width=1> </TD><TD width=40>PPR​</TD><TD width=40>AST-r​</TD><TD width=40>TO-r​</TD><TD width=40>REB-r​</TD><TD width=40>USG-r​</TD><TD class=colSpacer width=1> </TD><TD width=44>PER​</TD></TR><!/repeat><TR class=greyrow><TD>16​</TD><TD>DEN​</TD><TD>Carmelo Anthony​</TD><TD>SF​</TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>80 </TD><TD>36.8 </TD><TD>28.9 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>49.3 </TD><TD>80.8 </TD><TD>56.3 </TD><TD>36 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>-2.5 </TD><TD>9.3 </TD><TD>9.4 </TD><TD>7.8 </TD><TD>28.5 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>22.3​</TD></TR><TR><TD>17​</TD><TD>SEA​</TD><TD>Ray Allen​</TD><TD>SG​</TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>78 </TD><TD>38.7 </TD><TD>25.9 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>54.4 </TD><TD>90.3 </TD><TD>59.0 </TD><TD>22 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>0.1 </TD><TD>13.4 </TD><TD>8.8 </TD><TD>6.6 </TD><TD>25.2 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>22.3​</TD></TR><TR class=greyrow><TD>18​</TD><TD>NOR​</TD><TD>Chris Paul​</TD><TD>G​</TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>78 </TD><TD>36.0 </TD><TD>17.9 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>*45.6* </TD><TD>84.7 </TD><TD>*54.6* </TD><TD>42 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>8.0 </TD><TD>31.4 </TD><TD>9.4 </TD><TD>8.5 </TD><TD>22.2 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>22.2​</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
...............................................................................................................................................................
<TABLE width=800><TBODY><TR><TD>71​</TD><TD>ATL​</TD><TD>Josh Smith​</TD><TD>GF​</TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>80 </TD><TD>32.0 </TD><TD>14.1 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>44.7 </TD><TD>71.9 </TD><TD>50.0 </TD><TD>27 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>-1.4 </TD><TD>15.2 </TD><TD>12.9 </TD><TD>12.5 </TD><TD>17.7 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>15.7​</TD></TR><TR class=greyrow><TD>72​</TD><TD>CHI​</TD><TD>Kirk Hinrich​</TD><TD>G​</TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>81 </TD><TD>36.5 </TD><TD>17.4 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>*47.7* </TD><TD>81.5 </TD><TD>*52.8* </TD><TD>24 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>5.2 </TD><TD>26.8 </TD><TD>9.8 </TD><TD>5.6 </TD><TD>20.7 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>15.7​</TD></TR><TR><TD>73​</TD><TD>NYK​</TD><TD>Jamal Crawford​</TD><TD>SG​</TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>79 </TD><TD>32.3 </TD><TD>17.7 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>47.4 </TD><TD>82.6 </TD><TD>54.4 </TD><TD>34 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>1.0 </TD><TD>19.9 </TD><TD>11.6 </TD><TD>5.9 </TD><TD>20.4 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>15.6​</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

^^Ohhh, ok. I checked their NBA.com player profiles and the numbers were a bit different. Thanks.


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

Diable said:


> I'll give you all the advanced numbers from knickerblogger.net's stat page.You'll note that Paul's TS% is in fact higher.The Jamal Crawford thing is just for a certain poster on the Bulls' board who could turn it into the freaking Odyssey.
> 
> <TABLE width=800><TBODY><TR class=headorange><TD width=21>RANK​</TD><TD width=21>TEAM​</TD><TD width=250>NAME​</TD><TD width=21>POS​</TD><TD class=colSpacer width=1> </TD><TD width=21>G​</TD><TD width=35>MIN/G​</TD><TD width=45>PTS/40​</TD><TD class=colSpacer width=1> </TD><TD width=40>eFG​</TD><TD width=40>FT%​</TD><TD width=40>TS%​</TD><TD width=40>FT/FG​</TD><TD class=colSpacer width=1> </TD><TD width=40>PPR​</TD><TD width=40>AST-r​</TD><TD width=40>TO-r​</TD><TD width=40>REB-r​</TD><TD width=40>USG-r​</TD><TD class=colSpacer width=1> </TD><TD width=44>PER​</TD></TR><!/repeat><TR class=greyrow><TD>16​</TD><TD>DEN​</TD><TD>Carmelo Anthony​</TD><TD>SF​</TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>80 </TD><TD>36.8 </TD><TD>28.9 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>49.3 </TD><TD>80.8 </TD><TD>56.3 </TD><TD>36 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>-2.5 </TD><TD>9.3 </TD><TD>9.4 </TD><TD>7.8 </TD><TD>28.5 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>22.3​</TD></TR><TR><TD>17​</TD><TD>SEA​</TD><TD>Ray Allen​</TD><TD>SG​</TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>78 </TD><TD>38.7 </TD><TD>25.9 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>54.4 </TD><TD>90.3 </TD><TD>59.0 </TD><TD>22 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>0.1 </TD><TD>13.4 </TD><TD>8.8 </TD><TD>6.6 </TD><TD>25.2 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>22.3​</TD></TR><TR class=greyrow><TD>18​</TD><TD>NOR​</TD><TD>Chris Paul​</TD><TD>G​</TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>78 </TD><TD>36.0 </TD><TD>17.9 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>*45.6* </TD><TD>84.7 </TD><TD>*54.6* </TD><TD>42 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>8.0 </TD><TD>31.4 </TD><TD>9.4 </TD><TD>8.5 </TD><TD>22.2 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>22.2​</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
> ...............................................................................................................................................................
> <TABLE width=800><TBODY><TR><TD>71​</TD><TD>ATL​</TD><TD>Josh Smith​</TD><TD>GF​</TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>80 </TD><TD>32.0 </TD><TD>14.1 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>44.7 </TD><TD>71.9 </TD><TD>50.0 </TD><TD>27 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>-1.4 </TD><TD>15.2 </TD><TD>12.9 </TD><TD>12.5 </TD><TD>17.7 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>15.7​</TD></TR><TR class=greyrow><TD>72​</TD><TD>CHI​</TD><TD>Kirk Hinrich​</TD><TD>G​</TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>81 </TD><TD>36.5 </TD><TD>17.4 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>*47.7* </TD><TD>81.5 </TD><TD>*52.8* </TD><TD>24 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>5.2 </TD><TD>26.8 </TD><TD>9.8 </TD><TD>5.6 </TD><TD>20.7 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>15.7​</TD></TR><TR><TD>73​</TD><TD>NYK​</TD><TD>Jamal Crawford​</TD><TD>SG​</TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>79 </TD><TD>32.3 </TD><TD>17.7 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>47.4 </TD><TD>82.6 </TD><TD>54.4 </TD><TD>34 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>1.0 </TD><TD>19.9 </TD><TD>11.6 </TD><TD>5.9 </TD><TD>20.4 </TD><TD class=colSpacer> </TD><TD>15.6​</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


TS% is actually what I was looking for as it factors in FTs too. But eFG% served its purpose. Hinrich isn't a bad shooter.


----------



## notorioustlp (Jun 13, 2006)

Chris Paul's the choice. I like Hinrich, but he's not going to turn your team into a contender all by himself. Paul has that kind of potential.

And come on Bulls fans, your really telling me that you wouldn't trade Hinrich for Paul? You have to be delusional not to make that trade. Paul is four years younger and already putting up better numbers. In three years we're going to be laughing that this topic was even brought up.


----------



## Auggie (Mar 7, 2004)

paulus


----------



## obermotz (Oct 20, 2004)

I am a Bulls homer, so I _have_ to vote for Kirk! :banana: But I also have to admit that Paul is amazing.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

These guys are the same caliber but it just depends what your team needs. If I was starting a team I would pick Paul, because he is good at getting everyone good shots and running an offense. Hinrich is a super roleplayer. If the Bulls would have had Paul instead of Hinrich in the playoffs, Miami would have their way with them because Wade would have run wild like he did in every other series. Defense does matter and Hinrich is a much better defender on guards and wings. Hinrich is a true combo guard in the way that he can play both positions well on both ends. He can handle the ball and run the point without a problem, but is also really good at playing shooting guard and running off screens to get open.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

notorioustlp said:


> Chris Paul's the choice. I like Hinrich, but he's not going to turn your team into a contender all by himself. Paul has that kind of potential.
> 
> And come on Bulls fans, your really telling me that you wouldn't trade Hinrich for Paul? You have to be delusional not to make that trade. Paul is four years younger and already putting up better numbers. In three years we're going to be laughing that this topic was even brought up.


Maybe if it was on draft day and they traded us both of their picks too.

Honestly, Chris Paul is a gaudy, flashy, but he doesn't necassarily mean winning, I'd lump him in with Marbury, Bosh, and Francis. Kirk's not a franchise player, a gm would know that, and not try to build around him, and just make him a piece of a larger puzzle. But Chris Paul, like those three other guys I listed, are guys that give you a false sense of them being a franchise player, and then your team ends up missing the playoffs year after year, which I think is what will happen to the Hornets unless Armstrong or Simmons or West or Chandler develop more.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

sloth said:


> Maybe if it was on draft day and they traded us both of their picks too.
> 
> Honestly, Chris Paul is a gaudy, flashy, but he doesn't necassarily mean winning, I'd lump him in with Marbury, Bosh, and Francis. Kirk's not a franchise player, a gm would know that, and not try to build around him, and just make him a piece of a larger puzzle. But Chris Paul, like those three other guys I listed, are guys that give you a false sense of them being a franchise player, and then your team ends up missing the playoffs year after year, which I think is what will happen to the Hornets unless Armstrong or Simmons or West or Chandler develop more.


I'm curious as to where you are getting this from about Paul after seeing him for one season, as all indications lead to him being an up and coming franchise player. West is a good role player, Armstong and Simmons could mature into young athletic type role players, but neither is the type of player who you could build a team around, while we have already seen the best of Chandler. Obviously putting all of them together with Paul you'll have a successfull team, but I don't see how this takes away from Paul, as the same could be said for a LeBron James or Kobe Bryant as well. Paul is just as much a franchise player as any young up and coming star in this league and to compare him to Hinrich is a joke.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> These guys are the same caliber but it just depends what your team needs. If I was starting a team I would pick Paul, because he is good at getting everyone good shots and running an offense. Hinrich is a super roleplayer. If the Bulls would have had Paul instead of Hinrich in the playoffs, Miami would have raped them because Wade would have run wild like he did in every other series. Defense does matter and Hinrich is a much better defender on guards and wings. Hinrich is a true combo guard in the way that he can play both positions well on both ends. He can handle the ball and run the point without a problem, but is also really good at playing shooting guard and running off screens to get open.


Given the fact that the Heat are one of the worst transition defensive teams in the league and that the Bulls had their greatest success by running against them thi argument just isn't worth a damn for anything.The way to beat Miami is to run the ball down their throats and when it comes to that this comparison is a mismatch of epic proportions.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i would choose hinrich, and not just cause i'm a bulls homer.

my imaginary team prides itself on playing defense, which is why my imaginary coach is scott skiles. if my team had paul, he'd be seeing more time on the bench because of this. so i choose kirk.

i feel that, despite his "age", kirk has a better, more overall game, than paul. and that's not to say that paul isn't brimming with talent. he's great. love him. but i need a guy who will play on both ends of the floor everynight and still be considered an offensive threat. and that guy is kirk. he might not have the "flash" but he's solid and not a total seive on defense. 

chris paul is going to have a hell of a time feeding the ball into the post with a guy like tyson chandler this season. good luck with that man! i bet his assist totals go down this season and kirk's will increase.

just a hunch.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

mizenkay said:


> i would choose hinrich, and not just cause i'm a bulls homer.
> 
> my imaginary team prides itself on playing defense, which is why my imaginary coach is scott skiles. if my team had paul, he'd be seeing more time on the bench because of this. so i choose kirk.
> 
> ...



paul's assists totals go down? he still has west, and they added peja. i don't think chandler is going to be a focal point for their offense.

and why woould kirk's totals go up? did ben wallace make them that much better? 


kirk's could possibly go up, but to state that paul's would go down just doesn't make sense.

paul will have the higher assist totals by the end of the season, and it won't even be close...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Opposing eFG% per 48 minutes*

Hinrich
PG: 43.1%
SG: 47.0%

Paul
PG: 50.4%
SG: 49.4%

*Assist Ratio, rookie season*

Hinrich: 32.0
Paul: 31.4


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Hinrichs defense is good, but it isn't at the level where I would select him over Paul. Arguing for Hinrich over Paul simply due to his defense is like arguing Artest over LeBron. Give me Paul and I'l find someone who can defend.


----------



## thekid (Apr 3, 2003)

I don't see someone picking Hinrich unless they are a Bulls homer.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Hinrich is a starter. Paul is a star (in the making).


----------



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

why do people have such a hardon for hinrich?

he is overrated


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> why do people have such a hardon for hinrich?
> 
> he is overrated


one could say the same thing about chris paul.

:|


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> Hinrichs defense is good, but it isn't at the level where I would select him over Paul. Arguing for Hinrich over Paul simply due to his defense is like arguing Artest over LeBron. Give me Paul and I'l find someone who can defend.


I think you're on the right track, but in my comparison it would be like Ron Artest vs. Vince Carter. Would you really choose Carter over Artest for your team and "find someone who can defend" later?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Diable said:


> Given the fact that the Heat are one of the worst transition defensive teams in the league and that the Bulls had their greatest success by running against them thi argument just isn't worth a damn for anything.The way to beat Miami is to run the ball down their throats and when it comes to that this comparison is a mismatch of epic proportions.


You can't run if you're taking the ball out of the net. Without Hinrich, Wade would have been scoring at will and the Bulls would have been taking the ball out of the net. Chris Paul would have been walking the ball up the court everytime. Bulls would have been *worse* in transition with Paul in place of Hinrich.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

Chris paul, even though I don't see paul getting much better from rookie season, he'll still be better than Hinrich.

And to the one that said defense matters, chris paul 3rd in the league in steals per game, and had like 50 streight games or something with a steal. I know it's not that hard to get steals, but you atleast have to have good lateral quickness to get 2.2 steals a game


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

Steals don't make you a good defender.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I think you're on the right track, but in my comparison it would be like Ron Artest vs. Vince Carter. Would you really choose Carter over Artest for your team and "find someone who can defend" later?



replace artest with quinton ross and i'd agree...


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> Chris paul, even though I don't see paul getting much better from rookie season, he'll still be better than Hinrich.
> 
> And to the one that said defense matters, chris paul 3rd in the league in steals per game, and had like 50 streight games or something with a steal. I know it's not that hard to get steals, but you atleast have to have good lateral quickness to get 2.2 steals a game


No.. you just have to be good at reading the passing lanes.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You can't run if you're taking the ball out of the net. Without Hinrich, Wade would have been scoring at will and the Bulls would have been taking the ball out of the net. Chris Paul would have been walking the ball up the court everytime. Bulls would have been *worse* in transition with Paul in place of Hinrich.


There's alot of pro-Bull extrapolation in this post.


----------



## Lebbron (Nov 20, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You can't run if you're taking the ball out of the net. Without Hinrich, Wade would have been scoring at will and the Bulls would have been taking the ball out of the net. Chris Paul would have been walking the ball up the court everytime. Bulls would have been *worse* in transition with Paul in place of Hinrich.


Wade didn't do too well against the Hornets either last season. 

Maybe we should rephrase the question for the ones voting Hinrich: if both players were white who would you take?


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

SeaNet said:


> There's alot of pro-Bull extrapolation in this post.



no kidding...


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You can't run if you're taking the ball out of the net. Without Hinrich, Wade would have been scoring at will and the Bulls would have been taking the ball out of the net. Chris Paul would have been walking the ball up the court everytime. Bulls would have been *worse* in transition with Paul in place of Hinrich.


So if you took Nash off the Suns and replaced him with Kirk Hinrich the Suns would be a better running team.That's just delusional.Try telling us how well Kirk Hinrich did in Vegas when he was competing with Paul for the point guard spot on Team USA.At least he managed to beat out Luke Ridnour when they scrimmaged together for the backup spot.

Hinrich is a good defender...But tell us who would you put on Chris Paul or any other quick point guard if you were Scott Skiles and the game depended upon getting one stop?There isn't enough defense in the universe to make up the difference between Paul and Hinrich.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Diable said:


> So if you took Nash off the Suns and replaced him with Kirk Hinrich the Suns would be a better running team.That's just delusional.Try telling us how well Kirk Hinrich did in Vegas when he was competing with Paul for the point guard spot on Team USA.At least he managed to beat out Luke Ridnour when they scrimmaged together for the backup spot.
> 
> Hinrich is a good defender...But tell us who would you put on Chris Paul or any other quick point guard if you were Scott Skiles and the game depended upon getting one stop?There isn't enough defense in the universe to make up the difference between Paul and Hinrich.


diable, please do yourself a favor an retire that kirk v. ridnour schtick. it's really stale. kirk made the team cause he's better than ridnour every day and twice on sundays. give me a ****ing break. 

we know you are a total paul homer. it's cool.

bulls fans, for the most part would stick with the captain. we like our guards, thank you very much. and skiles would probably put duhon on paul and he would do a respectable job. kirk is too busy guarding the other team's best player. 

go usa


:usa:


and the color of their skin has nothing to do with it thank you very much, lebbron.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Shady™ said:


> Hinrich was being given the garbage time in Team USA against Senegal while Paul was resting on the bench, right?


Where was Hinrich 5 years ago? Sure as hell not on Team USA.

Also, let me spell it out for you

R-O-O-K-I-E


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> diable, please do yourself a favor an retire that kirk v. ridnour schtick. it's really stale. kirk made the team cause he's better than ridnour every day and twice on sundays. give me a ****ing break.
> 
> we know you are a total paul homer. it's cool.
> 
> ...


Paul is the best player on every team he ever has played with until the last six weeks.And Duhon would have to guard him because he's better at guarding point guards than Hinrich is.Yet Hinrich is one of the best perimeter defenders who ever dreww a breath.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

no. i didn't say he was one of the best perimeter defenders blah, blah.

i did say that duhon would guard him cause he's better at guarding the quicker guards. 

i'm just really over your whole kirk barely beat out ridnour crap. it's laughable. and you ****ing know it. 

right now i am cheering for both of them to succeed.

aren't you?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Bulls fans make me laugh. A couple seasons ago I would get in arguments with them where they would compare Chandler to Ben Wallace. Now of course, since hes gone Chandler is a bum to them, but before hand, he had the potential to be one of the best defenders in the league.

Hinrich or Paul? Dont make me laugh. I love a solid two way player, but get real.

This argument is Bulls fans vs. the world, nothing more.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> no. i didn't say he was one of the best perimeter defenders blah, blah.
> 
> i did say that duhon would guard him cause he's better at guarding the quicker guards.
> 
> ...


Hard to take an argument about Hinrich or Paul seriously when you have a Kirk avatar..........


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Hard to take an argument about Hinrich or Paul seriously when you have a Kirk avatar..........


well it's hard for me to sit here as diable says that kirk barely beat out ridnour for a spot on the team for like the 735th time. that's what's laughable. i mean really. 

:biggrin:


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> well it's hard for me to sit here as diable says that kirk barely beat out ridnour for a spot on the team for like the 735th time. that's what's laughable. i mean really.
> 
> :biggrin:



Not up to date on that argument, but Ill take your word for it and agree.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Bulls fans make me laugh. A couple seasons ago I would get in arguments with them where they would compare Chandler to Ben Wallace. Now of course, since hes gone Chandler is a bum to them, but before hand, he had the potential to be one of the best defenders in the league.
> 
> Hinrich or Paul? Dont make me laugh. I love a solid two way player, but get real.
> 
> This argument is Bulls fans vs. the world, nothing more.


To be fair, two seasons ago, Tyson Chandler was coming off a monster defensive year...and last year he was awful defensively and offensively...

I'm not too big of a Kirk Hinrich fan, I just cheer for him because he's on my team, I'd rather have Gordon as the point guard, but Chris Paul just isn't that good. His defense is atrocious, and especially with the Bulls last year, with no interior defense, a crappy defender on the peremiter would have spelled hell. Chris Paul could get better, but he is overhyped because he's a rookie, but as of right now, Kirk Hinrich is the better player.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

sloth said:


> To be fair, two seasons ago, Tyson Chandler was coming off a monster defensive year...and last year he was awful defensively and offensively...
> 
> I'm not too big of a Kirk Hinrich fan, I just cheer for him because he's on my team, I'd rather have Gordon as the point guard, but Chris Paul just isn't that good. His defense is atrocious, and especially with the Bulls last year, with no interior defense, a crappy defender on the peremiter would have spelled hell. Chris Paul could get better, but he is overhyped because he's a rookie, but as of right now, Kirk Hinrich is the better player.


Cant say as I agree and your argument goes both ways. How many players come into the game their rookie season and are even average defenders? The only ones that do usualy are drafted as role players. Pauls defense will come with time, and I dont see him as being overhyped. He had a great year and is a franchise player in the making. I like Hinrich, but he is not a franchise player, or a star. Hinrich is a player that any championship team would kill to have, but hes not a player that makes a team a "championship team".


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

R-Star said:


> Cant say as I agree and your argument goes both ways. How many players come into the game their rookie season and are even average defenders? The only ones that do usualy are drafted as role players. Pauls defense will come with time, and I dont see him as being overhyped. He had a great year and is a franchise player in the making. I like Hinrich, but he is not a franchise player, or a star. *Hinrich is a player that any championship team would kill to have, but hes not a player that makes a team a "championship team".*


nicely put...agreed...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

obviously you take paul ...but even if you didn't want paul for whatever reason you could always trade him for kirk hinrich and get alot extra with him, he is just worth too much more, and for good reason .

excellent starters/role players never equal a legit star, and chris paul is a legit star, he is a game changer , he sells tickets , he makes whatever you have on your roster better because he is such a great natural pg.

kirk is versatile he can play both guard spots on offense and defense pretty well , he is by all accounts a good guy and a good worker, but this is seriously like comparing T-mac in his last year with the raptors vs shane battier last season .

you always take the burgeoning superstar, unless you are comparing him to an actual superstar.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

I think, and it's been said before, that it all depends on what team you're building.

Hinrich fits well on a team like Chicago. Paul stars as the man in New Orleans


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Real said:


> *I think, and it's been said before, that it all depends on what team you're building*.
> 
> Hinrich fits well on a team like Chicago. Paul stars as the man in New Orleans


I beg to differ.

Chris Paul fits better in any type of team you trying to bulid.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Diable said:


> And Duhon would have to guard him because he's better at guarding point guards than Hinrich is.Yet Hinrich is one of the best perimeter defenders who ever dreww a breath.


*vs. opposing point guards, '05-06*

Hinrich: +4.1 PER differential
Duhon: -0.3 PER differential


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> *vs. opposing point guards, '05-06*
> 
> Hinrich: +4.1 PER differential
> Duhon: -0.3 PER differential


In three years, Hinrich couldn't get past .418FG%, wich is horrible.

In his rookie year, Chris shot .430FG%.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> *vs. opposing point guards, '05-06*
> 
> Hinrich: +4.1 PER differential
> Duhon: -0.3 PER differential


Exactly what does this prove?Every single person who watches the Bulls knows that Duhon stays in front of quick point guards a lot better than Hinrich does.You're just spraying fertilizer around thinking that noone can smell around here.So if Hinrich only defends guys who can't beat him he's better than if he defended the guys he can't really guard.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

Chris Paul WILL be a #1 pg in the NBA. Hinrich will always be in the top 10. END OF DISCUSSION.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

and if the bulls were offered paul for hinrich, they'd take it in a second.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

Pain5155 said:


> Chris Paul WILL be a #1 pg in the NBA. Hinrich will always be in the top 10. END OF DISCUSSION.



No start of a new dicussion. SHAUN LIVINGSTON WILL BE THE BEST P.G IN THE NBA, NOT CHRIS PAUL.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Whats all the arguement about? Ben Gordon usually guards the point guards, and Hinrich guards the shooting guards to start the game. Just sub Duhon in for Gordon when Duhon and Hinrich are on the court. Hinrich guards the opposing point guards when someone like Eddie Basden, Eric Piatowski, or Luol Deng were playing shooting guard. It has nothing to do with Hinrich not being able to guard those point guards, just with Duhon and Gordon not being able to guard those shooting guards.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Everyone keeps assuming that Chris Paul is going to get a lot better. That is not cut and dry. We will see this season.


----------



## fuzznuts (May 23, 2006)

This thread should really say, "Who would you take now?" Not, who will you take to watch grow, and develop..


i'd take Hinrich for my pg right now.


Paul's Better at:
Offense
Fast breaks
*Potential*
Quickness
Court Vision

Hinrich's Better at:
Defense
*Leadership*
Control of the game
Strength
Hustle

according to what people say, (and i also agree) that Paul will end up with a better career. This is probably because of his knack for offensive talent. He's the type of player to want to score, and he's on a team that needs him to score on drives to the basket (better fg%). 

Hinrich, I believe is better because of his leadership and his incredible defense (usually guards the other team's best guard, no matter what size). I can imagine if Hinrich changed his game to more of a drive to the basket type of game, he would hands down be MUCH better than Paul. As for now, his game is defense, control the speed of the game, and drive and dish to Nocioni/Gordon. There's no need for his offense, as Gordon is supposed to be the type of player Paul is.


These two pgs are different types of players. I guess I like hard-nose D and hustle, more than flashy shoot-em up scoring!! :banana:


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

fuzznuts said:


> This thread should really say, "Who would you take now?" Not, who will you take to watch grow, and develop..
> 
> 
> i'd take Hinrich for my pg right now.
> ...


This isn't very compelling argument. Paul's advantages are clear--he's a better passer, a more efficient scorer, he's younger, he turns the ball over less.

Besides defense, the advantages you give to Hinrich are these vague, made-up things. Leadership? Why is Hinrich a better leader? Control of the game? What does that even mean? Hustle? Who says Hinrich hustles more? And what does strength have to do with anything? It helps on defense (if indeed Hinrich even has an advantage in strength) but I don't see why it would be a whole separate advantage.



> according to what people say, (and i also agree) that Paul will end up with a better career. This is probably because of his knack for offensive talent. He's the type of player to want to score, and he's on a team that needs him to score on drives to the basket (better fg%).
> 
> Hinrich, I believe is better because of his leadership and his incredible defense (usually guards the other team's best guard, no matter what size). I can imagine if Hinrich changed his game to more of a drive to the basket type of game, he would hands down be MUCH better than Paul.


Where does this come from? Paul is quicker with the ball and has better control; he's a significantly better penetrator than Hinrich. It's not a matter of Hinrich "changing his game". He is what he is.



> As for now, his game is defense, control the speed of the game, and drive and dish to Nocioni/Gordon. There's no need for his offense, as Gordon is supposed to be the type of player Paul is.


Don't buy it. If he could score more at higher efficiency, while passing more and turning the ball over less, don't you think he would?



> These two pgs are different types of players. I guess I like hard-nose D and hustle, more than flashy shoot-em up scoring!! :banana:


That's nice, but there's nothing to suggest that Paul is a "flashy, shoot-em up scorer". Especially since he takes 12 shots a game to Hinrich's 13.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Paul doesn't score more because he is flashy or shoots a lot...He shoots 6.0 free throws per game and hits 5.1...Of course when you have 14 posts and 12 of them mention a Bulls' player that explains where you are coming from.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

If it was upto Bulls fans(I've been one my entire life but can't stand the attitudes of the D-is-everything & ****-O crowd) on this board they would even take Ben Wallace over Prime Shaq. Kirk's a very solid overall player but he's no star. Paul already is. He's a game changer. Somebody on the previous page already said it. On a championship team Kirk would be the roleplayer while Paul would be playing the starring role. Look at Team USA itself. Paul starts, averages significantly more mins. and wasn't the one playing a lot of minutes in the Senegal game when Coach K was giving the lesser players most of the burn.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Real said:


> I think, and it's been said before, that it all depends on what team you're building.


Good post but save your insight because people on this board just don't understand how basketball works well enough to know that a player that is better in one situation isn't always better in another situation. On this board, it's all or nothing, there is no inbetween. 

And for all the hype that Chris Paul gets for being the best point guard in the league, the Hornets were *one of the five worst offenses in the league* last year. They were an *average* team because of their *defense*, which Paul has no more to do with than any of the other starters. Without their defense and their 2nd unit, they are one of the five worst teams in the league. 

As of right now, Kirk Hinrich has been the best player on a 47 win team and a 41 win team, and a team that is going to be up around 50 next season. I'm happy with that and I don't think the Bulls would be better with Paul in his place because all their guards would be 6 foot nothings who would get absolutely torched by all the scoring guards in the east.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Lebbron said:


> Maybe we should rephrase the question for the ones voting Hinrich: if both players were white who would you take?


Right, and Isiah Thomas > Larry Bird too.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Good post but save your insight because people on this board just don't understand how basketball works well enough to know that a player that is better in one situation isn't always better in another situation. On this board, it's all or nothing, there is no inbetween.
> 
> And for all the hype that Chris Paul gets for being the best point guard in the league, the Hornets were *one of the five worst offenses in the league* last year. They were an *average* team because of their *defense*, which Paul has no more to do with than any of the other starters. Without their defense and their 2nd unit, they are one of the five worst teams in the league.
> 
> As of right now, Kirk Hinrich has been the best player on a 47 win team and a 41 win team, and a team that is going to be up around 50 next season. I'm happy with that and I don't think the Bulls would be better with Paul in his place because all their guards would be 6 foot nothings who would get absolutely torched by all the scoring guards in the east.


I wouldn't call Kirk Hinrich the best player on those teams.

On the 47 win team, it was kind of a Gordon-Chandler tie, definitely not Kirk.

Last year, Kirk-Noc-Gordon tie for best player.


----------



## fuzznuts (May 23, 2006)

Diophantos said:


> Besides defense, the advantages you give to Hinrich are these vague, made-up things. Leadership? Why is Hinrich a better leader? Control of the game? What does that even mean?


OOps.. i forgot to add, "IMHO" :banana:

thanks for pointing this out.

Hinrich is a better leader, because out of young team, he's been captain on his team for most of his career, as younger players have always looked towards him for his leadership.



Diophantos said:


> Hustle? Who says Hinrich hustles more? And what does strength have to do with anything? It helps on defense (if indeed Hinrich even has an advantage in strength) but I don't see why it would be a whole separate advantage.


Hinrich is a great player who hustles, because simply.. if you watch his game, he hustles like crazy. In Chicago, he's known to be an extreme gym rat... great mentality to improving his game with effort. can't find the link right now, but i guess i'll find it if we're dissecting my post :biggrin: 

and as you say, strength will advantage one in defense. more strength, better chance to guard bigger players. strength also helps one in durability, if you need to understand how strength is a good thing. how can you think a weaker player is better? it's like comparing ben wallace to tyson chandler.



Diophantos said:


> Where does this come from? Paul is quicker with the ball and has better control; he's a significantly better penetrator than Hinrich. It's not a matter of Hinrich "changing his game". He is what he is.


I dont understand what you are saying. again, this is IMHO



Diophantos said:


> Don't buy it. If he could score more at higher efficiency, while passing more and turning the ball over less, don't you think he would?


I dont think you get it. sometimes players arent given a long leash. Hinrich plays under a very tight system where defense and ball control are key. Paul is given the ball, and is allowed to do what he pleases with it. 

The only reason why Hinrich has turned the ball over more is because of poor play and clumsy hands on the behalf of a poor front court, that is now revamped.

and again, there's no need for hinrich to score, that's what gordon is there for.



Diophantos said:


> That's nice, but there's nothing to suggest that Paul is a "flashy, shoot-em up scorer". Especially since he takes 12 shots a game to Hinrich's 13.


You dont think next season Paul's going to start to become more of a flashy scorer? I bet you my mom that he takes much more than 12 shots a game next season.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

sloth said:


> I wouldn't call Kirk Hinrich the best player on those teams.


Scott Skiles, John Paxson and most of the league's coaches would.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> And for all the hype that Chris Paul gets for being the best point guard in the league, the Hornets were one of the five worst offenses in the league last year. They were an average team because of their defense, which Paul has no more to do with than any of the other starters. Without their defense and their 2nd unit, they are one of the five worst teams in the league.


Chris Paul is the best young up and coming point guard in the leauge and to think otherwise is simply being a hater. You are correct in saying much of the team's success can be attributed to great team defense, and Paul may have taken too much credit for the team's overall turnaround from the 04'-05' season; however, isn't this what typically happens with all of our stars? In the end, we always give our stars too much credit for winning and too much blame for losing. Paul brought excitement and hope to this team that otherwise wouldn't have been there, so his overall role on the success of the team shouldn't be overlooked. 

As for your argument about, _"Without their defense and their 2nd unit, they are one of the five worst teams in the league."_ Couldn't this argument be used across the board for most of our stars in the league? I could say the same for Dallas or San Antonio, but what does that prove? Having good defense and a good 2nd unit is part of the recipe for team success. So, if a star player is lucky enough to have these attributes as part of his team, his overall impact is somehow diminished?



Sir Patchwork said:


> As of right now, Kirk Hinrich has been the best player on a 47 win team and a 41 win team, and a team that is going to be up around 50 next season. I'm happy with that and I don't think the Bulls would be better with Paul in his place because all their guards would be 6 foot nothings who would get absolutely torched by all the scoring guards in the east.


That's all well and good and Hinrich's role in Chicago is understood. No one is saying if you replaced Paul with Hinrich, the team would all of a sudden become a 60 win team. Actually getting technical, I'm sure if Paul did replace Hinrich this Bulls team wouldn't have been built anything like it's current self. Saying Hinrich has been the best player on a 41 and 47 win team really isn't saying much as it relates to this Bulls team, because at the end of the day the Bulls are built to win as a team, and with a group of players who are #2 options at best this is what you have. This Bulls team isn't built around one particular player.



girllovesthegame said:


> Which player would you want to build your team around? Giving your honest unbiased vote. Don't say neither. These are the only 2 pgs on the board for you to choose from so you have to choose one.


Sir Patchwork, now back to the original question. You can honestly say if you were starting a team from scratch, and you could only select between Paul and Hinrich, you would take Hinrich?


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

I personally prefer Hinrich to Paul.

Hinrich isn't a player I judge by numbers.


----------



## fuzznuts (May 23, 2006)

Prolific Scorer said:


> I personally prefer Hinrich to Paul.
> 
> Hinrich isn't a player I judge by numbers.



:clap:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Paul is an exciting offensive player, but he's no AI. 

Regrettably 5'9" guards have a hard time of it on defense in the NBA. Paul had better steal the ball a lot. If he doesn't his guy will shoot over him. I'm sure he'll have a nice short career in the NBA.

Hinrich is a great, no BS 6'3", defensive guard. He may be the best defensive guard in the game at this point. He's also a pretty good scorer and passer. His quickness tends to be underrated. His ability to distribute the ball has not been on demonstration with the Bulls so far since he played the point guard position only a fraction of the time. Given the chance to play his natural position full time, I think you'll see assist numbers comparable to Pauls.

All in all, I'd say Paul is a very nice point guard who would be an upgrade for most teams... just not the Bulls, who happen to be a defensive-minded team.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

McBulls said:


> Paul is an exciting offensive player, but he's no AI.
> 
> Regrettably 5'9" guards have a hard time of it on defense in the NBA. Paul had better steal the ball a lot. If he doesn't his guy will shoot over him. I'm sure he'll have a nice short career in the NBA.
> 
> ...


Dude they are on exactly the same team at this very moment and Hinrich is playing shooting guard about a third of the minutes.That renders your hypothesis utterly absurd doesn't it.If Hinrich can pass like Paul then why the hell doesn't he?.He barely has one third as many assists.I'd tell you that Paul is a legit 6'0,but reality clearly doesn't relate to your thinking.

The Bulls fans are turning this thread into an Amareca tribute.They've yet to present any argument that isn't utter nonsense and I don't think they believe a word of what they are saying either.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Diable said:


> Dude they are on exactly the same team at this very moment and Hinrich is playing shooting guard about a third of the minutes.


82games.com has Hinrich's minutes as follows: 34% PG, 37% SG, 1% SF. That means that 28% of his time isn't accounted for. This 28% is likely split pretty evenly between PG and SG, meaning that Hinrich probably spends over 50% of his minutes at SG.



> That renders your hypothesis utterly absurd doesn't it.


See above.



> If Hinrich can pass like Paul then why the hell doesn't he?


*Assist Ratio, rookie season (again)*

Hinrich: 32.0
Paul: 31.4



> The Bulls fans are turning this thread into an Amareca tribute.They've yet to present any argument that isn't utter nonsense and I don't think they believe a word of what they are saying either.


Look in the mirror. You said that Duhon was a better defender of point guards than Hinrich. I then provided stats to the contrary, but you ignored logical discussion and continued shouting at the moon. You've done so quite a bit in this thread.

Don't get so riled up.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> 82games.com has Hinrich's minutes as follows: 34% PG, 37% SG, 1% SF. That means that 28% of his time isn't accounted for. This 28% is likely split pretty evenly between PG and SG, meaning that Hinrich probably spends over 50% of his minutes at SG.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Everyone who knows anything about the Bulls knows that the stats you presented aren't only meaningless they are deliberately misleading.Hinrich never guards quick guards that are hard to guard.He always guards the slow ones.So when everyone knows that Duhon guards the point guards that are hard to guard what does it matter if you try to use some numbers to confuse the truth that anyone with two eyes can see plainly.


----------



## fuzznuts (May 23, 2006)

i dont know why people get so "touchy" while posting..

saying other people are irrelevant, or equivalent to.

this is my last post in this thread. 


please get a life, and stop taking out your sexual frustrations on the forums here!! :banana:


(go bulls)


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Diable said:


> Everyone who knows anything about the Bulls knows that the stats you presented aren't only meaningless they are deliberately misleading.Hinrich never guards quick guards that are hard to guard. He always guards the slow ones.So when everyone knows that Duhon guards the point guards that are hard to guard what does it matter if you try to use some numbers to confuse the truth that anyone with two eyes can see plainly.


Watch a Bulls-Sixers game sometime and see who guards Iverson.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I did see the sixers play the Bulls.AI shot like 25 free throws against the guy that was guarding him and SHavlik Randolph looked like a hall of famer.I think the entire Bulls board went onto suicide watch because they thought they'd gotten knocked out of the playoffs after the sixers crushed them like bugs on a windshield.Unless I am wrong Webber was out for that game and that's the reason Randolph got so much PT.


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

Diable said:


> I did see the sixers play the Bulls.AI shot like 25 free throws against the guy that was guarding him and *SHavlik Randolph looked like a hall of famer*.I think the entire Bulls board went onto suicide watch because they thought they'd gotten knocked out of the playoffs after the sixers *crushed them like bugs on a windshield*.Unless I am wrong Webber was out for that game and that's the reason Randolph got so much PT.


I didn't know you got into the HOF off 2-10 shooting. And a 6 point loss is hardly crushed. But let's not recall 2 games earlier when the Bulls *crushed* the Sixers by 33.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Look in the mirror. You said that Duhon was a better defender of point guards than Hinrich.


He also said that Chris Paul was more valuable than Kobe Bryant this past season. Diable clearly thinks much much higher of Chris Paul than anyone else on this site. That usually qualifies as being a homer. 

I'm a big Hinrich fan and I'm not so offended when someone calls me a Hinrich homer, because I am to some extent, but Diable is clearly also a homer for Chris Paul and that's proven to be the case over and over. Nothing wrong with that, but claiming everyone is a homer when you're clearly one yourself is pretty lame.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I'd build around Paul. But if I had another superstar like Wade or Lebron, I'd want Hinrich, because he's better off the ball, and doing the little things you want done away from the spotlight.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Some brief critiques of their game:
Hinrich is not a great ball handler. He's solid. But he fumbles the ball while dribbling a lot.
Hinrich is not going to make any suprise passes that you're like "how did he see that?". He doesn't have that kind of court vision. But he is going to make the solid pass...generally. Hinrich is still rough around the edges, and prone the occasional brain fart. Defensively he is the best perimeter defender of his size in the league. His length and quickness make him something of a Gary Payton knockoff. He's not as consistent a shooter as his skin color would indicate...he often runs hot and cold with his scoring.

Chris Paul...plays in the West. And I don't watch crappy Western Conference basketball. :clown:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Whats this bullcrap of Hinrich not being quick enough? Wasn't Marcus Banks the only one that did better than Hinrich out of point guards in the agility and speed drills at the Chicago camp?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

K-Dub said:


> I didn't know you got into the HOF off 2-10 shooting. And a 6 point loss is hardly crushed. But let's not recall 2 games earlier when the Bulls *crushed* the Sixers by 33.


wicked burn.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Not to mention, wasn't Luol Deng (or was it Nocioni?) out of that game because Eric Piatowski took them out in practice.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

sloth said:


> Whats this bullcrap of Hinrich not being quick enough? Wasn't Marcus Banks the only one that did better than Hinrich out of point guards in the agility and speed drills at the Chicago camp?


And Luke Jackson outjumped Josh Smith.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Oh. And Hinrich is quick. He's very athletic actually.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

USA falls to Greece today, 101-95.

Hinrich: 21 min, 4-8 FG, 12 pts, great defense.
Paul: 24 min, 0-5 FG, 3 pts, subpar defense.


----------



## Lebbron (Nov 20, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> USA falls to Greece today, 101-95.
> 
> Hinrich: 21 min, 4-8 FG, 12 pts, *great defense*.
> Paul: 24 min, 0-5 FG, 3 pts, subpar defense.


Were you even watching the game? Neither played good defense.


Hinrich outplayed Paul today but there is no way in hell I'd take Hinrich over Paul on an NBA team.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> USA falls to Greece today, 101-95.
> 
> Hinrich: 21 min, 4-8 FG, 12 pts, great defense.
> Paul: 24 min, 0-5 FG, 3 pts, subpar defense.


Anyone who wants to brag on Hinrich after that game has mental problems


----------



## Lebbron (Nov 20, 2005)

Diable said:


> Anyone who wants to brag on Hinrich after that game has mental problems


? Hinrich played well on offense, he was one of the better players on the team in that game. I was just commenting that in no way did he play "great defense," and I would never even see a scenario in the NBA where I'd rather have Hinrich than Paul.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I am talking about the boneheaded plays that Hinrich made in the second quarter when that game turned completely around,fouling Spanoulis on a three pointer,dribbling the ball off his *** on the attempted wraparound and going up and down instead of shooting the wide open trey off the Paul feed.
For whatever reason the game seemed to turn completely around after that last play.We were up 12 then and everything went badly after.

If I wanted to talk up how great Hinrich was I would act as though this game never happened.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Chris Paul


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Diable said:


> I am talking about the boneheaded plays that Hinrich made in the second quarter when that game turned completely around,fouling Spanoulis on a three pointer,dribbling the ball off his *** on the attempted wraparound and going up and down instead of shooting the wide open trey off the Paul feed.
> For whatever reason the game seemed to turn completely around after that last play.We were up 12 then and everything went badly after.
> 
> If I wanted to talk up how great Hinrich was I would act as though this game never happened.


why don't you just say that it's kirk hinrich's fault they lost the game, the tournament, the desire to live another day. christ. and no other player was at all responsible. 

such bull****. hater. 


:sour:


----------



## D.J. (Mar 9, 2006)

I'd take Chris Paul. He has much more potential than Hinrich.


----------



## mw2889 (Dec 15, 2005)

Hinrich

Paul is just another product of the weak new rules in the NBA


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

I laugh at anybody who thinks Chris Paul is heads and tails above Kirk Hinrich in transition. Sure, Chris Paul is significantly quicker with the ball in his hands. But Kirk Hinrich is one of the few point guards left in the NBA who understands (the apparently difficult to grasp concept) that the ball gets up the court even quicker if it isn't in your hands.

Hinrich is a downright incredible open court passer. 

Better yet, almost every pass he makes is productive. Maybe he commits a few more turnovers than he should, but he never holds on to the ball for too long and improves his team's chance of scoring with every decision he makes. 

Call me crazy, but I don't think sub 6'5 players make very good superstars, unless you are concerned about points per game instead of wins. I'd rather have a roleplayer point guard, and a superstar shooting guard. 

Hinrich is the ultimate point guard roleplayer, and ultimate rolelplayer point guards are all-stars in my book. In terms of supporting teammates and doing the things that good roleplayers do, Chris Paul can't hold a torch to Kirk Hinrich. That should be obvious to anybody who watched a decent chunk of the World Championships. 

Quote me on this one, Kirk Hinrich is going to make plenty of All-Star teams over the next 10 years.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> why don't you just say that it's kirk hinrich's fault they lost the game, the tournament, the desire to live another day. christ. and no other player was at all responsible.
> 
> such bull****. hater.
> 
> ...


I never said that Hinrich was a bad player.I said that he's not a great player and that should be fairly obvious.The things he did in that second quarter were awful and they helped the Greeks out immensely when we had the game going our way.It's ridiculous for someone to make a post about how great he was in a game when he was very erratic.If you think that only one side of this argument is fit for publication okay.I don't hate HInrich.I think he's a gritty player who gives you a great effort and does lots of good things without making too many bad plays,but there's a big difference between that and being truly great at what you do.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

I agree with Diable; if anybody watched the game, Hinrich had a terrible game, although not as bad as Paul's.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Diable said:


> I never said that Hinrich was a bad player.I said that he's not a great player and that should be fairly obvious.The things he did in that second quarter were awful and they helped the Greeks out immensely when we had the game going our way.It's ridiculous for someone to make a post about how great he was in a game when he was very erratic.If you think that only one side of this argument is fit for publication okay.I don't hate HInrich.I think he's a gritty player who gives you a great effort and does lots of good things without making too many bad plays,but there's a big difference between that and being truly great at what you do.


fair enough.

after watching chris paul this tournament, i say his future is very bright, he's a good kid and has loads of talent. but he is not a _great player_ yet either. he's servicable. his play today should make that obvious.

but he won the thread poll. and that's what counts.


:clown:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I laugh at anybody who thinks Chris Paul is heads and tails above Kirk Hinrich in transition. Sure, Chris Paul is significantly quicker with the ball in his hands. But Kirk Hinrich is one of the few point guards left in the NBA who understands (the apparently difficult to grasp concept) that the ball gets up the court even quicker if it isn't in your hands.
> 
> Hinrich is a downright incredible open court passer.
> 
> ...


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I laugh at anybody who thinks Chris Paul is heads and tails above Kirk Hinrich *in transition*. Sure, Chris Paul is significantly quicker with the ball in his hands. But Kirk Hinrich is one of the few point guards left in the NBA who understands (the apparently difficult to grasp concept) that the ball gets up the court even quicker if it isn't in your hands.
> 
> Hinrich is a downright incredible open court passer.
> 
> ...


This post would have some relevance if you didn't compare Paul to Hincrich's strengths and conveniently avoid Paul's strengths. In your post you essentially bring Paul's game down to the level of Hinrich's in order to make a fair comparison while ingnoring all the other traits Paul brings to a game. However, as you already stated, Hinrich is a role player, while Paul is a franchise player; therefore, with that knowledge alone, it would be foolish to select Hinrich over Paul if starting a franchise from scratch. As good of a player Hinrich is going into his forth season, Paul at the minimum has the edge going into his second season. As good of a player Hinrich is, he only becomes valuable when he's surrounded by other players who have equal ability, and this is the epitome of as you already stated a role player.





girllovesthegame said:


> Which player would you want to build your team around? Giving your honest unbiased vote. Don't say neither. These are the only 2 pgs on the board for you to choose from so you have to choose one.


Now, back to the original question. You can honestly say if you were starting a team from scratch, and you could only select between Paul and Hinrich, you would take Hinrich?


----------



## Reignman (Feb 15, 2005)

Hinrich's D and 3pt shooting in critical situations make him more valuable in close games than Paul, woh thrives more in lopsided games in fast break situation because of his abilities.

Overall I'd go with the defensive "role player".


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> Hinrich is a role player, while Paul is a franchise player;


No team is winning a title with Chris Paul as the franchise player.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> No team is winning a title with Chris Paul as the franchise player.


I wasn't aware that I stated that and the same could be said for Barkley, Stockton Malone, Ewing, Garnett etc. Paul is closer to being a franchise player than Hinrich could ever be and if you were a new franchise and only could select between the two, Paul would be the obvious choice. 

Any coach who would select Hinrich over Paul would be a fired coach in 3 seasons.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

ralaw said:


> I wasn't aware that I stated that and the same could be said for Barkley, Stockton Malone, Ewing, Garnett etc. Paul is closer to being a franchise player than Hinrich could ever be and if you were a new franchise and only could select between the two, Paul would be the obvious choice.
> 
> Any coach who would select Hinrich over Paul would be a fired coach in 3 seasons.



Agreed, Hinrich is a guy who needs to be surronded with talent to succed. CP3 had 2nd tier talent and still almost made the playoffs. CP3 will make more all-star teams than Hinrich.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ralaw said:


> .
> 
> Any coach who would select Hinrich over Paul would be a fired coach in 3 seasons.


Additonally, there's no way that Hinrich will be selected in the lottery.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

ralaw said:


> This post would have some relevance if you didn't compare Paul to Hincrich's strengths and conveniently avoid Paul's strengths. In your post you essentially bring Paul's game down to the level of Hinrich's in order to make a fair comparison while ingnoring all the other traits Paul brings to a game. However, as you already stated, Hinrich is a role player, while Paul is a franchise player; therefore, with that knowledge alone, it would be foolish to select Hinrich over Paul if starting a franchise from scratch. As good of a player Hinrich is going into his forth season, Paul at the minimum has the edge going into his second season. As good of a player Hinrich is, he only becomes valuable when he's surrounded by other players who have equal ability, and this is the epitome of as you already stated a role player.
> 
> Now, back to the original question. You can honestly say if you were starting a team from scratch, and you could only select between Paul and Hinrich, you would take Hinrich?


I think I already explained this. I'd rather have a roleplayer at PG than my franchise player. Hinrich is the better roleplayer. 

I choose Kirk Hinrich, and go after an elite wing to build my franchise around. I thought I explained myself quite clearly, but apparently not...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bball2223 said:


> Agreed, Hinrich is a guy who needs to be surronded with talent to succed. CP3 had 2nd tier talent and still almost made the playoffs. CP3 will make more all-star teams than Hinrich.


So the Bulls only have talent when it can be used against one of their playes?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I think I already explained this. I'd rather have a roleplayer at PG than my franchise player. Hinrich is the better roleplayer.
> 
> I choose Kirk Hinrich, and go after an elite wing to build my franchise around. I thought I explained myself quite clearly, but apparently not...


You are confusing me?Explain it to me again and try not to make it sound like you have no damned clue.

I don't want the better player because he's a star...I don't want the better point guard because I can get someone else to be better?What the hell sort of plan do you have?Are you going to bring back the prime Michael Jordan so that prime Michael Jordan and Kirk Hinrich together are better than Chris Paul alone.This is the NBA,it's not the Special Olympics.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> Any coach who would select Hinrich over Paul would be a fired coach in 3 seasons.


It would depend on the players you had. If you had a player who was controlling the ball already then Hinrich would clearly be the better choice, because he is a much better defender and plays much better off the ball. Plus he has a really versatile game for a guard, can switch in and out of both guard positions with ease on both ends. He also has no ego, and will defer. He can take the toughest guard assignment on defense. He would compliment a superstar much better than Paul would. Chris Paul however, is much better with the ball in his hands, and is better at creating for other guys on offense. He is a more efficient offensive player, but he needs the ball in his hands. Hinrich is less effective offensively, but he can do it running off the ball in catch and shoot situations. 

It's like this. Chris Paul is a better franchise player than Kirk Hinrich, but Chris Paul isn't really a franchise player. Kirk Hinrich is a better roleplayer than Chris Paul, and when it comes down to it, both of these guys are roleplayers. No team is going to win a title with either of them as the franchise player. So with that, it really just depends on your team needs.


----------



## Dynamic™ (Jun 28, 2006)

Honost oppinion, Paul.


----------



## fuzznuts (May 23, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It would depend on the players you had. If you had a player who was controlling the ball already then Hinrich would clearly be the better choice, because he is a much better defender and plays much better off the ball. Plus he has a really versatile game for a guard, can switch in and out of both guard positions with ease on both ends. He also has no ego, and will defer. He can take the toughest guard assignment on defense. He would compliment a superstar much better than Paul would. Chris Paul however, is much better with the ball in his hands, and is better at creating for other guys on offense. He is a more efficient offensive player, but he needs the ball in his hands. Hinrich is less effective offensively, but he can do it running off the ball in catch and shoot situations.
> 
> It's like this. Chris Paul is a better franchise player than Kirk Hinrich, but Chris Paul isn't really a franchise player. Kirk Hinrich is a better roleplayer than Chris Paul, and when it comes down to it, both of these guys are roleplayers. No team is going to win a title with either of them as the franchise player. So with that, it really just depends on your team needs.


well said... :guitar:


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It would depend on the players you had. If you had a player who was controlling the ball already then Hinrich would clearly be the better choice, because he is a much better defender and plays much better off the ball. Plus he has a really versatile game for a guard, can switch in and out of both guard positions with ease on both ends. He also has no ego, and will defer. He can take the toughest guard assignment on defense. He would compliment a superstar much better than Paul would. Chris Paul however, is much better with the ball in his hands, and is better at creating for other guys on offense. He is a more efficient offensive player, but he needs the ball in his hands. Hinrich is less effective offensively, but he can do it running off the ball in catch and shoot situations.
> 
> It's like this. Chris Paul is a better franchise player than Kirk Hinrich, but Chris Paul isn't really a franchise player. Kirk Hinrich is a better roleplayer than Chris Paul, and when it comes down to it, both of these guys are roleplayers. No team is going to win a title with either of them as the franchise player. So with that, it really just depends on your team needs.


That all sounds great and it makes perfect sense, but the rationale behind it is where I'm having problems with. It seems to me you and Jonathan Watters are actually simplifying the argument to favor your opinion of taking Hinrich. The both of you have already stated Hinrich is nothing more than a role player, which he is, and the both of you love the fact that he is the ultimate role player. Great!! However, we aren't comparing him to another role player. When the Paul comparison is made, it is assumed the conversation moves to another level beyond a role player. The original question was, _"Which player would you want to build your team around?_ So, you would select Hinrich over Paul to build your team around?

While I agree, a team ran by Paul as it's franchise player may never win a championship, but this has nothing to do with this discussion. As no one has used this to validate their points. Nonetheless, the same could be said for a slew of playes such as KG, Iverson, McGrady etc. So, does this mean I should take Antwan Jamison over KG because he is the ulimate role player? However, that would even make more sense, considering the both of them are the same age, but in looking at Paul and Hinrich you are talking about a 4 year difference. Paul in his first season, has already eclipsed Hinrich in his first 3 seasons.

The only way I would pass on Paul to select Hinrich would be if my team was on th brink if a championship and needed a combo guard who played defense of the bench. In any other situation even if I already had an established PG, I would take Paul, because in the end, he has more value to my franchise as a whole and at the age of 20, his ceiling is so much higher than Hinrich's. Hinnrich's value as a defender isn't that great to pass on a Paul. Hinrich's ability to play both guard positions isn' that great to pass on Paul. 

I hate doing this, because Hinrich is a good player as long as he's kept in the proper perspective, but I feel it's necessary. In the end Hinrich is nothing more than an undersized SG with an inconsistent jumpshot who can play defense on certain defenders or a PG, with average ball handling skills, who gets some assist, but also turns the ball over a lot. The value Hinrich has as being the ultimate role player isn't large enough to overcome the brilliance that Chris Paul brings to a franchise.

Kurt Hinrich has officially become overrated! Let's keep him where he belongs....as a 2nd tier PG role player being compared to other 2nd tier PG role players.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> That all sounds great and it makes perfect sense, but the rationale behind it is where I'm having problems with. It seems to me you and Jonathan Watters are actually simplifying the argument to favor your opinion of taking Hinrich.


I did not say Hinrich was a better player. I said it was largely a situational thing because Paul and Hinrich both do very different things very effectively. 



ralaw said:


> The both of you have already stated Hinrich is nothing more than a role player, which he is, and the both of you love the fact that he is the ultimate role player. Great!! However, we aren't comparing him to another role player.


Actually we are. Chris Paul is a roleplayer. If you're not even a top 20 player, then you aren't a franchise player. 



ralaw said:


> When the Paul comparison is made, it is assumed the conversation moves to another level beyond a role player. The original question was, _"Which player would you want to build your team around?_ So, you would select Hinrich over Paul to build your team around?


If I had to start my franchise with one of the two, I would pick Paul. This is the 3rd time I've said that in this thread. It's for the same reason you would start your franchise with Clyde Drexler instead of Scottie Pippen. That doesn't mean Clyde was a better player, though. 



ralaw said:


> While I agree, a team ran by Paul as it's franchise player may never win a championship, but this has nothing to do with this discussion. As no one has used this to validate their points. Nonetheless, the same could be said for a slew of playes such as KG, Iverson, McGrady etc.


No, when I say Chris Paul isn't a franchise player, I don't mean he is like Kevin Garnett. Kevin Garnett is good enough to be the franchise player on a title team. He just hasn't done it. Ditto with Barkley, Malone and all your other examples. When I say Chris Paul isn't a franchise player, I mean he isn't good enough. With guys like Garnett, it's a matter of unfortunate circumstance. That's not the case with Paul. 



ralaw said:


> So, does this mean I should take Antwan Jamison over KG because he is the ulimate role player? However, that would even make more sense, considering the both of them are the same age, but in looking at Paul and Hinrich you are talking about a 4 year difference. Paul in his first season, has already eclipsed Hinrich in his first 3 seasons.


Jamison is not the ultimate roleplayer though, unfortunetly. Kevin Garnett actually plays more like a roleplayer than Jamison does, because of his ability to dominate without the ball. A better example would be Ron Artest vs. Paul Pierce or Vince Carter. If I was starting a team I'd probably take Pierce, but there are many many situations where I'd take Artest. 



ralaw said:


> The only way I would pass on Paul to select Hinrich would be if my team was on th brink if a championship and needed a combo guard who played defense of the bench. In any other situation even if I already had an established PG, I would take Paul, because in the end, he has more value to my franchise as a whole and at the age of 20, his ceiling is so much higher than Hinrich's. Hinnrich's value as a defender isn't that great to pass on a Paul. Hinrich's ability to play both guard positions isn' that great to pass on Paul.


Players so-called "improvement" is always exaggerated. They never improve as much as you think they will. You will see what I'm talking about in the next few years with Paul. Especially since he is such a polished product already. Hinrich has just as much, if not more potential than Paul because while his shot is inconsistent, he shows flashes of brilliance with it. The same goes for his pure point guard ability. He has the potential to be like Steve Nash on offense, while very elite on defense. That's not to say he will get there, but you act like Hinrich doesn't have room to improve. Paul is more polished than Hinrich. Age is just a number. 



ralaw said:


> Kurt Hinrich has officially become overrated! Let's keep him where he belongs....as a 2nd tier PG role player being compared to other 2nd tier PG role players.


I think it's Paul that is overrated. You won't see threads about Hinrich being better than LeBron and Kobe, yet this past year we have seen people talk about how Paul is more valuable than LeBron, Kobe, and so on. That is absurdly overrating him. I don't even consider Kirk Hinrich a top 30 player. I don't know how he can be overrated if he is the best player on a near 50 win team and isn't even considered a top 30 player. I'll give the same speech as you did, where I say I like Paul and he is a good player, blah blah blah, but let's keep proper perspective. He isn't near as good as you guys claim he is, comparing him with LeBron, Kobe and so on. I'd put him on a tier with guys like Bibby and Cassell (of last year), and I'd put Hinrich on that same tier.


----------



## vinsanity77 (May 1, 2006)

Honestly I don't think a lot of people have seen enough of CP3 given that he is on a team like the Hornets.
CP3 has great vision and has "it". Although Hinrich might be a better defender, he will never be able to carry a team on his back like Paul can. And those who said Hinrich will make more All Star appearances than Paul got to be kidding me. (unless of course the bulls fan vote like a 100 times a day or somethin)
We will see who the better player is when one of them carries his team to the 'ship.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Players so-called "improvement" is always exaggerated. They never improve as much as you think they will. You will see what I'm talking about in the next few years with Paul. Especially since he is such a polished product already. Hinrich has just as much, if not more potential than Paul because while his shot is inconsistent, he shows flashes of brilliance with it. The same goes for his pure point guard ability. He has the potential to be like Steve Nash on offense, while very elite on defense. That's not to say he will get there, but you act like Hinrich doesn't have room to improve. Paul is more polished than Hinrich. Age is just a number.


I would venture to say Hinrich is as good as he'e going to be. The Steve Nash comparison as a peak is laughable to me, as Hinrich displays none of the characteristics that make Nash what he is, other than being able to make an outlet pass. You've already stated Hinrich doesn't need the ball to have an impact, yet you compare him to a player who is among the top in the league when it comes to dominating the ball. I don't get that. I also find it laughable you say Hinrich has more potential that Paul because he has yet to develop a consistent jumpshot, and is less polished of a player, but shows flashes of brilliance. Being less refined as a player doesn't always mean the said player has room for growth, as the player may just have holes in their game and that is the way it's going to be. I could just as easily argue, Hinrich has peaked as a player and expecting him to develop any further is only being hopeful, as history tells us so. Paul is more polished, and has 3 years less experience in college and 2 years less playing experience in the NBA, so in this case age does matter.




Sir Patchwork said:


> I think it's Paul that is overrated. You won't see threads about Hinrich being better than LeBron and Kobe, yet this past year we have seen people talk about how Paul is more valuable than LeBron, Kobe, and so on. That is absurdly overrating him. I don't even consider Kirk Hinrich a top 30 player. I don't know how he can be overrated if he is the best player on a near 50 win team and isn't even considered a top 30 player. I'll give the same speech as you did, where I say I like Paul and he is a good player, blah blah blah, but let's keep proper perspective. He isn't near as good as you guys claim he is, comparing him with LeBron, Kobe and so on. I'd put him on a tier with guys like Bibby and Cassell (of last year), and I'd put Hinrich on that same tier.


You have to give those people a break. Paul wasn't expected to do what he did with the Hornets. He wasn't expected to revive a dead franshise, so you have to expect people to give him more credit that what he was supposed to. As I already stated earlier, this is expected because we generally give our stars too much credit for winning and too much of the blame for losing. People making these comparisons in natural because we always look for the next "_______" and this will never change. 

I never compared Paul to Kobe, LeBron, etc.; however, to ignore the fact that he is on track to become the best PG in the league in a few years is being a hater. Paul played great last season, so all indications lead to him being a great player. Right now in his second season Paul is only behind Nash, Kidd and Billups as far as true PGs go, so putting him among those players isn't too far of a stretch.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

vinsanity77 said:


> Honestly I don't think a lot of people have seen enough of CP3 given that he is on a team like the Hornets.
> CP3 has great vision and has "it". Although Hinrich might be a better defender, he will never be able to carry a team on his back like Paul can. And those who said Hinrich will make more All Star appearances than Paul got to be kidding me. (unless of course the bulls fan vote like a 100 times a day or somethin)
> We will see who the better player is when one of them carries his team to the 'ship.


I'm still waiting for Paul to carry a team on his back....he had all those fancy things going for him, like a front court.

Did anyone watch the Bulls series against the Heat? Bulls really had nothing going for them outside of Gordon, Hinrich, and Nocioni offensively....and defensively, pretty much the same...but since Hinrich was able to make Wade's penetration ineffective, the Bulls were in the series. If the Bulls just had a consistent post guy they could have went into, because Game 5 was up for grabs, but Bulls just went cold on their shooting, and didn't have that consistent inside scoring...so they lost that close one, and if they had say Tyrus Thomas a year earlier, Heat would either not be champions, or would have had to win in 7. But 4th quarter of game 5, and all of game 6, Wade found his jumpshot, Dwyane Wade when he is making jumpshots like he is is an unstoppable player...But Hinrich's defense was huge, and gave the Bulls a shot to win that series...


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

sloth said:


> I'm still waiting for Paul to carry a team on his back....he had all those fancy things going for him, like a front court.


I get annoyed by these types of arguments. You do realize they say this about every elite player, even Jordan himself? Just give him some time, as he's only going into his second season.


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> *yet this past year we have seen people talk about how Paul is more valuable than LeBron, Kobe, and so on.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> :eek8: Who in the world said this??!!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ralaw said:


> I would venture to say Hinrich is as good as he'e going to be.


How so? The same things about Hinrich's mythical ceiling were said when he was a senior in high school ("he's maxed out; he'll never be more than a role player at Kansas"). Then they were said again when he was in college ("He'll never make it to the NBA"). This strange, expertly-diagnosed theory of Hinrich's ceiling now exists in the NBA, despite the fact that he's improved every year he's played organized basketball (this is what all good, young talented guards under the age of 30 _should_ do, by the way). What makes you think this 10+ year pattern of improvement will suddenly stop?


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

sloth said:


> I'm still waiting for Paul to carry a team on his back....he had all those fancy things going for him, like a front court.
> 
> Did anyone watch the Bulls series against the Heat? Bulls really had nothing going for them outside of Gordon, Hinrich, and Nocioni offensively....and defensively, pretty much the same...but since Hinrich was able to make Wade's penetration ineffective, the Bulls were in the series. If the Bulls just had a consistent post guy they could have went into, because Game 5 was up for grabs, but Bulls just went cold on their shooting, and didn't have that consistent inside scoring...so they lost that close one, and if they had say Tyrus Thomas a year earlier, Heat would either not be champions, or would have had to win in 7. But 4th quarter of game 5, and all of game 6, Wade found his jumpshot, Dwyane Wade when he is making jumpshots like he is is an unstoppable player...But Hinrich's defense was huge, and gave the Bulls a shot to win that series...


 so has hinrich ever taken a team on his back, or are we discounting the contributions of gordon and nocioni because they are scrubs?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ralaw on Hinrich, age 25, entering 4th NBA season: "He's as good as he's ever going to be."

ralaw on Paul, age 21, entering 2nd NBA season: "Just give him some time."

Looks like CP3 only has four more years and two more NBA seasons left to improve.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I Start Fires said:


> so has hinrich ever taken a team on his back, or are we discounting the contributions of gordon and nocioni because they are scrubs?


No, Ben Gordon is the guy that put the Bulls on his back during the 47 win season...I never said Hinrich carried the Bulls on his back...Paul can't carry a team on his back either, but discounting Hinrich's defense is wrong, Hinrich almost was able to get the Bulls into the 2nd round by stopping Wade's penetration, but when Wade makes jumpshots, you just can't stop him...I'd take Ben Gordon over both Hinrich and Paul anyday of the week, and twice on fridays.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Even as a Bulls fan, I've got to take Paul. 

I like Hinrich a lot, and I was generally pleased with his showing during the World Championships. I think he showed more basketball fans than were aware that he's an extremely solid and gritty baller who's improving as a clutch shooter. He is one of the better man defenders in the league for a guard.

But Paul had one the best years in the history of rookie point guards. His playmaking is exceptional, his scoring is quite good, and his overall feel for the game is off the charts. Whereas Hinrich is a better man defender by far, at 2.24 steals a game, Paul averaged considerably more steals than Hinrich has in any of his four seasons. Now I'll take a good man defender over a gambling defender any day, but that's a lot of steals on Paul's part, and his quick hands help make up for his slower feet on D. 

Hinrich and Paul both play team basketball and seem like the kind of floor generals that their teams can appreciate playing with. In general, I still want a point guard with this mentality as opposed to a shooting point guard like Arenas, despite his incredible talent. I think if I was the coach of Gilbert's team, I would play him off the ball, and though Wade is solid at both guard spots, I'd prefer to keep him off the ball too because he's just that good at putting the ball in the hole.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> How so? The same things about Hinrich's mythical ceiling were said when he was a senior in high school ("he's maxed out; he'll never be more than a role player at Kansas"). Then they were said again when he was in college ("He'll never make it to the NBA"). This strange, expertly-diagnosed theory of Hinrich's ceiling now exists in the NBA, despite the fact that he's improved every year he's played organized basketball (this is what all good, young talented guards under the age of 30 _should_ do, by the way). What makes you think this 10+ year pattern of improvement will suddenly stop?


You are corect, Hinrich has always improved and answered his doubters and it would be rather ignorant of me to say he has peaked, because that is really based on varying factors. However, my point is he very well could have maxed his skills out; however, this is something we'll find out as his career plays out. I personally don't believe he'll improve much beyond his current status, but that's just my opinion. Obviously, he may improve in some areas, but not to the point where he'll be an elite PG in this league. I commend him for answering his doubters, but what he's done in highschool and college is not a clear indication of what he'll do in NBA, because it doesn't work like this. 

His 10+ year pattern of improvement will suddenly stop because it happens to everyone, even to players such as Tim Duncan, who peaked within his first 3-4 seasons in the league. However, arguing that may seem strange to some, but it's true. The only reason it isn't talked about is because Duncan's ceiling is extremelly high; therefore it's not noticable. If Hinrich has peaked it's not really a bad thing because he would still be the ultimate role player.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> ralaw on Hinrich, age 25, entering 4th NBA season: "He's as good as he's ever going to be."
> 
> ralaw on Paul, age 21, entering 2nd NBA season: "Just give him some time."
> 
> Looks like CP3 only has four more years and two more NBA seasons left to improve.


Your logic is flawed, because you are taking these comments out of context. The Hinrich comment is my opinion, but not in the way you are painting it. Hinrich will improve, but not to the point of being an elite PG. The Paul comment actually has nothing to do with Paul's skills, and if you took the time to read my comments in proper context, intead of trying to twist them up to get an reaction you would see that. The Paul comment was in reference to sloth's comments about, him _"waiting on Paul to carry a team"_ to which I replied, _"give him some time"_, as he's only in his second season.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ralaw said:


> However, my point is he very well could have maxed his skills out; however, this is something we'll find out as his career plays out.


In the spirit of objectivism, one could say this with regard to Chris Paul as well. Did Gary Payton max his skills out a few years into career, or did he continue to hone his already developed skillset? Did Steve Nash learn any new dribbling tricks coming into his fourth year in the league, or did he simply become more comfortable with his teammates and role?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ralaw said:


> Your logic is flawed, because you are taking these comments out of context. The Hinrich comment is my opinion, but not in the way you are painting it. Hinrich will improve, but not to the point of being an elite PG. The Paul comment actually has nothing to do with Paul's skills, and if you took the time to read my comments in proper context, intead of trying to twist them up to get an reaction you would see that. The Paul comment was in reference to sloth's comments about, him _"waiting on Paul to carry a team"_ to which I replied, _"give him some time"_, as he's only in his second season.


Relax...

I was being sarcastic.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I think Hinrich can max out as like a Chauncey Billup level player, a guy that can defend, and make some big shots. Hinrich will be a good part of the Bulls championship team, but he'll just be a role player. Gordon and Thomas are going to be the stars on the team, it'll be an amazing team though, because Thabo and Nocioni (and Deng if they keep him) all should be fringe star level also, and they might even get Greg Oden....


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> In the spirit of objectivism, one could say this with regard to Chris Paul as well. Did Gary Payton max his skills out a few years into career, or did he continue to hone his already developed skillset? Did Steve Nash learn any new dribbling tricks coming into his fourth year in the league, or did he simply become more comfortable with his teammates and role?


You have a great point, but does it easily transfer over to Hinrich? Duncan, Christian Laettner, Keith Vanhorn, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Damon Stoudamire, Brent Barry etc all maxed their skills out a few years into their career, and didn't improve much beyond that, so why couldn't Hinrich do the same? I would say Nash got into a great system that accentuates his skills, gained confidence, learned to take care of his body, and finally has gotten "it". However, what Nash has been doing isn't something that is easily replicated; therefore, it isn't fair to Hinrich to expect him to mature into what Nash is.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

sloth said:


> I think Hinrich can max out as like a Chauncey Billup level player, a guy that can defend, and make some big shots. Hinrich will be a good part of the Bulls championship team, but he'll just be a role player. Gordon and Thomas are going to be the stars on the team, it'll be an amazing team though, because Thabo and Nocioni (and Deng if they keep him) all should be fringe star level also, and they might even get Greg Oden....


I can actually see Hinrich maturing into a poor man's Gary Payton. However, I agree, this Bulls team has loads of potential, but I just wish they would get that clear go-to-guy (franchise type) of player. Adding Oden to a defensive team of Hinrich, Thabo, Nocioni, Thomas and Wallace would put this team over the top defesively to the point where it would be scary. IMHO, the Bulls should trade Deng and Gordon for a player like Paul Pierce.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Hell no, we are not trading Gordon. Maybe Deng and PJ Brown for Pierce.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ralaw said:


> Duncan, Christian Laettner, Keith Vanhorn, Shareef Abdur-Rahim


All big men...not a fair comparison for any guard.



> Damon Stoudamire


5'10" shoot-first PG.



> Brent Barry


6'7" spot-up shooter who throughout his career has alternated between coming off the bench and starting. His best seasons shooting the ball were his 6th, 7th and 9th seasons in the league.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I think the fact that Paul is comparable to Hinrich as a rookie is saying something. Hinrich is a nice player, but Paul is superior point guard. When it comes to things like court vision, and being able to make the smart/difficult pass, Paul blows Hinrich out of the water. Hinrich is good because he's an above average mix of scoring and poing guard skills. But Paul has some _special_ skills as a point guard, he can penetrate better, and always has time to work on his shot. Defensively though Hinrich might win out, but that could be it.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> All big men...not a fair comparison for any guard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL, I expected this type of rebuttle. However, the point wasn't position for position or stye of play for stye of play, but rather, the fact that it's possible for a player to peak early. I guess Hinrich is destined for greatness because their isn't another 6'3 190 pound como guard, who has an inconsistent jumpshot, average ball handling skills, who plays good defense, and is the ultimate role player to compare him to. 

What I also find amusing is how in comparing Paul to Hinrich, the Hinrich supports generally look at Hinrich's potential while looking at Paul for the player he is today.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ralaw said:


> LOL, I expected this type of rebuttle. However, the point wasn't position for position or stye of play for stye of play, but rather, the fact that it's possible for a player to peak early.


Sure it is. But why do you think it'll happen to Hinrich, and not Paul?



> What I also find amusing is how in comparing Paul to Hinrich, the Hinrich supports generally look at Hinrich's potential while looking at Paul for the player he is today.


Not buying it.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Sure it is. But why do you think it'll happen to Hinrich, and not Paul?


It very well could happen to both players, but if it did, I would still take Paul.




VincentVega said:


> Not buying it.


Honestly, after I posted it I saw that it could be argued the other way as well, so it really has no value.


----------



## benfica (Jul 17, 2002)

I think Greece really exploited C. Paul D. big time.


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

benfica said:


> I think Greece really *exploited * C. Paul D. big time.


I doubt he was selected for the team based on his D.

I guess what I'm trying to say is he didn't go into the FIBA games with everyone thinking he was some kind of great defender.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

benfica said:


> I think Greece really exploited C. Paul D. big time.


Even still that's about the only aspect of the game Hinrich clearly wins out in.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

_Dre_ said:


> ...but Paul is superior point guard. *When it comes to things like court vision, and being able to make the smart/difficult pass*, Paul blows Hinrich out of the water. Hinrich is good because he's an above average mix of scoring and poing guard skills. But Paul has some _special_ skills as a point guard, he can penetrate better, and always has time to work on his shot. Defensively though Hinrich might win out, but that could be it.


Bulls fan here. Hinrich is a great combo that can fit as a role player/3rd option, but he is never going to be as good as Paul unless he really grooves his shot. He just can't get to the rim. Can make an initial penetration but then is stuck. Loses some court vision while he is at it.

Hinrich is better defensively obviously, but it's not stopper-type D. Not enough to close the gap.

Paul is a stud and I'd be a lot more comfortable finding him Bruce Bowen and Shane Battier type wings instead of needing to find Kobe\Lebron to stick next to Hinrich.

And with the mixed up salary cap, Paul is going to be maxed out but Hinrich is going to get $10+M a year. A lot for a role player.

p.s. Rather than Chandler impacting Paul's game, it's going to be Paul impacting Chandler. Chandler hasn't seen any interior penetration and dishes since Jalen Rose left the Bulls (which in whole was a very, very good thing).


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> I never compared Paul to Kobe, LeBron, etc.; however, to ignore the fact that he is on track to become the best PG in the league in a few years is being a hater.


Andre Miller, Damon Stoudamire, Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis, among others, were also on that track. It's a very deceptive track. Meanwhile, Steve Nash came off the bench his rookie year and wasn't anywhere near that track. Ditto for Chauncey Billups. Ditto for Gary Payton. Ditto for John Stockton. Be careful how you annoint point guards in their rookie years.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Andre Miller, Damon Stoudamire, Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis, among others, were also on that track. It's a very deceptive track. Meanwhile, Steve Nash came off the bench his rookie year and wasn't anywhere near that track. Ditto for Chauncey Billups. Ditto for Gary Payton. Ditto for John Stockton. Be careful how you annoint point guards in their rookie years.


I believe in Chris Paul, as for your comparisons to Miller, Stoudamire, Marbury and Francis, I believe Paul is a better pure PG, so this is what will seperate him from them. I think Paul's career will unfold similar to Isiah Thomas' career.

I could use the argument against Hinrich, that college players who play 4 years in college peak within their first 3-4 seasons in the league, but would that be fair?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> I believe in Chris Paul, as for your comparisons to Miller, Stoudamire, Marbury and Francis, I believe Paul is a better pure PG, so this is what will seperate him from them. I think Paul's career will unfold similar to Isiah Thomas' career.


Well hindsight is 20/20 and some of those guys were compared to Isiah Thomas too, ironically (all of them except Miller). We'll have to see. 



ralaw said:


> I could use the argument against Hinrich, that college players who play 4 years in college peak within their first 3-4 seasons in the league, but would that be fair?


Sure, you could argue that if you wanted, but are you? We're speculating about their future, you can argue what you like. There are arguments for every outcome.


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Andre Miller, Damon Stoudamire, Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis, among others, were also on that track. It's a very deceptive track.


I'll just inject here and disagree with this logic. None of Miller, Stoudamire, Marbury, or Francis were nearly as effective as Paul in their rookie seasons. All were significantly less efficient and turned the ball over much more. None had a PER within even 4 points of Paul's. They just don't seem to be very good indicators either way about his future.



> Meanwhile, Steve Nash came off the bench his rookie year and wasn't anywhere near that track. Ditto for Chauncey Billups. Ditto for Gary Payton. Ditto for John Stockton. Be careful how you annoint point guards in their rookie years.


As for this, it's basically meaningless in this discussion. The fact that some other great point guards struggled in their rookie seasons doesn't tell us anything about the future career of a point guard who _didn't_ struggle early. Most point guards that struggle in their rookie season do so, not because their a John Stockton or Gary Payton waiting to happen, but because they are simply not that good. Paul's great performance his rookie season seems to make it much less probable that he's in the "not that good" category.

Fact is, there have been precious, precious few point guards to come into the league at age 21 and do what Paul just did.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Rather say what I think about Chris Paul we'll talk about what NBA coaches think about Chris Paul.I don't know exactly what that is,but I can look at the games that were played against the Hornets in the second half of last season and see exactly what they thought by the fact that they all designed collapsing defenses to stop him from from getting to the rim.Everyone played him with their best perimeter defender and had their bigs sag into the paint because they knew he was going to beat the guy guarding him.They didn't worry about the other perimeter players for the Hornets hitting shots.It's almost the exact defense that the Pistons used against Lebron James in the playoffs.

Now I only watched about 15 regular season Bulls games,but I never saw anyone play anything except straight up man to man against Hinrich.I never saw any coach design a defense that says I have to stop Kirk Hinrich,but they did this for Chris Paul.Is that a coincidence?I really think it tells you all you need to know.When the opponent's gameplan is pretty much to stop you that says all any reasonable person should need to know.


----------



## fuzznuts (May 23, 2006)

johnston797 said:


> p.s. Rather than Chandler impacting Paul's game, it's going to be Paul impacting Chandler. Chandler hasn't seen any interior penetration and dishes since Jalen Rose left the Bulls (which in whole was a very, very good thing).



betcha Chandler causes Paul's turnovers to increase this year!! :banana:


----------



## frank9007 (Jul 4, 2006)

ralaw said:


> I think Paul's career will unfold similar to *Isiah Thomas*' career.


LMAO your comparing Paul to a legend?

Stop this nonsense!

Isiah Thomas was the best (little man PG) in the entire history of the NBA.

Top 50 greatest players of all time.

Isiah Won at every level of basketball, High School State Title,College National Title,NBA Titles,Gold Medal. 

Comparing Paul's future to that of Isiah Thomas is absurd.

Paul will be a solid player, but he will never be as good as Isiah Thomas.

Isiah was a special player like Jordan,Magic,Bird,Karrem,Wilt ect.


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

frank9007 said:


> LMAO your comparing Paul to a legend?
> 
> Stop this nonsense!
> 
> ...


Sounds funny huh? But apparently ralaw isn't the only one that has compared Paul to Thomas. I've read where many have compared him to Thomas, *at least as a rookie.*

_NEW YORK -- In the tunnel leading to the Madison Square Garden locker rooms stood a former point guard in a suit, watching the team he now runs mail in its fifth straight loss Saturday night.

The biggest reason: a little man who, if the man in the suit could play back a tape of his playing days in his mind's eye, would have reminded him of himself, Isiah Thomas.


"I was never that good," Thomas said._

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php...lRUV5eTY4NjY1NzMmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

frank9007 said:


> LMAO your comparing Paul to a legend?
> 
> Stop this nonsense!
> 
> ...


Says the guy who believes the Knicks are a great team and Marbury is an elite PG. 

You seem to think you know a lot about the future of the league and it's players. You're agruing as if you are certain my opinion is totally wrong when the reality is you can't prove it to be otherwise. FYI, just because I stated I believe his career will play out something similar to Isiah's doesn't actually mean he will fit Isiah Thomas' to a "T". Stop taking things so literal. However, using his rookie season as indication, he will be an elite PG for the majority of his career. Bringing up the point that Zeke was the best "little pg", that he won on every level of basketball, or the point that you believe Zeke was a special player adds nothing to this discussion.


----------



## frank9007 (Jul 4, 2006)

girllovesthegame said:


> Sounds funny huh? But apparently ralaw isn't the only one that has compared Paul to Thomas. I've read where many have compared him to Thomas, *at least as a rookie.*
> 
> _NEW YORK -- In the tunnel leading to the Madison Square Garden locker rooms stood a former point guard in a suit, watching the team he now runs mail in its fifth straight loss Saturday night.
> 
> ...


LOL! What is Isiah Thomas going to say? He's a class act he will say the right things.

Is Zeke supposed to say "Paul will never be as good as me, i'm better"

What would you say if Zeke said that? You would kill him thats what you would do.

Listen this talk is all politics nothing more, nothing less.

Look the last comment he pretty much gave it away its not to be taken seriously. "I was never that good," Thomas said. 

Please don't compare Paul to a legend like Thomas.


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

frank9007 said:


> LOL! What is Isiah Thomas going to say? He's a class act he will say the right things.
> 
> Is Zeke supposed to say "Paul will never be as good as me, i'm better"
> 
> ...


You're still not getting it. People who compare Paul to Isiah compares him to a rookie Isiah, not a legend Isiah. Why would anyone compare a rookie to a legend? Out of all the comparisons I've heard Paul compared to, I hear Isiah the most. Again, as a rookie.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

girllovesthegame said:


> You're still not getting it. People who compare Paul to Isiah compares him to a rookie Isiah, not a legend Isiah. Why would anyone compare a rookie to a legend? Out of all the comparisons I've heard Paul compared to, I hear Isiah the most. Again, as a rookie.


 Exactly, people were favoring him to Thomas when he was at Wake. People need to chill with their heart attacks every time someone is compared to a legend. I think the similarities in their games are obvious...I'm not implying Paul will have the career Thomas will, which is what most people misinterpret and get mad about, but if I were to compare Paul to anyone Thomas is the person.

I find it funny that you want to go all or nothing. If Thomas were to say Paul will never be better than him, you say people will kill him, but if Thomas said Paul was better than him as a rook...you say he doesn't mean it. Hmm...


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Paul is better than Magic Frankie Boy,but only when he's playing the Knicks...Of course they also make Ben Gordon look like the second coming of Bernard King.


----------



## frank9007 (Jul 4, 2006)

Diable said:


> Paul is better than Magic Frankie Boy,but only when he's playing the Knicks...Of course they also make Ben Gordon look like the second coming of Bernard King.


 > :wait: >


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Diophantos said:


> I'll just inject here and disagree with this logic. None of Miller, Stoudamire, Marbury, or Francis were nearly as effective as Paul in their rookie seasons. All were significantly less efficient and turned the ball over much more. None had a PER within even 4 points of Paul's. They just don't seem to be very good indicators either way about his future.


Miller had a PER of 20 in his rookie year, and 21.8 in his 2nd year. Where is he now? The track to being the best point guard in the NBA led him to Denver where most would call him an average point guard, at best. Francis was 18.4 his rookie year and 21.9 his 2nd year, again, not exactly the most well-respected point guard out there now. Paul has had one year at 22.2, let's not put him in the hall of fame yet. 



Diophantos said:


> As for this, it's basically meaningless in this discussion. The fact that some other great point guards struggled in their rookie seasons doesn't tell us anything about the future career of a point guard who _didn't_ struggle early. Most point guards that struggle in their rookie season do so, not because their a John Stockton or Gary Payton waiting to happen, but because they are simply not that good. Paul's great performance his rookie season seems to make it much less probable that he's in the "not that good" category.


I was pointing out that there is no "track" to becoming a great point guard. Having a great statistical season your rookie year doesn't put you on the "right track" to becoming a great point guard. There have been a point guards who started the same way who fizzled out. Likewise, there are great point guards who had to ease their way in.


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Miller had a PER of 20 in his rookie year, and 21.8 in his 2nd year. Where is he now? The track to being the best point guard in the NBA led him to Denver where most would call him an average point guard, at best. Francis was 18.4 his rookie year and 21.9 his 2nd year, again, not exactly the most well-respected point guard out there now. Paul has had one year at 22.2, let's not put him in the hall of fame yet.


You quote wrong stats. Miller's PER was 18 his rookie year (23 years old) and 20 his second year (24 years old).

Francis's stats are as you say them--he put up a PER of 18 in his rookie year, at age 22.

Paul put up a PER of over 22 his rookie season, at age 20.

As I said, that's a difference of 4 points in each case, and Paul was younger than either of those two. That four point difference--from 22 to 18--is a significant one. This year it was the PER difference between guys like Ray Allen and Carmelo Anthony around 22, to guys like Mike Bibby, Jason Terry, and Drew Gooden around 18.

None of the guys you mention had rookie seasons comparable to Paul's, and so none of them serve as very good predictors of his future progress.



> I was pointing out that there is no "track" to becoming a great point guard. Having a great statistical season your rookie year doesn't put you on the "right track" to becoming a great point guard. There have been a point guards who started the same way who fizzled out. Likewise, there are great point guards who had to ease their way in.


While there may be no "right track" to becoming a great point guard, the fact is that excellence is excellence, and the better you play early on, the closer you are to being great. Of course, players can both fall off after good early seasons and bounce back from poor early seasons. But in general, early success, at the level Paul has shown, predicts future success. Why wouldn't it?


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Right now, Kirk Hinrich.

With the future in mind the answer has to be Paul.


----------



## Lebbron (Nov 20, 2005)

OK I've getting tired of the Marbury, Francis arguments. I understand he is not a lock to be a great player in the future but he is not the same type of player IMO. 

Since when does a great rookie season (highest PER for a PG), automatically mean someone is going to be a bad player. For all the Francis, Marbury, and Damons you have a Magic, Kidd, Isiah, Oscar who started strong at PG and kept getting stronger. I'm not saying Paul will be as good as him, but having a great rookie rookie season doesn't really disqualify him. He plays a style that makes him better on a better team.


----------



## wightnoiser (Oct 29, 2003)

Lebbron said:


> OK I've getting tired of the Marbury, Francis arguments. I understand he is not a lock to be a great player in the future but he is not the same type of player IMO.
> 
> Since when does a great rookie season (highest PER for a PG), automatically mean someone is going to be a bad player. For all the Francis, Marbury, and Damons you have a Magic, Kidd, Isiah, Oscar who started strong at PG and kept getting stronger. I'm not saying Paul will be as good as him, but having a great rookie rookie season doesn't really disqualify him. He plays a style that makes him better on a better team.



Rep dude... 

The Marbury Francis comparisons are silly if you've ever seen Paul play... which I'm guessing half the people on this thread hadn't until the USA basketball team.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I've been watching Paul play since his senior year in high school. He's a fabulous talent.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Air Fly said:


> I beg to differ.
> 
> Chris Paul fits better in any type of team you trying to bulid.


Except the one the bulls have built. Chicago would get KILLED if they replaced Hinrich with Paul and DIDN't Move Gordon too.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

sloth said:


> Hell no, we are not trading Gordon. Maybe Deng and PJ Brown for Pierce.


:laugh: :laugh:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Wow, a Gordon and Paul backcourt would actually be amazing....

Are the Hornets on the phone offering Paul yet?

With Ben Wallace and Tyrus in the front court now, wow, we need to get Chris Paul over here.

Nocioni and Gordon are some of the best three point shooters in the league, and Deng is one of the better ones from midrange. Wallace and Thomas can catch passes good and dunk...wow, Bulls need Paul, he could penetrate, and then kick it out to Gordon, Nocioni, or Deng for the open jumpshot, or Wallace and Thomas for the easy score inside...git r' done paxson.


----------



## Lebbron (Nov 20, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> Except the one the bulls have built. Chicago would get KILLED if they replaced Hinrich with Paul and DIDN't Move Gordon too.


??


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Lebbron said:


> ??


Gordon and Paul absolutely could not co-exist in the same backcourt. Defensively they'd get killed. And its funny because I think Gordon is a better man defender than paul, but that isn't saying anything at all. They are both matadors, compared to hinrich.

The bulls are the one team in the league to whom, hinrich is likely in fact more valuable than paul, considering their current makeup.

If hinrich were swapped for paul, they would have to get rid of gordon too.

I cannot think of too many players that I would give up both gordon AND hinrich for. Maybe 6 or 7. But among those 6 or 7, NOT one of them has the last name paul.


----------



## Lebbron (Nov 20, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> Gordon and Paul absolutely could not co-exist in the same backcourt. Defensively they'd get killed. And its funny because I think Gordon is a better man defender than paul, but that isn't saying anything at all. They are both matadors, compared to hinrich.
> 
> The bulls are the one team in the league to whom, hinrich is likely in fact more valuable than paul, considering their current makeup.
> 
> ...


Paul is not a terrible defender he is average. Paul at PG and Speedy at SG was a pretty solid backcourt. Paul and Gordon would be sick. Just because other teams have a mismatch doesn't mean they're going to be successful with it.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Lebbron said:


> Paul is not a terrible defender he is average. Paul at PG and Speedy at SG was a pretty solid backcourt. Paul and Gordon would be sick. Just because other teams have a mismatch doesn't mean they're going to be successful with it.


The bulls played as well as they did last year because of their defense. Now I know it isn't as sikkkkk as flashy passes, great shooting and penetration, but defense is the identity of that team.

As for paul being an average defender. "Average" in the NBA today is another word for "poor". Pairing him with his defensive equal in Gordon is defensive suicide. The bulls would have to score 110 points a night to win.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> As for paul being an average defender. "Average" in the NBA today is another word for "poor". Pairing him with his defensive equal in Gordon is defensive suicide. The bulls would have to score 110 points a night to win.


I find it hard to believe Hinrich's defensive presence is that great. The Bulls opponents ppg average was 97ppg. Hinrich isn't that great of a defender to where if he was replaced with Paul the Bulls' opponents ppg would jump 13ppg. Some of you guys are making it seem as if Hinrich is a world class defender or something, which he is not. BTW, the Hornets' opponents ppg averages was 91ppg with Paul and Claxton in the backcourt the majority of the season.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> I find it hard to believe Hinrich's defensive presence is that great. The Bulls opponents ppg average was 97ppg. Hinrich isn't that great of a defender to where if he was replaced with Paul the Bulls' opponents ppg would jump 13ppg. Some of you guys are making it seem as if Hinrich is a world class defender or something, which he is not. BTW, the Hornets' opponents ppg averages was 91ppg with Paul and Claxton in the backcourt the majority of the season.


The Bulls have led the league in OppFG% for two years, and they have defended the shooting guard position better than almost every team in the league. Not only is Hinrich a better defender than Chris Paul, but he can defend both guard positions. Chris Paul is a mediocre defender at point guard, he would be absolutely piss poor defensively trying to match up with shooting guards. 

Hinrich is a shooting guard as much as he is a point guard, which makes this comparison more difficult. He can handle the point guard responsibility on both ends, but he can guard shooting guards as well as he does point guards, and is really good at running off screens and shooting off the catch. The Bulls have put so much responsibility on his shoulders that it's hard to know what his role would be on another team.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The Bulls have led the league in OppFG% for two years, and they have defended the shooting guard position better than almost every team in the league. Not only is Hinrich a better defender than Chris Paul, but he can defend both guard positions. Chris Paul is a mediocre defender at point guard, he would be absolutely piss poor defensively trying to match up with shooting guards.
> 
> Hinrich is a shooting guard as much as he is a point guard, which makes this comparison more difficult. He can handle the point guard responsibility on both ends, but he can guard shooting guards as well as he does point guards, and is really good at running off screens and shooting off the catch. The Bulls have put so much responsibility on his shoulders that it's hard to know what his role would be on another team.


I commend Hinrich on his defensive versatility, but this doesn't mean he's a world class defender, as some are making him out to be. Obviously, he is a better defender than Chris Paul, but on the other hand, Paul is a greater offensive player. I would venture to say, as with most good defensive teams, much of the Bulls team defensive success, is due to a team effort over Hinrich's percieved individual "greatness" as a defender.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I thought it was conceded that Hinrich was better than Paul on defense.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Hinrich was the only guy who even came close to breaking D-Wade's rhythm in last year's playoffs.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

Hinrich is very solid, but Paul is just more talented.


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

Chris Paul is the better nba pg , but Kirk is the better Fiba pg


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> Hinrich was the only guy who even came close to breaking D-Wade's rhythm in last year's playoffs.


..and the tandem of Eric Dampier and Desagana Diop were the only players who came close to breaking Shaq's rhythm in last years playoffs, so what does that tell us?


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Diop, actually, did a pretty good job all playoffs, and Dampier, when motivated and out of foul trouble, is a solid defensive player. Not to mention they were guarding an over-the-hill Shaq as opposed to a primetime player like Wade.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

ralaw said:


> ..and the tandem of Eric Dampier and Desagana Diop were the only players who came close to breaking Shaq's rhythm in last years playoffs, so what does that tell us?


That Shaq is declining? :whoknows: I don't think you're saying what you're trying to say.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> Diop, actually, did a pretty good job all playoffs, and Dampier, when motivated and out of foul trouble, is a solid defensive player. Not to mention they were guarding an over-the-hill Shaq as opposed to a primetime player like Wade.





_Dre_ said:


> That Shaq is declining? :whoknows: I don't think you're saying what you're trying to say.


This isn't about an over-the-hill Shaq. It's about bringing up an irrelevent point in a discussion about Hinrich and Paul. Hinrich's defense on Wade was decent, but the reality is the Bulls still lost the series in 6 games and Wade's averages were still decent. Hinrich is a good and versatile defender, but not the elite defender many on this board make him out to be, and certainly isn't great enough to overtake the playmaking ability Chris Paul brings to a team.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

ralaw said:


> This isn't about an over-the-hill Shaq. It's about bringing up an irrelevent point in a discussion about Hinrich and Paul.


Oh...That wasn't clear to me.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> It's about bringing up an irrelevent point in a discussion about Hinrich and Paul.


It's not irrelevant. You said Hinrich isn't a "world class" defender, whatever that means, but holding Dwyane Wade to under 25 points per game over 6 games on under 45% from the field is certainly about as "world class" as it gets for a playoff series, especially considering how he destroyed any defender he saw after the Bulls series.

Wade averaged 24.7 points on 44% from the field in the series, and it's not like Hinrich took him by surprise either. Hinrich has done a fantastic job on Wade many times. In the three regular season meetings between the Bulls and Heat, Wade shot 24% (9-37 FG) and only averaged 12 points per game. I think you really underrate his defense. 



ralaw said:


> but the reality is the Bulls still lost the series in 6 games and Wade's averages were still decent.


I don't see how this is relevant. There were two 60 win teams that also lost to the Heat in 6 games. The Bulls were a 41 win team, and despite Wade struggling against Hinrich, the Heat still had too much firepower for the Bulls to win the series. Still the fact that they took the Heat just as far as 60 win teams like the Pistons and Mavericks only works in Hinrich's favor, not against him like you're implying.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SeaNet said:


> Hinrich is a starter. Paul is a star (in the making).


This pretty much sums it up.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It's not irrelevant. You said Hinrich isn't a "world class" defender, whatever that means, but holding Dwyane Wade to under 25 points per game over 6 games on under 45% from the field is certainly about as "world class" as it gets for a playoff series, especially considering how he destroyed any defender he saw after the Bulls series.
> 
> Wade averaged 24.7 points on 44% from the field in the series, and it's not like Hinrich took him by surprise either. Hinrich has done a fantastic job on Wade many times. In the three regular season meetings between the Bulls and Heat, Wade shot 24% (9-37 FG) and only averaged 12 points per game. I think you really underrate his defense.


I commend Hinrich on this, but this is one player. It seems to this is more of a case where Hinrich matches up well against Wade, as opposed to Hinrich being this elite defender. Wade's game basically is quickness and Hinrich's defensive game is basically reliant on quickness; therefore, the skills match up well. I hold off on placing a defender such as Hinrich on elite levels until I see them do it time and time again on elite offensive players, such as Wade.



Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't see how this is relevant. There were two 60 win teams that also lost to the Heat in 6 games. The Bulls were a 41 win team, and despite Wade struggling against Hinrich, the Heat still had too much firepower for the Bulls to win the series. Still the fact that they took the Heat just as far as 60 win teams like the Pistons and Mavericks only works in Hinrich's favor, not against him like you're implying.


Again, this may be case where the team matched up well with the Heat or maybe the Heat took them lightly in the beginning of the series. However, I wouldn't give all of the credit to Hinrich for the team's two wins in the playoffs, as this team is built on a team effort offensively and defensively.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ralaw said:


> ..and the tandem of Eric Dampier and Desagana Diop were the only players who came close to breaking Shaq's rhythm in last years playoffs, so what does that tell us?


Have Dampier and Diop given Shaq problems his entire career?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> I commend Hinrich on this, but this is one player. It seems to this is more of a case where Hinrich matches up well against Wade, as opposed to Hinrich being this elite defender. Wade's game basically is quickness and Hinrich's defensive game is basically reliant on quickness; therefore, the skills match up well. I hold off on placing a defender such as Hinrich on elite levels until I see them do it time and time again on elite offensive players, such as Wade.


It's not just Wade. He has done a job on Iverson, Allen, Hamilton and he even made life real difficult for Kobe one time this year. Basically any shooting guard 6'6 or under. Hinrich's defense isn't all about quickness, it's discipline. He never ever falls for Wade's little seductive headfake, or anything of that nature, but he is always contesting jumpshots. He makes you take difficult shots and cuts off your angles. It's what happens when you mix great athleticism, with the basketball understanding and defensive discipline of a coaches son. That's what Hinrich is. Not too many players in today's league have that combination. 

You can hold off on giving him due though, it does take defensive players longer to get the proper credit. Like when Ron Artest was in Chicago, I was talking up his defense when everyone else was still in the dark about it. Then when he went to the Pacers, he started to get his credit. I just know a great defender when I see one. 



ralaw said:


> Again, this may be case where the team matched up well with the Heat or maybe the Heat took them lightly in the beginning of the series. However, I wouldn't give all of the credit to Hinrich for the team's two wins in the playoffs, as this team is built on a team effort offensively and defensively.


Applying this to the thread, you could say this about Chris Paul. Hornets won games and almost made the playoffs because teams underestimated them, because they had a great home crowd, and because they hustled and played defense. The actual area where Chris Paul excels, which is on offense, is where the Hornets were the worst. They were one of the five worst offensive teams in the league. They won because of hustle, defense and their 2nd unit. Chris Paul wasn't any more important in those aspects than any other starter.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Applying this to the thread, you could say this about Chris Paul. Hornets won games and almost made the playoffs because teams underestimated them, because they had a great home crowd, and because they hustled and played defense. The actual area where Chris Paul excels, which is on offense, is where the Hornets were the worst. They were one of the five worst offensive teams in the league. They won because of hustle, defense and their 2nd unit. Chris Paul wasn't any more important in those aspects than any other starter.


How does this relate to anything?It's really the dumbest thing to keep repeating this when the fact is that the Hornets won 18 games the previous year while playing in the Southwest Division.They won 38 games this seson in the same division with two 60 win teams plus Memphis.Anyone who actually watched the games knew that the Hornets had three good players last season,David West,Chris Paul and Speedy Claxton.They were a bad shooting team and this allowed the opponents to defend Paul and West without any regard to the other perimeter players.

It's a stone cold fact that Paul was less effective because of the quality of the other players on his team and you are simply bending a bunch of numbers to fit a reality that you prefer.It doesn't have a damned thing to do with this argument and only proves that you never really saw the Hornets play.The Bulls won 41 games in the Central last season...What does that say about their leader.If you can't find anything less lame than this you should probably quit.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It's not just Wade. He has done a job on Iverson, Allen, Hamilton and he even made life real difficult for Kobe one time this year. Basically any shooting guard 6'6 or under. Hinrich's defense isn't all about quickness, it's discipline. He never ever falls for Wade's little seductive headfake, or anything of that nature, but he is always contesting jumpshots. He makes you take difficult shots and cuts off your angles. It's what happens when you mix great athleticism, with the basketball understanding and defensive discipline of a coaches son. That's what Hinrich is. Not too many players in today's league have that combination.
> 
> You can hold off on giving him due though, it does take defensive players longer to get the proper credit. Like when Ron Artest was in Chicago, I was talking up his defense when everyone else was still in the dark about it. Then when he went to the Pacers, he started to get his credit. I just know a great defender when I see one.
> 
> Applying this to the thread, you could say this about Chris Paul. Hornets won games and almost made the playoffs because teams underestimated them, because they had a great home crowd, and because they hustled and played defense. The actual area where Chris Paul excels, which is on offense, is where the Hornets were the worst. They were one of the five worst offensive teams in the league. They won because of hustle, defense and their 2nd unit. Chris Paul wasn't any more important in those aspects than any other starter.


I've already said, Hinrich is a good defender; however, I will hold off on placing him in elite company in the league as many in this thread are claiming he is. I've been watcing Hinrich since his freshman season at Kansas, and always have liked him as a player, so telling me you know a good defender when you see one, really isn't telling me much, as most people have praised his defensive abilities. However, this isn't about his defensive abilities or Paul's offensive abilities, this is about comparing a role player to an elite player. In my opinion comparing him on an equal plain (and in some cases above) to a Chris Paul is going overboard. Hinrich is a good player as long as his overall ability is kept in it's proper perspective. 

In my opinion, Hinrich like AK-47 is a good player, who brings offensive and defensive ability to any team; however, this doesn't make them an elite player who should be compared to players like Melo or Paul. In my opinion, people tend to fall too much in love with players just because they can play both ends of the court. I understand the whole, "They're complete players" argument, but this still doesn't make them elite. The original thread question was, "Which player would you want to build your team around?" So, knowing this anyone who would build a team around Hinrich is delusional and the same goes for AK-47. These types of players are role players and that is it. In both cases, neither's players offensive and defensive abilities combined equate to the value a Chris Paul or Carmelo Anthony bring to a franchise.


----------



## Lebbron (Nov 20, 2005)

ralaw said:


> I've already said, Hinrich is a good defender; however, I will hold off on placing him in elite company in the league as many in this thread are claiming he is. I've been watcing Hinrich since his freshman season at Kansas, and always have liked him as a player, so telling me you know a good defender when you see one, really isn't telling me much, as most people have praised his defensive abilities. However, this isn't about his defensive abilities or Paul's offensive abilities, this is about comparing a role player to an elite player. In my opinion comparing him on an equal plain (and in some cases above) to a Chris Paul is going overboard. Hinrich is a good player as long as his overall ability is kept in it's proper perspective.
> 
> In my opinion, Hinrich like AK-47 is a good player, who brings offensive and defensive ability to any team; however, this doesn't make them an elite player who should be compared to players like Melo or Paul. In my opinion, people tend to fall too much in love with players just because they can play both ends of the court. I understand the whole, "They're complete players" argument, but this still doesn't make them elite. The original thread question was, "Which player would you want to build your team around?" So, knowing this anyone who would build a team around Hinrich is delusional and the same goes for AK-47. These types of players are role players and that is it. In both cases, neither's players offensive and defensive abilities combined equate to the value a Chris Paul or Carmelo Anthony bring to a franchise.


Don't bring AK-47 into this Jazz fans already hate Paul.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

ralaw said:


> I've already said, Hinrich is a good defender; however, I will hold off on placing him in elite company in the league as many in this thread are claiming he is. I've been watcing Hinrich since his freshman season at Kansas, and always have liked him as a player, so telling me you know a good defender when you see one, really isn't telling me much, as most people have praised his defensive abilities. However, this isn't about his defensive abilities or Paul's offensive abilities, this is about comparing a role player to an elite player. In my opinion comparing him on an equal plain (and in some cases above) to a Chris Paul is going overboard. Hinrich is a good player as long as his overall ability is kept in it's proper perspective.
> 
> In my opinion, Hinrich like AK-47 is a good player, who brings offensive and defensive ability to any team; however, this doesn't make them an elite player who should be compared to players like Melo or Paul. In my opinion, people tend to fall too much in love with players just because they can play both ends of the court. I understand the whole, "They're complete players" argument, but this still doesn't make them elite. The original thread question was, "Which player would you want to build your team around?" So, knowing this anyone who would build a team around Hinrich is delusional and the same goes for AK-47. These types of players are role players and that is it. In both cases, neither's players offensive and defensive abilities combined equate to the value a Chris Paul or Carmelo Anthony bring to a franchise.


How is AK-47 a role player? He has earned the respect of NBA coaches and been selected an all-star, while Melo does his scoring thing and implodes in the playoffs, and has never earned an all-star selection, despite his big numbers at the break last season.

Melo and Paul are not elite. No way, no how. 

As for the topic, Paul and Hinrich are both overrated in my opinion. The two of them were very spotty in the tournament, and just plain terrible against greece. Who is better now? I think it's Hinrich. 

And if Hinrich was such an elite defender, he wouldnt have been beaten off the dribble so badly in some of those Fiba games against players with slower foot speed. Or he would have played under instead of over on all those high pick&rolls.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

bballlife said:


> And if Hinrich was such an elite defender, he wouldnt have been beaten off the dribble so badly in some of those Fiba games against players with slower foot speed. Or he would have played under instead of over on all those high pick&rolls.


Actually, there have been numerous articles and quotes praising Hinrich's defense in the tournament. Greece aside, he was probably the team's best defender.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Actually, there have been numerous articles and quotes praising Hinrich's defense in the tournament. Greece aside, he was probably the team's best defender.



Oh, don't get me wrong, he probably was. Hinrich, Paul, Joe Johnson, and the rest of the wing players over-played consistently and kept the perimeter very tight a majority of the time. The problems came when they got too aggressive, and were caught too far out, getting picked apart in high pick/roll/pick/pop situations and allowing some dribble penetration. 

For most of the tournament they kept a tight perimeter, forced turnovers, contested many shots, and gambled at times. At other times, their defensive strategy cost them. (Their offensive strategy is why they lost, but that is another post)

To be clear, I think Hinrich is a very smart, above average defender who puts forth as much energy on D as he does on O. But I only think the league has 4-5 elite defenders and he is currently not one of them.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Nice analysis. I agree on a lot of points.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

It's called coaching. Coach K's hack em on the perimeter play man to man 35 feet out doesn't work in International ball. These guys aren't teams from the Southern conference.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

:rofl:

I remember Hinrich vs. Crawford...


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

HKF said:


> It's called coaching. Coach K's hack em on the perimeter play man to man 35 feet out doesn't work in International ball. These guys aren't teams from the Southern conference.


Obviously not.Southern Conference refs are superb and they know what a moving screen looks like.No guard in the world is going to be a good defender if the sort of screens that Greece set are allowed.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Diable said:


> you are simply bending a bunch of numbers to fit a reality that you prefer.


You want to talk about lame, you're all about the numbers when they work for your argument, but as soon as someone throws out numbers that work against you, you suddenly abandon your love for stats and turn into one of those "stats are for nerds, watch the games" type of fans. Choose a side and stick to it.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> However, this isn't about his defensive abilities or Paul's offensive abilities, this is about comparing a role player to an elite player.


If I thought we were comparing an elite player to a roleplayer, we'd be in agreement. Like I said, neither of these guys are "elite" or to be less vague, franchise players. They're both roleplayers in my opinion. 



ralaw said:


> In my opinion, Hinrich like AK-47 is a good player, who brings offensive and defensive ability to any team; however, this doesn't make them an elite player who should be compared to players like Melo or Paul. In my opinion, people tend to fall too much in love with players just because they can play both ends of the court. I understand the whole, "They're complete players" argument, but this still doesn't make them elite. The original thread question was, "Which player would you want to build your team around?" So, knowing this anyone who would build a team around Hinrich is delusional and the same goes for AK-47. These types of players are role players and that is it. In both cases, neither's players offensive and defensive abilities combined equate to the value a Chris Paul or Carmelo Anthony bring to a franchise.


Kirilenko and Melo is a bad example, because the main reason you take Melo is based on durability. Kirilenko doesn't even have a big enough sample size to compare with Melo. Either way, I feel like you took a comparison that's conveniant to your opinion, and I can do the same. I'd take Ron Artest over Paul Pierce (assuming both are healthy physically and mentally), yet Paul Pierce falls into the "elite" or "star" status you talk about, while Artest plays like a roleplayer.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Kirilenko and Melo is a bad example, because the main reason you take Melo is based on durability. Kirilenko doesn't even have a big enough sample size to compare with Melo. Either way, I feel like you took a comparison that's conveniant to your opinion, and I can do the same. I'd take Ron Artest over Paul Pierce (assuming both are healthy physically and mentally), yet Paul Pierce falls into the "elite" or "star" status you talk about, while Artest plays like a roleplayer.


The Melo vs. AK-47 comment wasn't meant to be conveniant to my opinion. It was actually in reference to the thread in this forum where the two are being compared and people are actually taking AK-47 simply because he gets a few blocks and steals on defense. If I was building a franchise from scratch I would take Paul Pierce over Ron Artest.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Diable said:


> Obviously not.Southern Conference refs are superb and they know what a moving screen looks like.No guard in the world is going to be a good defender if the sort of screens that Greece set are allowed.



No kidding. It is bad enough that Schortsianitis is 320 and quite willing to set screens, but allowing him to push into players and move on his screens was just a joke.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

You do realize that one of the main reasons USA basketball has fallen apart is because people choose to take a player like Paul over a player like Hinrich...

The question is who you would rather build your team around. If this means you get either Hinrich or Paul as the elite player in your franchise, I would give a resounding "NEITHER" as my answer. Chris Paul isn't the answer as a franchise player, and neither is Hinrich. 

If we are going to look at the question in a somewhat realistic manner, as a GM with things like salaries and team chemistry to worry about, I take Hinrich on "most" NBA teams. The situation I take Paul in is if my team is young and I'm not trying to win, but simply trying to fill seats. 

I would love to have Paul on my team, but as I said earlier, if I had to pick one in starting an NBA team, I would take Hinrich and focus on getting somebody that would benefit from playing with him as my franchise player. 

Basketball is more than scoring averages. And that is really all Paul has on Hinrich.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Then again weren't you one of those people who would choose Kevin Garnett over Tim Duncan just a few years ago? How did that work out? 

I would never take Hinrich over Paul, because Hinrich is good, but Paul is great. Paul could be an Isiah Thomas type, the most Hinrich could hope to be in his best season is Dennis Johnson or Fat Lever in an average year.

Never have I heard so much love for a guy who is decent, but nothing special.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Jonathan Watters said:


> You do realize that one of the main reasons USA basketball has fallen apart is because people choose to take a player like Paul over a player like Hinrich...
> 
> The question is who you would rather build your team around. If this means you get either Hinrich or Paul as the elite player in your franchise, I would give a resounding "NEITHER" as my answer. Chris Paul isn't the answer as a franchise player, and neither is Hinrich.
> 
> ...


I can't see how anyone who watched the Greece game would dare to mention it in defense of Hinrich.
Without rehashing the bad things he did in the second quarter,anyone who actually watched the game would realize that he was in foul trouble the whole game and fouled out at the end.He was barely a net positive in that game if you actually consider the bad things instead of only the good things.I need to find an attractive woman who can judge me based only on my good aspects and completely ignore everything I do wrong.My life would be so much better.

The reason that Paul was less effective in that game and the others at the end is that the coaches stopped pushing the pace and started running isolation plays for Wade,Anthony and Lebron instead of running a real offense.Paul is a great point guard,but only if you let him run the offense.Hinrich is a good fit with the National team only because he doesn't have to create anything when he's on the floor with players who can.


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

> Basketball is more than scoring averages. And that is really all Paul has on Hinrich.


Hmmm... Rebounding, playmaking, playing the passing lanes, field goal percentage, and hes still 4 years younger.


----------



## Dynamic™ (Jun 28, 2006)

Obviouse to see, overall, Paul is better.


----------



## Lebbron (Nov 20, 2005)

Jonathan Watters said:


> You do realize that one of the main reasons USA basketball has fallen apart is because people choose to take a player like Paul over a player like Hinrich...
> 
> The question is who you would rather build your team around. If this means you get either Hinrich or Paul as the elite player in your franchise, I would give a resounding "NEITHER" as my answer. Chris Paul isn't the answer as a franchise player, and neither is Hinrich.
> 
> ...


I can't help but feel that if Paul was white he would be considered more of a team player.


----------

