# if kirk shoots at 40% again



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

...this season, would you think less of him?

I've always been under the assumption that this is a significant flaw of his game that kirk is working very hard to change. the ONLY major flaw, as far as i'm concerned, but a flaw nontheless.

so kirk is 25 years old already. 4 years of college and 3 years of nba. i say if his shot is still only 40%, then that's where we should expect it to be, and without the expectation of him improving it, my opinion of kirk would drop i must say. but that's just b/c i thought too much of him.

you could bring up kidd, but as a playmaker, kirk is no kidd yet. nor as a rebounder, not that that's an important thing for a pg, and actually kirk is good at it, so scratch that....


thoughts? disagreements? concerns? hopes? aspirations?


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

i think Hinrich is a passer first and a shooter second. The reasons for his low shooting percentage is because other than Gordon there are not other players that the bulls can pass it to to create their own shots when they are bogged down offensively. So the ball naturally gravitates or stays in the hands of Hinrich or Gordon and Hinrich doesn't create his own shots well. 

He shoots exceptional well in the set offense when its run smoothly. His a pretty good spot up shooter, its just when he has to do things off the dribble or when its late in the shot clock he starts clanking shots. Another reason is because he expends so much energy on the defensive end, he pretty much defendds the best scorer on each team. No matter what you say offense is effected about what you do on the other end of the court.. 

I don't think his shooting is that much of a big deal. He has more options now, and another year under his belt as to know what type of players he has and he'll trust them more now to pass it and he'll also know where they like the ball. His only going to improve.. with all his other positives that he gives to the bulls it outweighs his shooting woes. Though it would be nice if it got it up to atleast 45%.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I think it'd be time to trade Kirk and go with a Gordon/Thabo backcourt if he doesn't improve his shooting any.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I'll be very concerned if his FG% doesn't rise this season. After all, now that the Bulls have Thabo, Kirk should be playing less minutes, and more minutes at PG guarding other PGs. The excuse offered up by his supporters, including me, has been that he expends so much energy on the defensive end of the court that it hurts his offense. The previous 3 seasons, he often got tired and his jumpshot suffered. 

I think 45% is a reasonable expectation since he's supposedly a terrific shooter.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Kirk is a third or fourth option currently playing as the first or second option (depending if gordon is on the floor). 

There was a comment made about MJ from the coaching staff once, people didn't realize how much having to take the last second, bail us out of the an elapsing shot clock, shot effected his shooting %. He still made alot of them but they insinuated that if he had the luxary of being a second option he fg% would be higher (Scary thought). 

Kirk's FG% I think will go up when we get another weapon on the court. Perhaps Gordon and Deng primary and secondary option and Kirk third.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

sloth said:


> I think it'd be time to trade Kirk and go with a Gordon/Thabo backcourt if he doesn't improve his shooting any.


Why would you trade our floor general in Kirk? There is noway on earth Paxson would do such a thing. Our defense starts with him, our offense starts with him. Him not improving his shooting percentage won't devalue what he means to our team. He'll improve it a few notches this year... because he'll probably need to shoot it alot less than he has in the past with added options.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> Why would you trade our floor general in Kirk? There is noway on earth Paxson would do such a thing. Our defense starts with him, our offense starts with him. Him not improving his shooting percentage won't devalue what he means to our team. He'll improve it a few notches this year... because he'll probably need to shoot it alot less than he has in the past with added options.


Our offense is watching him dribble out the shot clock, taking the ball virtually anywhere he wants, except next to the basket for a layup (most of the time).

He's actually gotten a little bit better at not hogging the ball as much and actually taking a shot next to the rack. If he does the first less and the second more, he should get easier buckets and raise his shooting %.

Anyone who's watched Nash and Hinrich won't see any similarities. Nash will post up Dirk and make baskets.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I think the switch to SG really screwed up Kirk Hinrich, I remember thinking to myself that Kirk Hinrich was going to average around 9ast a game and have around 14-15 ppg on 45% shooting but then out of neccesity they moved him to SG where he doesnt look as promising as he did as a strickly PG first guard. 

I still have faith in Kirk Hinrich to turn into one of the games best PG's.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

We'll see. I think the real question is, what do we do if Ben Gordon gives us 20 and 6 this year?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> We'll see. I think the real question is, what do we do if Ben Gordon gives us 20 and 6 this year?


 If Tyrus turns into whatever Pax thinks hes going to turn into then Kirk Hinrich is expendable, If Ben Gordon can play PG consistently then there really is no need for a great defending PG. There arent many 25+ ppg PG's in the NBA and trading away Kirk can give us room to either move Deng to SG or find a defensive specialist at the 2.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

I'm sorry, but you just can't replace the intangibles that come with kirk, no matter what you say. always a hard worker, always a team leader. defensively, he was the only person in the playoffs that was able to stop wade. offensively, when you put much of the scoring burden on your true point guard, the true point guard will suffer. As for him holding the ball most of the shotclock, that's because other than Nocioni no one else can do anything with the ball. gordon's gonna go make some crossovers and shoot a fadeaway three, tyson will block kirk's pass all the way into the 6th row, deng will drive and take a fadeaway every time, etc. I feel safest when teh ball is in kirk's hands.


----------



## Mark_R (May 1, 2006)

sloth said:


> I think it'd be time to trade Kirk and go with a Gordon/Thabo backcourt if he doesn't improve his shooting any.


This irks me. 

Ben Gordon: 42.1% 
Kirk Hinrich: 41.8% 

So in 1,000 shots, Ben last year would have made three total more than kirk given those figures.

The year before wasn't much different:

Kirk: 39.66
Ben: 41.1

Ben is better from downtown, though.

Kirk also shot a few percentage points better in BOTH playoff series the last couple years. Throw those in there, and their FG% are probably right around at the same point.

Meanwhile, Kirk plays the other team's best wing on a nightly basis, getting worn out on the defensive end, and still plays at a very high level when looking at his AST/TO (Kirk outdid Ben by nearly 2 in 04-05 and by 1.4 p/g in 05-06) ratio. Kirk is the more "complete" player.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Our offense is watching him dribble out the shot clock, taking the ball virtually anywhere he wants, except next to the basket for a layup (most of the time).


That's because Kirk, a natural 3rd or 4th scoring option, was forced to be a 1st or 2nd option much of the time on a team with a very poor post presence.



> Anyone who's watched Nash and Hinrich won't see any similarities. Nash will post up Dirk and make baskets.


This is some good analysis. In Nash's third year in the league, a year in which he started every game he played in, he shot 36% from the field, 37% from behind the arc, and averaged fewer points, assists and steals per minute played than Kirk did in his third year. Additionally, Kirk is one of the best perimeter defenders in the league, while Nash is one of the worst.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Mark_R said:


> This irks me.
> 
> Ben Gordon: 42.1%
> Kirk Hinrich: 41.8%
> ...


Join the party, Mark_R. Some of us have been using statistics like these since the night of the '03 draft to illustrate that Kirk Hinrich is in fact a bit more than a career bench player, but threads such as this one continue to appear out of thin air once in a while.

With regards to your comments and stats, I'd like to point out that Ben Gordon is our SHOOTING guard while Kirk Hinrich is our POINT guard. Isn't the shooting guard supposed to shoot better than 41.7% from the field (and 40.6% FG, 34.9% 3PT, 72.6% FT in the postseason)? Or am I missing something?


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

Time for me to tune out again until there is something to talk about. A bit of Kirk bashing, surely to be followed by a bit of Ben bashing, lots of sets of numbers assembled just so to make a particular narrow point, and then some dire predictions of failure. That about cover it?

See you when Thabo and Thomas make their first impressions in summer league. I for one am excited for this year. 

(not exactly sarcasm, but not exactly not sarcasm)

:angel:


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Big time players raise it up in the playoffs. Anyone have Kirk's playoff stats the past two years?

This guy is about so much more than shooting. Overall he is by far the Bulls best player at this moment. Give him some great surrounding players and his game will shine. While he may not end ep with as many assists as Nash, I think with the right supporting cast he could pass him in most other stats. And he is one of the best defenders in the league.

I like Gordon for his clutch shooting and hot streaks, but that is all Gordon does. Kirk is miles ahead of him overall.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Yeah, when I talk of trading Kirk, I mean package him with Deng, and maybe the 07 pick for a really good player in the frontcourt, like Kevin Garnett, maybe pull this deal if Minnesota's sucking at the deadline...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

sloth,

If both Hinrich and Gordon shoot 40% next year, which one would you trade in said package deal?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> sloth,
> 
> If both Hinrich and Gordon shoot 40% next year, which one would you trade in said package deal?


Ben Gordon- 49.4 eFG%
Kirk Hinrich- 47.6 eFG%

They aren't BAD shooters. Niether, I'd just consider moving Hinrich if we wanted to get a stud in the frontcourt. If it came down to Ben or Kirk, I'd take Ben since most of that scoring comes with a guy in his face, and Hinrich gets more open shots than Ben. Ben is a better raw passer, if you watched in the playoffs, when Ben was at point guard, he made the offense run a hell of a lot better than Hinrich, consistency was the problem there though, he started doing some passes he shouldn't have, taking too many risks, and being too flashy, reminded me of a younger Jason Williams. But Ben is closer to being the next Steve Nash type passer than Kirk is, CONTROL is the magic word with Ben right now. As defenders, both defend point guards pretty equally, but Kirk is better for obvious reasons against guys like Wade, etc. Based on improvement, and work ethic, I'd take Ben over Kirk. But just because Ben is/probaly will be better for his career than Kirk, doesn't mean one has to be moved, we saw that they can make a really good backcourt.

As far as efficient field goal percentage, that just means that Ben's basically the equivilent of a center that puts up 17 points on 50% shooting. Ben needs to keep up the good work, I expect him to get his eFG% to 55-60 in his prime, kids a stud, and please God, please don't let Paxson trade him.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

sloth said:


> Ben Gordon- 49.4 eFG%
> Kirk Hinrich- 47.6 eFG%


Per Differential
Gordon: -2.2 (PG), +3.2 (SG)
Hinrich: +4.1 (PG), +1.1 (SG)

Using last year's numbers, it appears that Hinrich is much more effective at PG than Gordon is at PG. It also appears that Hinrich is more effective at PG than Gordon is at SG.



> Ben is a better raw passer, if you watched in the playoffs, when Ben was at point guard, he made the offense run a hell of a lot better than Hinrich, consistency was the problem there though, he started doing some passes he shouldn't have, taking too many risks, and being too flashy, reminded me of a younger Jason Williams. But Ben is closer to being the next Steve Nash type passer than Kirk is, CONTROL is the magic word with Ben right now. As defenders, both defend point guards pretty equally,


Wow.



> As far as efficient field goal percentage, that just means that Ben's basically the equivilent of a center that puts up 17 points on 50% shooting.


...and Hinrich's kind of like a center who puts up 16 ppg on 48% shooting, but grabs more rebounds, blocks more shots, creates more steals, generates more assists, commits fewer turnovers, draws more fouls, can play more positions and is a better defender than the center that puts up 17 ppg on 50% shooting.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Per Differential
> Gordon: -2.2 (PG), +3.2 (SG)
> Hinrich: +4.1 (PG), +1.1 (SG)
> 
> ...


But gordon's like that center with a high ceiling thats already producing, Kirk's like a landlord or somethin.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Oh. That explains it.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

For those of you insisting that Ben Gordon can play PG at a high (28+ mpg) level, can I ask what analysis you're using to come to this conclusion?

Ben's net 48-minute production at PG

-5.9 assists
-7.4 (more) turnovers
+0.056 eFG%
-2.2 PER

For comparison, here are Hinrich's numbers:

+2.0 assists
+0.7 (fewer) turnovers
+0.060 eFG%
+4.1 PER


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Duhon's numbers:

+0.8 assists
+0.6 (fewer) turnovers
+0.067 eFG%
-0.3 PER

I'm just doing my civic duty to nip the "Kirk can't run a team" argument in the bud. Saves everybody some time.


----------



## Mark_R (May 1, 2006)

I'd love to see Gordon guard the other team's best perimeter player like Kirk does, too.

Its also a lot harder to find a good to great pg (that's the class I feel Kirk is in, please let's not turn anything into a semantics argument...) than it is to find a shooting guard who can average 18-20 points on barely above 40% shooting. I love Ben in the fourth as much as anyone, but he needs to become more efficient at all times to raise his stock in my eyes.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Duhon's numbers:
> 
> +0.8 assists
> +0.6 (fewer) turnovers
> ...


Ran it from 47 wins to 41. Good thing they played Gordon a ton more at PG during the last few weeks so we could win a bunch of games and make that record as good as it was.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

So, in summary:

In terms of the PG position, Hinrich generates more assists, fewer turnovers, and is significantly more productive on offense when compared to Gordon and Duhon. Defensively, Hinrich is the best of the three as well. Each shoots marginally better than the opposition. Additionally, Hinrich is the best postseason player and can play and defend more positions than Duhon and Gordon combined.

Hell, it's the offseason. I'll toss this in a separate thread.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Ran it from 47 wins to 41. Good thing they played Gordon a ton more at PG during the last few weeks so we could win a bunch of games and make that record as good as it was.


Myth #264 from the "Kirk = Bust" club.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

kulaz3000 said:


> i think Hinrich is a passer first and a shooter second. The reasons for his low shooting percentage is because other than Gordon there are not other players that the bulls can pass it to to create their own shots when they are bogged down offensively. So the ball naturally gravitates or stays in the hands of Hinrich or Gordon and Hinrich doesn't create his own shots well.
> 
> He shoots exceptional well in the set offense when its run smoothly. His a pretty good spot up shooter, its just when he has to do things off the dribble or when its late in the shot clock he starts clanking shots. Another reason is because he expends so much energy on the defensive end, he pretty much defendds the best scorer on each team. No matter what you say offense is effected about what you do on the other end of the court..
> 
> I don't think his shooting is that much of a big deal. He has more options now, and another year under his belt as to know what type of players he has and he'll trust them more now to pass it and he'll also know where they like the ball. His only going to improve.. with all his other positives that he gives to the bulls it outweighs his shooting woes. Though it would be nice if it got it up to atleast 45%.


agreed totally. he's very effective coming off his beloved curls. when he struggles is when he has to create off the dribble--the ball is in his hands much of the time and usually he's the one left with it at the end of the shot clock when we haven't successfully worked the ball around for an open shot at the end of a possession.

plus as you said, he defends the opposition's best scorer all night, and plays a ton of minutes. there's a reason no great perimeter scorers today guard the opposition's best perimeter scorer.

as someone said earlier, he is almost a kidd-like player in a way... 40% shooter (although he's a better shooter than kidd) but has a great feel for the game and very good court vision, great defender and rebounder for a point...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Good thing they played Gordon a ton more at PG during the last few weeks so we could win a bunch of games and make that record as good as it was.


The winningest lineups were almost all with Hinrich at PG.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> So, in summary:
> 
> In terms of the PG position, Hinrich generates more assists, fewer turnovers, and is significantly more productive on offense when compared to Gordon and Duhon. Defensively, Hinrich is the best of the three as well. Each shoots marginally better than the opposition. Additionally, Hinrich is the best postseason player and can play and defend more positions than Duhon and Gordon combined.
> 
> Hell, it's the offseason. I'll toss this in a separate thread.


Kirk Hinrich doesn't really create for anyone though. He usually gets 2 assists a game from hitting Gordon on a curl. And about 3-4 a night off of the pick and roll, basically the majority of his assists come off giving a pass to a jumpshooter. Honestly, the Jason Kidd and Steve Nash comparisons some people are giving are awful. How often have you seen Hinrich make a pass and be like, DAMN, great pass....rarely. Both those guys create, kirk doesn't. Kirk is one of the worst point guards at running the fastbreak, honestly, unless were running against old man O'neal, nothing rarely comes of a fastbreak, the only thing Kirk can run on a fastbreak is a missed layup. When Ben got the ball put in his hands as a point guard in the playoffs, he had some of those DAMN plays, like that Nocioni pass on the fastbreak, wow, nice to see a fastbreak run like Nash does it (only Gordon runs faster). A more accurate comparison for Hinrich is probaly a poor man's Gary Payton (not the Payton in his current state)/Sam Cassell (with better D).


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

sloth said:


> Kirk Hinrich doesn't really create for anyone though. He usually gets 2 assists a game from hitting Gordon on a curl. And about 3-4 a night off of the pick and roll, basically the majority of his assists come off giving a pass to a jumpshooter. Honestly, the Jason Kidd and Steve Nash comparisons some people are giving are awful. How often have you seen Hinrich make a pass and be like, DAMN, great pass....rarely. Both those guys create, kirk doesn't. Kirk is one of the worst point guards at running the fastbreak, honestly, unless were running against old man O'neal, nothing rarely comes of a fastbreak, the only thing Kirk can run on a fastbreak is a missed layup. When Ben got the ball put in his hands as a point guard in the playoffs, he had some of those DAMN plays, like that Nocioni pass on the fastbreak, wow, nice to see a fastbreak run like Nash does it (only Gordon runs faster). A more accurate comparison for Hinrich is probaly a poor man's Gary Payton (not the Payton in his current state)/Sam Cassell (with better D).


Kirk doesn't have the same opportunity other PGs do to create assists because of a lack of a reliable inside scoring option...


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

i don't care if he never changes a thing. What he already is now works for me just fine


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

draft tyrus said:


> Kirk doesn't have the same opportunity other PGs do to create assists because of a lack of a reliable inside scoring option...


Its not like anything was too different when we had that Eddy Curry guy though, and he was dunking over anyone, you'd think Kirk would have been able to find Eddy more.


----------



## Mark_R (May 1, 2006)

sloth said:


> Kirk Hinrich doesn't really create for anyone though. He usually gets 2 assists a game from hitting Gordon on a curl. And about 3-4 a night off of the pick and roll, basically the majority of his assists come off giving a pass to a jumpshooter. Honestly, the Jason Kidd and Steve Nash comparisons some people are giving are awful. How often have you seen Hinrich make a pass and be like, DAMN, great pass....rarely. Both those guys create, kirk doesn't. Kirk is one of the worst point guards at running the fastbreak, honestly, unless were running against old man O'neal, nothing rarely comes of a fastbreak, the only thing Kirk can run on a fastbreak is a missed layup. When Ben got the ball put in his hands as a point guard in the playoffs, he had some of those DAMN plays, like that Nocioni pass on the fastbreak, wow, nice to see a fastbreak run like Nash does it (only Gordon runs faster). A more accurate comparison for Hinrich is probaly a poor man's Gary Payton (not the Payton in his current state)/Sam Cassell (with better D).


Jason Williams can make you say WOW, is he better than Kirk too? For arguments sake, I'll list the PG's I feel are better than Kirk (note, I'm trying not to include the 'combo' guards like Gilbert Arenas, Dwyane Wade, et al):

Billups
Bibby
T. Parker
Nash
Kidd
Paul

This list may be a bit incomplete or different based on personal preference, but a top 10 PG (which I think would be worst case scenario for Kirk) is very difficult to replace in the NBA, and I think making Ben the PG would show us how much we miss Kirk, on both ends.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

sloth said:


> Kirk Hinrich doesn't really create for anyone though. He usually gets 2 assists a game from hitting Gordon on a curl. And about 3-4 a night off of the pick and roll, basically the majority of his assists come off giving a pass to a jumpshooter. Honestly, the Jason Kidd and Steve Nash comparisons some people are giving are awful. How often have you seen Hinrich make a pass and be like, DAMN, great pass....rarely. Both those guys create, kirk doesn't. Kirk is one of the worst point guards at running the fastbreak, honestly, unless were running against old man O'neal, nothing rarely comes of a fastbreak, the only thing Kirk can run on a fastbreak is a missed layup. When Ben got the ball put in his hands as a point guard in the playoffs, he had some of those DAMN plays, like that Nocioni pass on the fastbreak, wow, nice to see a fastbreak run like Nash does it (only Gordon runs faster). A more accurate comparison for Hinrich is probaly a poor man's Gary Payton (not the Payton in his current state)/Sam Cassell (with better D).


Nickels are shiny.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Our guards are still pretty bad at post-entry passing. It used to be awful, especially when we still had Curry on the team. I thought our bigs (especially Curry) would have scored a lot more easy baskets if our guards could hit them at the right moments. This past season it improved slightly, but it still needs a lot of work, IMO. Hopefully Thabo really is another Doug Christie type player, then we'd see a lot more easy baskets come from hitting guys cutting to the hoop or as soon as they establish good post position.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

SALO said:


> Our guards are still pretty bad at post-entry passing. It used to be awful, especially when we still had Curry on the team. I thought our bigs (especially Curry) would have scored a lot more easy baskets if our guards could hit them at the right moments. This past season it improved slightly, but it still needs a lot of work, IMO. Hopefully Thabo really is another Doug Christie type player, then we'd see a lot more easy baskets come from hitting guys cutting to the hoop or as soon as they establish good post position.


Now only if Sweetney could just explode for a dunk. Honestly, Sweets is the only one currently on our team that I could see establishing great post position where if he gets the ball he's going to score, but he doesn't have the explosive athleticism like Curry or Shaq to make that happen.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

SALO said:


> Our guards are still pretty bad at post-entry passing.


Our posts are still pretty bad at establishing position, catching passes, scoring baskets and setting screens.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hinrich PER 15.5
Gordon PER 14.5
Duhon PER 12.9
Bulls 47 -> 41 wins

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html



> The step above sets the league average to 15 for all seasons.


Let's thump our chests some more over guys who are barely average or slightly above, while throwing around a stat that supposedly makes one player look a whole lot better than the other.

AVERAGE. Get over it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hinrich 41.8% FG, 15.9 PPG, 6.3 APG, 36.5 MPG
Ridnour 41.4% FG, 11.5 PPG, 7.0 APG, 33.3 MPG

There's your comparables.

EDIT:

D'oh, forgot PER

Hinrich 15.5
Ridnour 16.0

How about steals/game?

Hinrich 1.2
Ridnour 1.6


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz, who's thumping their chests?

Hinrich has the highest PER out of the guards. He's also a natural 3rd or 4th scoring option. What does this say about Gordon? You're backing up my previous statements.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Hinrich 41.8% FG, 15.9 PPG, 6.3 APG, 36.5 MPG
> Ridnour 41.4% FG, 11.5 PPG, 7.0 APG, 33.3 MPG
> 
> There's your comparables.


Don't be silly.

Ridnour
+0.3 assists
+0.4 (fewer) turnovers
-0.085 eFG%
-3.2 PER
average defender
plays one position
led one of the worst teams in the league (went from 52 wins to 35 wins) playing with Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis

Hinrich
+2.0 assists
+0.7 (fewer) turnovers
+0.060 eFG%
+4.1 PER
one of the best perimeter defenders in the league
plays two positions
led a playoff team (again)


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> EDIT:
> 
> D'oh, forgot PER
> 
> ...


This is becoming embarrassing. Please stop.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> DaBullz, who's thumping their chests?
> 
> Hinrich has the highest PER out of the guards. He's also a natural 3rd or 4th scoring option. What does this say about Gordon? You're backing up my previous statements.


I think it's insane to be thrilled about your 15.5 PER being the core piece of a team. Just as insane as it would be to build around Ridnour.

And that's what the Bulls have done - built around Hinrich. If they keep trading away the leading scorer every season, eventually Hinrich will become our leading scorer by default.

Hinrich's year-over-year improvement is nominal at best. 

Gordon at least has a real chance to be a star in this league. We'll know more after another year. Rip on the guy's FG% if you must - .422 with a full 33% of those being long range bombs (3pt shots). Meanwhile, his year-over-year improvement has been considerable in every statistical category. For a guy known as a scorer, his scoring is the area he least improved.

I don't think Hinrich is a bust. I just don't think he's the kind of bust that belongs on a pedstal for his contributions as many others do.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Kirk has shot 40% or so the past two seasons and has still been our best player. So I don't see why another season would change that. He is a great all-around player who can get some 10-15 points a night, and when he catches fire every few games he can get you 30 points.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

and has had great stats in the playoffs 2 years in a row. GAMER!

well, another bash Kirk thread.

take him for what he is. a good player


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Rip on the guy's FG% if you must - .422 with a full 33% of those being long range bombs (3pt shots).


For his career, 37% of Hinrich's shots have been from behind the arc. That number is 32% for Gordon. And I love how you're trying to tell me not to rip a player for his FG% after all the knocks on Hinrich on this board over the last three seasons. It's hilarious, actually. The irony is classic.



> Meanwhile, his year-over-year improvement has been considerable in every statistical category. For a guy known as a scorer, his scoring is the area he least improved.


I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Gordon's points per minute decreased this year (conversely, Hinrich's went up after his first season). Gordon's FT% dropped almost 7 percentage points and his FT and FTA went down dramatically. His PER dropped from 14.9 to 14.5 and his rebounds per minute decreased as well. *Perhaps most importantly, Gordon's net 48-minute production dropped in PER differential at PG (-1.1 in '04-05 to -2.2 in '05-06) and PER differential at SG (+4.2 in '04-05 to +3.5 in '05-06). It also dropped in net assists (+0.0 at PG in '04-05 to -5.9 at PG in '05-06), net turnovers (-4.7 at PG in '04-05 to -7.4 at PG in '05-06) and eFG%.*

Who's putting who on a pedestal here?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> *Perhaps most importantly, Gordon's net 48-minute production dropped in PER differential at PG (-1.1 in '04-05 to -2.2 in '05-06) and PER differential at SG (+4.2 in '04-05 to +3.5 in '05-06). It also dropped in net assists (+0.0 at PG in '04-05, -5.9 at PG in '05-06), net turnovers (-4.7 at PG in '04-05 to -7.4 at PG in '05-06) and eFG%.*


FYI, all of these numbers were up for Hinrich at PG during the same time span.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Our offense is watching him dribble out the shot clock, taking the ball virtually anywhere he wants, except next to the basket for a layup (most of the time).
> 
> He's actually gotten a little bit better at not hogging the ball as much and actually taking a shot next to the rack. If he does the first less and the second more, he should get easier buckets and raise his shooting %.
> 
> Anyone who's watched Nash and Hinrich won't see any similarities. Nash will post up Dirk and make baskets.


I'm not saying that Hinrich will wind up better than Nash, but at this point in his career he's way better than Nash was. Also, "Nash will post up Dirk and make baskets"? What? I don't believe I've ever seen Steve Nash back down Dirk Nowitski and score a basket. Please. Hinrich's the best PG option on this team by a mile.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

Bench him and bring back JWill!!!!


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Kirk put 3% on his FG percentage last year. If he does that again, everybody's happy. Since joining the league, he's improved quite a bit at both getting to the rim, and finishing when he got there. If he keeps doing that, it'll keep going up. Same for Ben and Chris. And Pargo.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I just couldn't read this whole thread, but a Bulls fan that thinks Hinrich should be traded or thinks Ben is going to be a better point than Kirk, well you just suck and need to watch more games, I usually justify saying people or their ideas suck but I reall don't see any need, watch more games. He's been our best player for how many years now? Watch more games.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

there is not a single person even close to how good hinrich is right now on the bulls. Maybe nocioni. The hinrich bashers talking about his lack of creating for others? Did u remember his behind the back pass right into tyson's hands and then right htrough tyson's hands b/c tyson couldn't catch it? there you go. once in a while having that kind of great pass is good enough. if he tries to do it too often he ends up a terrible point guard like Ben or Jason williams early in his career, with all those turnovers. Not to rip on ben, but ben will never be the point guard kirk hinrich is. Nor the defender. Nor the leader. Are you gonna say stockton was a bad point guard b/c stockton never made flashy passes like nash does?


----------



## FireCartwrightNow (Oct 30, 2003)

the-asdf-man said:


> there is not a single person even close to how good hinrich is right now on the bulls. Maybe nocioni. The hinrich bashers talking about his lack of creating for others? Did u remember his behind the back pass right into tyson's hands and then right htrough tyson's hands b/c tyson couldn't catch it? there you go. once in a while having that kind of great pass is good enough. if he tries to do it too often he ends up a terrible point guard like Ben or Jason williams early in his career, with all those turnovers. Not to rip on ben, but ben will never be the point guard kirk hinrich is. Nor the defender. Nor the leader. Are you gonna say stockton was a bad point guard b/c stockton never made flashy passes like nash does?


Stockton shot 50% for his career and averaged over 10 APG for his CAREER. Kirk will never do that or win an MVP award like Nash. He is a solid PG who should be the 4th option on championship team and nothing more. His whole offensive game is average, but he plays great defense so that makes him an above average player.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I'll be very concerned if his FG% doesn't rise this season. After all, now that the Bulls have Thabo, Kirk should be playing less minutes, and more minutes at PG guarding other PGs. The excuse offered up by his supporters, including me, has been that he expends so much energy on the defensive end of the court that it hurts his offense. The previous 3 seasons, he often got tired and his jumpshot suffered.
> 
> I think 45% is a reasonable expectation since he's supposedly a terrific shooter.


Kirk's shooting % has gone up every season. If you round up, he shot 39%, 40%, and 42% in respective years. Next season, he'll have even less pressure than ever before put on him. Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni have become more focal points of the offense. And we finally have an NBA-ready SG to help out on defense. I think Kirk will be playing more like 32-33 minutes instead of the 36 min/game he's averaged. I expect him to be far more rested and his per-minute productivity, including FG%, will all improve.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I'm not saying that Hinrich will wind up better than Nash, but at this point in his career he's way better than Nash was. Also, "Nash will post up Dirk and make baskets"? What? I don't believe I've ever seen Steve Nash back down Dirk Nowitski and score a basket. Please. Hinrich's the best PG option on this team by a mile.


Nash did it on several occaisions during the conference championship series. In fact, Nash actually frequently guarded Nowitzki and vice-versa. Two such plays come to mind: Nash scored on a hook shot over Nowitzki from about 5 feet in the lane, another he did an up and under kind of move.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

FireCartwrightNow said:


> Stockton shot 50% for his career and averaged over 10 APG for his CAREER. Kirk will never do that or win an MVP award like Nash. He is a solid PG who should be the 4th option on championship team and nothing more. His whole offensive game is average, but he plays great defense so that makes him an above average player.



i didn't say Hinrich was Stockton. I'm saying ppl seemed to be judging Hinrich based on the fact that he makes no flashy passes. I agree he should be the 4th option. You should never depend on your point guard to be the first options on your team, because the point guard's job is to pass the ball and set up the offense, which I think hinrich does a great job doing. How many teams in the NBA do u think actually wants Gordon over Hinrich? they just dont ask b/c pax and skiles made it clear hinrich was not going anywhere. someone like hinrich is so much rarer and valuable than someone like Gordon.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Suddenly, I wish we were still talking about which players to draft.

Call me when the season starts.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

It's pretty obvious to me Kirk Hinrich is a better basketball player than Gordon. Ben is a better scorer but that is really the only area where he excels over Hinrich.

Also, Gordon getting a few isolation plays called at the top of the key does not at all equal "Gordon playing PG down the stretch" or whatever was said in regards to that. Gordon is too sloppy and out of control with the ball to ever be a full-time point.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Frankensteiner said:


> It's pretty obvious to me Kirk Hinrich is a better basketball player than Gordon. Ben is a better scorer but that is really the only area where he excels over Hinrich.
> 
> Also, Gordon getting a few isolation plays called at the top of the key does not at all equal "Gordon playing PG down the stretch" or whatever was said in regards to that. Gordon is too sloppy and out of control with the ball to ever be a full-time point.


Alright, one player is announced out with the flu in our backcourt for the game. Who would you rather have out of the game for a better chance to win?


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Ran it from 47 wins to 41. Good thing they played Gordon a ton more at PG during the last few weeks so we could win a bunch of games and make that record as good as it was.


This is truly amazing.

Coming from someone I regard as a good poster, I am shocked you stooped to such simplicity and blatant agenda-mongering.

Because Hinrich is solely responsible for Chandler not pulling his head out of his ***. Because Hinrich is solely responsible for the trading of our interior low post scoring options (Davis and Curry). Because Hinrich is solely responsible for other teams getting better....

There were a lot of factors why we fell off a bit. 

We win as a team. We lose as a team.

This is merely your agenda showing thru.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

And the beat goes on.......


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

thebullybully said:


> Time for me to tune out again until there is something to talk about. A bit of Kirk bashing, surely to be followed by a bit of Ben bashing, lots of sets of numbers assembled just so to make a particular narrow point, and then some dire predictions of failure. That about cover it?


You nailed it. I should have heeded your warning.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

sloth said:


> Alright, one player is announced out with the flu in our backcourt for the game. Who would you rather have out of the game for a better chance to win?




id rather have gordon and hinrich together, those 2 complement each other really well, especially when BG keeps improving, but if u say one of them HAS to sit out,

gordon. he cannot stop the wades and the redds of hte game and he will make many more turnovers than hinrich. i think pax and skiles would feel the exact same way.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

the-asdf-man said:


> id rather have gordon and hinrich together, those 2 complement each other really well, especially when BG keeps improving, but if u say one of them HAS to sit out,
> 
> gordon. he cannot stop the wades and the redds of hte game and he will make many more turnovers than hinrich. i think pax and skiles would feel the exact same way.


Bad decision imo. All these intangibles like defense/passing, well Duhon does those pretty good. Gordon's intangibles are harder to replace than hinrich's.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Vintage said:


> This is truly amazing.
> 
> Coming from someone I regard as a good poster, I am shocked you stooped to such simplicity and blatant agenda-mongering.
> 
> ...


If Hinrich is supposed to be a good PG, he's supposed to make his teammates better. You're making excuses for why he didn't?

People on this forum like to downplay Nash's contribution to the Suns. They take scrubs and get 'em to play better than you expect. Somehow "it's the system" but it's really the PG, no?

The debate really should be about the future of the team. Forget about loyalties to any one player.

With Hinrich as PG, you have a guy people claim should be #4 option.

With Gordon as PG, you have a guy who IS a #1 option.

"But the PG isn't supposed to be the scorer!" - Really? Why is that?

"Ben Gordon can't play PG" (for all kinds of assorted excuses for reasons) - Utter B.S. He can, does, and is fine. The TRUTH is Skiles WON'T play him there or give him a real shot at it. Though we did lose 8 in a row with Hinrich running things and it looked like the season was a wash; may as well try Gordon there and look what happened.

The point of playing Gordon at PG isn't that he's somehow going to be a Nash-like PG. The point is that he gets the ball in his hands more, he can do more damage because of that, and because he has more opportunity to score at the top of the key than in a corner. The assists will come.

Another way to look at it is this. In Hinrich, you have a guy with Jim Paxson upside potential. In Gordon you have a guy who could be pretty close to Iverson. Gordon isn't Iverson in the sense you get all the negative baggage. The Bulls aren't the Sixers either, due to their much better supporting talent and depth.

The Nash/Hinrich comparisons are just absurd. Nash's early career was on a team with Kevin Johnson and Jason Kidd in front of him. Hinrich's only had to fight with Duhon for the PG job (which he lost to Duhon in our 47 win season).


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

sloth said:


> Bad decision imo. All these intangibles like defense/passing, well Duhon does those pretty good. Gordon's intangibles are harder to replace than hinrich's.



anytime Duhon was on the floor, Wade was able to score like he was in the finals. Which is not to say Duhon is a bad defender, but Hinrich is just better and pulled out most of the stops on wade.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

the-asdf-man said:


> anytime Duhon was on the floor, Wade was able to score like he was in the finals. Which is not to say Duhon is a bad defender, but Hinrich is just better and pulled out most of the stops on wade.


Isolated incident, and it was a complete joke that we had a 6 foot point guard guarding Wade. Hinrich guards SHOOTING GUARDS better than Gordon and Duhon, Gordon and Duhon guard point guards at the same level that Hinrich does.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Ben Gordon is one dimensional, but that one dimension is special. Hinrich is the guy who covers up all of Gordon's shortcomings to make room for his strength which is scoring/shooting. That's why I like them both, and trading either one of them would put the Bulls in a bad place.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Another way to look at it is this. In Hinrich, you have a guy with Jim Paxson upside potential. In Gordon you have a guy who could be pretty close to Iverson.
> 
> *The Nash/Hinrich comparisons are just absurd*. Nash's early career was on a team with Kevin Johnson and Jason Kidd in front of him. Hinrich's only had to fight with Duhon for the PG job (which he lost to Duhon in our 47 win season).


Probably no more than your Gordon/Iverson comparison.

Who exactly has Ben been "fighting" for SG?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Mr. T said:


> Probably no more than your Gordon/Iverson comparison.
> 
> Who exactly has Ben been "fighting" for SG?


Scott Skiles


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Probably no more than your Gordon/Iverson comparison.
> 
> Who exactly has Ben been "fighting" for SG?


Furthermore, why are people reverting to "Ben vs Kirk" debates again? This is our starting backcourt we're talking about...they're very compatible, especially now that we have a lengthy and capable backup 2-guard.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

sloth said:


> Scott Skiles


Nope, he's a pure point. :biggrin:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

yodurk said:


> Furthermore, why are people reverting to "Ben vs Kirk" debates again? This is our starting backcourt we're talking about...they're very compatible, especially now that we have a lengthy and capable backup 2-guard.


My guess is everybody is happy enough with Gordon and Hinrich and I count myself in that group. 

The flare up happens when it starts to get territorial. Which is the BEST of the two or who should be used in a trade.

From where I sit, Paxson and Skiles seem to be doing things fine so I'll just continue enjoying the ride.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Another way to look at it is this. In Hinrich, you have a guy with Jim Paxson upside potential. In Gordon you have a guy who could be pretty close to Iverson. Gordon isn't Iverson in the sense you get all the negative baggage. The Bulls aren't the Sixers either, due to their much better supporting talent and depth.



... and of course we have to compare Hinrich to a white guy and Gordon to a black guy. Iverson scored 23 points per game as a rookie... Gordon hasn't sniffed that yet. I think Ben Gordon is going to be a great player in this league but he plays NOTHING like Allen Iverson. Sorry... short black guy does not necessarily = short black guy... and slightly taller white guy does not necessarily = other slightly taller white guy. At least pay attention to the way they play the game... certainly that's more important than physical appearance. Iverson's game is predicated on getting to the basket... Ben Gordon is a long range gunner who would rather shoot a floater than take it hard to the rack. Not knocking Gordon... he just doesn't play like Iverson.

The upside potential for Kirk Hinrich is probably more aptly compared to Gary Payton... you just have to ignore the color of their skin.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Frankensteiner said:


> Also, Gordon getting a few isolation plays called at the top of the key does not at all equal "Gordon playing PG down the stretch" or whatever was said in regards to that. Gordon is too sloppy and out of control with the ball to ever be a full-time point.


Thank you. I'm not sure why so many people fail to recognize this.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Dornado said:


> ... and of course we have to compare Hinrich to a white guy and Gordon to a black guy. Iverson scored 23 points per game as a rookie... Gordon hasn't sniffed that yet. I think Ben Gordon is going to be a great player in this league but he plays NOTHING like Allen Iverson. Sorry... short black guy does not necessarily = short black guy... and slightly taller white guy does not necessarily = other slightly taller white guy. At least pay attention to the way they play the game... certainly that's more important than physical appearance. Iverson's game is predicated on getting to the basket... Ben Gordon is a long range gunner who would rather shoot a floater than take it hard to the rack. Not knocking Gordon... he just doesn't play like Iverson.
> 
> The upside potential for Kirk Hinrich is probably more aptly compared to Gary Payton... you just have to ignore the color of their skin.


Yup, as far as potential goes:

Ben Gordon: Faster Steve Nash.
Kirk Hinrich: Gary Payton

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3740758&postcount=31


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Furthermore, why are people reverting to "Ben vs Kirk" debates again? This is our starting backcourt we're talking about...they're very compatible, especially now that we have a lengthy and capable backup 2-guard.



:clap:


topics of more interest include (and in no particular order):

1) our two new draft picks - TY and BO!
2) this viktor dude from portland
3) summer league roster speculation
4) FA season begins at midnight!
5) who's working out at the berto already
6) did scott skiles really SMILE yesterday?
7) should i go see "The Devil Wears Prada" today? (yes!)
8) nene? pryz? nazr? wallace? discuss.
9) is there a trade up Pax's sleeve?





but hey, if the usual suspects want to continue to slag hinrich, then that is their right.

clueless.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Furthermore, why are people reverting to "Ben vs Kirk" debates again? This is our starting backcourt we're talking about...they're very compatible, especially now that we have a lengthy and capable backup 2-guard.


Now that the draft is over I guess people need something to fight about. Kind of pathetic, if you ask me.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> With Hinrich as PG, you have a guy people claim should be #4 option.
> 
> With Gordon as PG, you have a guy who IS a #1 option.


Gordon is not a #1 option, he's a good #2 option. 



> "Ben Gordon can't play PG" (for all kinds of assorted excuses for reasons) - Utter B.S.


The guy turns the ball over, can't pass, and can't dribble. He's best suited for the SG position where he can do the one thing he does really well: shoot the ball. Gordon can make some flashy passes here and there but you're confusing that with the ability to run a team for an entire game. 



> He can, does, and is fine.


He never has, not without looking foolish.



> Though we did lose 8 in a row with Hinrich running things and it looked like the season was a wash; may as well try Gordon there and look what happened.


Hinrich was the starting PG throughout the season; through the 8 game losing streak and then throughout our stretch run to close out the year. Your anti-Hinrich agenda is appearant. Gordon never played point for anything more than a 5 minute stretch in ANY game during the season. Isolating him at the top of the key to give him scoring opportunities at the end of the game isn't really playing point.



> Another way to look at it is this. In Hinrich, you have a guy with Jim Paxson upside potential. In Gordon you have a guy who could be pretty close to Iverson. Gordon isn't Iverson in the sense you get all the negative baggage. The Bulls aren't the Sixers either, due to their much better supporting talent and depth.


So you've nixed the Hinrich/Nash comparison because Hinrich at this point isn't close to Nash (in your opinion), yet choose to compare Gordon and Iverson despite Gordon not being anything close to Iverson? Interesting.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> "Ben Gordon can't play PG" (for all kinds of assorted excuses for reasons) - Utter B.S. He can, does, and is fine. The TRUTH is Skiles WON'T play him there or give him a real shot at it. Though we did lose 8 in a row with Hinrich running things and it looked like the season was a wash; may as well try Gordon there and look what happened.


I'm really starting to think you're trying extremely hard at not being serious.



> The Nash/Hinrich comparisons are just absurd. Nash's early career was on a team with Kevin Johnson and Jason Kidd in front of him. Hinrich's only had to fight with Duhon for the PG job (which he lost to Duhon in our 47 win season).


More silliness.

Kirk's third year in the league (playoff appearance with arguably the league's worst frontline) far surpassed Nash's third year in the league (38% winning percentage; Nash started every game he played in that year and had the luxury of playing with Finley and Nowitzki).

Oh, and Hinrich didn't lose his PG job to Duhon. In fact, Hinrich was moved to starting PG after it was deemed that he and the team were both more effective with him there than at starting SG, even given our lack of height and experience on the wing.

To be quite honest, your posts in this thread are more than a bit disconcerting. Why do you revise history and ignore factual data so much?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

sloth said:


> Isolated incident, and it was a complete joke that we had a 6 foot point guard guarding Wade. Hinrich guards SHOOTING GUARDS better than Gordon and Duhon, Gordon and Duhon guard point guards at the same level that Hinrich does.


Seriously, people. Quit with the jokes already!

Opposing PG per 48 minute production

Against Hinrich: 13.9 PER, 7.5 assists
Against Duhon: 14.1 PER, 7.5 assists
Against Gordon: 16.4 PER, 10.3 assists


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Hinrich is a damn fine starting point guard. 

Gordon is a damn fine starting shooting guard.

Thabo, by Paxson's estimation, is a damn fine back-up to both. And we all seem to like Duhon.

I like our backcourt.

Leading up to the draft with all of the talk of Roy, and Paxson's comments in the Boers and Bernstein interview, I was concerned that Paxson was looking to Gordon as a backup. And that ain't gonna work. 

With this draft, I'm hopeful that Paxson agrees with me: We have a super starting backcourt with Hinrich at the 1 and Gordon at the 2. We needed some defensive length in the primary third guard coming off the bench and, in greater minutes, against the few teams whose size in the backcourt gives us really poor matchup problems. That is Thabo. 

I see no reason to compare our point guard to our shooting guard. In my estimation, they both rock. They just needed a third piece to make them truly complimentary. Hopefully, Thabo is that piece.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

ok, some of you sensitive tribal-type thinkers incorrectly assumed that i started a "kirk bashing thread"

i didn't.

i was just alluding to the fact that I, like many, have always assumed that this is something kirk is improving upon. 

and you changed the direction to talk about who's better ben or kirk - which is totally outside the point.

of course i love kirk, and would want him on this team for life if he has the same type of year he did last year - for the rest of his career.

i just asked if you would think less of him if his shooting stayed the same. fleetwood understood the question. i would still like kirk, but won't regard him as an all star, that's it.

the off-topic comments are "well he's our best player" or "he's better than ben" or "i would never trade kirk" --- i totally agree with those comments, but they're besides the point. 

again - love kirk's pass first mentality. love kirk for being the only wade-stopper. love kirk for his never taking a game off mentality.

and another thing - blaming the poor fg percentage on the fact that he has to guard a good player or on the fact that we don't have a big man who can post up --- now there's a good way to take this thread. i'm not sure i totally agree, but they're definitely legitimate arguments.
i contend that curry's presence didn't help kirk's shooting at all. as for him always having to guard a good pg/wing player - there might be some merit there. let's check out kirk's shooting when he wasn't guarding a primal athletic player, that would be interesting.

one argument i love, is him stepping everything up in the post season. that, and his shooting in college, gives me hope that he CAN take his game to the next level.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Also, Gordon plays the passing lanes better than Kirk.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

paxman said:


> ok, many of you sensitive tribal-type thinkers incorrectly assumed that i started a "kirk bashing thread"
> 
> i didn't.
> 
> ...



:clap: 


Anyone care to actually stay on topic or do we prefer to have it devolve into pointless debate where everyone can misrepresent the facts?


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

also i love yodurk and sham's points.

although it's a slow improvement, it is steady. if he went for 43.5% this year, considering the amount
of threes he takes, my hopes for kirk stay.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I wanted to address the Kirk/Ben thing since it dominated so much of the discussion.

As to the original question, no. I wouldn't think less of him. I'd prefer his fg% improve, but if it doesn't, it will mean nothing to me. His shooting is not why I value him so intensely. 

To me, if there is an offensive area where his improvement would be most beneficial, its shooting more free throws. But I think we are going to see a big jump in the # of free throws the Bulls take next season. And specifically so with Gordon and Hinrich.

In the regular season, Hinrich took 3.88 free throws per game. In the playoffs, he took 7 per game. He's starting to get the respect.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Dornado said:


> ... and of course we have to compare Hinrich to a white guy and Gordon to a black guy. Iverson scored 23 points per game as a rookie... Gordon hasn't sniffed that yet. I think Ben Gordon is going to be a great player in this league but he plays NOTHING like Allen Iverson. Sorry... short black guy does not necessarily = short black guy... and slightly taller white guy does not necessarily = other slightly taller white guy. At least pay attention to the way they play the game... certainly that's more important than physical appearance. Iverson's game is predicated on getting to the basket... Ben Gordon is a long range gunner who would rather shoot a floater than take it hard to the rack. Not knocking Gordon... he just doesn't play like Iverson.


Agreed. The Iverson comparison doesn't stand up at all. Iverson's ball handling ability and creativity in the lane is much much better than Gordon's but Gordon has a much sweeter stroke in my opinion. They're very different players. 

But if we're going to use the height/race comparisons and assume they play the same, might as well say that Kirk Hinrich can be like Jerry West! Jerry West played some point guard and some shooting guard, just like Hinrich!


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If Hinrich is supposed to be a good PG, he's supposed to make his teammates better. You're making excuses for why he didn't?
> 
> 
> People on this forum like to downplay Nash's contribution to the Suns. They take scrubs and get 'em to play better than you expect. Somehow "it's the system" but it's really the PG, no?


I give Nash credit for playing well. The part where people say its the system is the up tempo game they play. We don't run nearly as much. The way the Suns play, it creates and gives easier opportunities to their players. Of course, the players have to capitalize on that - and they do- but its a system designed to play to their strengths. Which is what a good coach should do, play to its strengths. It also takes a damn good PG to run it. And Nash is that.

I don't think Hinrich is as good as Nash at running an offense. But I do think Hinrich could lead a team in that type of offense. The problem is, we have athletes in Chandler, Thomas, Gordon, Nocioni, and Deng. We just don't utilize them to their full potential. If we ran as much as the Suns, I bet people would be posting better numbers.

Secondly, do you think Nash would be able to turn Chandler into a star quality player? Maybe in the uptempo offense....but if Nash played in our system, when we go to the half court sets, I don't think Chandler would fare much better with Nash at the helm vs Hinrich. Chandler doesn't have great hands, doesnt have great post moves, etc. Having Nash wouldn't help that. Again, if you play in an uptempo offense, I think Chandler would have a much better impact offensively as he can get out and run (and he's got damn good speed for his size).



> The debate really should be about the future of the team. Forget about loyalties to any one player.


Who do I have loyalties to? I just want us to win. I could care less who its with.



> With Hinrich as PG, you have a guy people claim should be #4 option.


Who cares what people claim? In the Spurs first championship they won with Parker, he was a #3 option behind Duncan and Manu. The Heat won a championship with Jason Williams as, at best, a #3 scorer. It doesn't matter what option he is in the offense.

Stockton wasn't known for his scoring either. 



> With Gordon as PG, you have a guy who IS a #1 option.


Which means what exactly? Wins? How? Because a PG is a #1 scorer, we automatically get wins? Gordon needs to show he can iniate an offense successfully, over the course of a season, make smart decisions, handle the ball better before I am convinced he is better at PG than Hinrich. And if he does that, then I am more than willing to move Hinrich.....If Gordon proves he is a better PG than Hinrich. 



> "But the PG isn't supposed to be the scorer!" - Really? Why is that?


Really? When did I say that?




> The point of playing Gordon at PG isn't that he's somehow going to be a Nash-like PG. The point is that he gets the ball in his hands more, he can do more damage because of that, and because he has more opportunity to score at the top of the key than in a corner. The assists will come.


Admittedly, I do like the idea of getting the ball in Gordon's hands more.... but until Gordon displays better decision making/handles, I think Hinrich is the better option. And I don't care about the assists as long as we win.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Hinrich is a damn fine starting point guard.
> 
> Gordon is a damn fine starting shooting guard.
> 
> ...


I knew I'd have to spread rep around before I even tried to rep this - but I tried anyway. The nail has been hit on the head.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

yeah like i said b4, i hope we keep both Hinrich and Gordon. I just want to see hinrich playing the PG and gordon the SG instead of the other way around.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

sloth said:


> I think it'd be time to trade Kirk and go with a Gordon/Thabo backcourt if he doesn't improve his shooting any.


I agree!


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

just posing a question:

what point guard skills has anyone seen in Ben that would make him a candidate?


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

averaging more turnovers than any other position


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

What's the problem, folks?

If Thabo can really play, we've dramatically improved our backcourt situation. Ben and Kirk are both good players, and they both have the talent and the desire to become better. Neither is anywhere near All Star contention right now.

When it all comes down to it, Hinrich is solid and gritty and Ben is explosive as a scorer and fearless in the clutch. I want them both on my team.

Paxson made it clear that Ben was the starter on draft night. It sounds like Du is going to play less minutes this year if he's still a Bull after the summer.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> What's the problem, folks?
> 
> .



the problem is that the thread has been hijacked.
i'd like to suggest a mod to lock it, or perhaps change the title to "RAH RAH RAH RAH RAH!!!!"


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

you know what paxman, you got it. i understood the jist of your OP. it went someplace else. i knew it would. _c'est le boards!_

i think i would be just mildly disappointed if kirk didn't incrementaly improve his FG% this season, but he's asked to do so much else, everything else really, that it's really no biggie if he doesn't. the thing is, i think _he would be disappointed_ if it didn't improve. i got the impression, what with all the pre-draft and then post-draft talk from pax about 'helping relieve kirk in the backcourt", that it may have even come up in the end of season interview, ya know? i think they got some really interesting new pieces to the puzzle in tyrus and thabo, that there's really no place to go but up. 




so that's the topic really.

i will lock this thread.

oh, an i can definitely recommend "The Devil Wears Prada". very, very funny (and sweet) and don't let the whole "fashion thing" throw you...Meryl Streep is _GENIUS_ in this. just brilliant.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> you know what paxman, you got it. i understood the jist of your OP. it went someplace else. i knew it would. _c'est le boards!_
> 
> i think i would be just mildly disappointed if kirk didn't incrementaly improve his FG% this season, but he's asked to do so much else, everything else really, that it's really no biggie if he doesn't. the thing is, i think _he would be disappointed_ if it didn't improve. i got the impression, what with all the pre-draft and then post-draft talk from pax about 'helping relieve kirk in the backcourt", that it may have even come up in the end of season interview, ya know? i think they got some really interesting new pieces to the puzzle in tyrus and thabo, that there's really no place to go but up.
> 
> ...




As a French major, I can tell you Miz, it should be _Les_ Boards. It's plural/

/end nerdery


----------

