# Hey, did anyone notice that Kirk Hinrich is white?



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

I’m being sarcastic of course.

What comments do you hear about Kirk Hinrich? Some people say he’s another John Paxson. Some say he’s another Steve Kerr. Even Bryce Drew (yikes!) is mentioned. Others compare him to Steve Nash. You also hear Jeff Hornacek’s name. 

Even when Bill Cartwright describes him he mentions his coachability, gritty play and his headiness. (FYI, I’m paraphrasing.) 

It is so easy to typecast him as the overachieving whiteboy with limited “upside.”

First, let’s look at his athletic ability only. For the moment, let’s ignore shooting, passing, attitude, “basketball IQ”, etc. Specifically, let’s look at the Chicago combine results as reported by ESPN Insider…

Overall, combining all categories, Hinrich rated 20th. Unfortunately, I’m uncertain exactly how many were tested. I know that Pavel Podkolzine ranked 76th and I think it’s safe to assume Pavel was fairly close to the bottom. That rates him in the top quarter of all athletes tested – I shouldn’t need to say this, but he is, thus, extremely athletic.

Let’s look at individual ratings…

Strength: This is measured by the number of 185 pound bench press repetitions. Hinrich had 10 repetitions. This is one strong PG! This surpassed many others like Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh (9), PF teammate Nick Collison (8), Carmelo Anthony (7), Brian Cook (6), Mike Sweetney (3) as well as other PGs like TJ Ford and Luke Ridnour (both had 0). 

“OK,” naysayers will say. “What does strength really matter for a PG?”

Fine. Let’s look at vertical jump: Hinrich measured 33.5 inches proving this white guy can jump. The ultra-athletic Wade surpassed him marginally with a jump of 35.0 inches. Hinrich jumped of equal height of Anthony and out-jumped such first-rounders as Bosh (33), Ridnour (32.5) and Cook (29).

Now, let’s look at Lane Agility. Perhaps someone can tell me exactly what this is, but, obviously, it measures speed combined with the ability to change directions quickly. Hinrich completed this test in 10.98 seconds. This was less than Wade, the 2003 class leader, at 10.56 but Hinrich surpassed the likes of Ridnour (11.0), Anthony (11.4), and the apparently ultra-quick Ford (11.45).

Sprints? Hinrich also proved his speed in the 3/4 –court sprints. Wade 3.08 seconds. Hinrich 3.1. Anthony 3.15. Ford 3.2. 


Thus, what do we have here in Hinrich? We have an EXCELLENT athlete. He is stronger than other guards, can jump and is as quicker than most of the other draftees. 

Yet, even considering this, he is seen as a player with limited “upside”. He is supposedly merely a “role player”. Why is this? Is it because he decided to play four year of college ball? Is it because he is white? I have no clue.

What I do know is this is an athlete that measures up to the top athletes in this year’s draft. Yet, instead of just having just “upside”, he has skills now. He is a great shooter. He is a great passer. He can play defense. He has a great attitude and can accept any role if necessary. He is hard-working. He improved his game each year at Kansas. He has “basketball IQ”. 

I admit I did not see Hinrich play as much as some of you the last few years. However, the most recent time I saw him was when watching a Texas vs. Kansas game on ESPN Classic last weekend. I thought it would be a good opportunity to scout Ford, Collison and Hinrich since they would be certain first-round draft picks. It’s funny, what left me most impressed about Hinrich that game was not his shooting or ball handling. There was a moment were Texas scored on an offensive rebound dunk where a couple of Kansas big men (not Collison, by the way) clearly didn’t box out. The camera caught Hinrich’s look of disgust at what just happened. It’s hard to describe, but I knew then that this kid is a winner. So many young players are clueless. We see it at not only in college but at the NBA level as well. Hinrich is a player that understands the importance of the game’s nuances. 

This combination of athlete skills, fundamentals and mindset is that of a superstar. Did Paxton’s pick duplicate the PG position? Well, yes, it kind of did But how would you have felt if we passed on Jordan at pick 3 in 1984 because we needed a player at a different position? What if Utah passed on John Stockton at 16 that same year if they needed a “swing player”? Wouldn’t that have been stupid? For those of you who are younger, think of this: what if we passed on Jamal Crawford in 2000 (yes, I realize the Chris Mihm trade) and filled a “swing player” need by drafting Courtney Alexander or Hidayet Turkoglu instead? I believe Paxson would have made a similar mistake by picking Jarvis Hayes or Mickael Pietrus this year.

Kudos to Paxson for realizing this. Hinrich will make us all proud to be a Chicago Bulls fan.


----------



## DYNASTY (Jun 18, 2003)

Kurt Hinrich = BOBBY SURA


----------



## Peja Vu (Jun 9, 2002)

Great post, Aesop.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

That's one hell of a post! Loaded with facts and logic...it's a genuinely refreshing an honest evaluation of what the numbers suggest is one hell of a basketball player. Of course, greatness isn't just measured statistically. But your analysis goes a long way towards dismissing the stereotyping and labels associated with white basketball players. Now that people know Hinrich has got more than just "headiness" going for him, they might start to look at him as a valuable key to the future of the franchise. Great job, Aesop!
:twave:


----------



## DYNASTY (Jun 18, 2003)

Didn't Hinric play 2-3 years morethan the players you are comparing him too therefore giving him two more years to work on his game and conditioning + strength just wondering?


----------



## Coyat (Jun 18, 2003)

> Didn't Hinric play 2-3 years morethan the players you are comparing him too therefore giving him two more years to work on his game and conditioning + strength just wondering?


If you're talking about college, then most likely yes. But just because he stayed in college 2-3 more yrs. than Ridnour and Ford doesn't mean that he has a complete advantage. Hinrich worked hard to get into that physical shape. 

Sure, he had a few more yrs, but look at Lebron. He's physically fit and he just came out of HS. If one wants to get in shape, they can do it regardless of age


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

great post aesop i agree 100 percent.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> 
> Well, yes, it kind of did But how would you have felt if we passed on Jordan at pick 3 in 1984 because we needed a player at a different position?


As an aside, Portland fans know the answer to this question.

......

Regardless, I was underwhelmed by much of Hinrich NCAA tournament play this year (can't remember whether he had a twisted ankle though). In a couple games he was a total non-factor....not delivering the type of perfromances, you'd expect from a senior leader.

Why he isn't considered to have that much "upside" probably has more to do with his age and being very familiar as a four year college senior from a major program. There is little that isn't known about him.

I would compare some of the pre and post draft analysis of Heinrich to that analysis of Shane Battier.

Battier, a four year senior, who also had a lot of national exposure, was drafted amongst many high schoolers, and 1st or 2nd yr players. Battier had the least "upside".

Again this was due to Battier's age and familiarity. Arguing the race card is a bit superfluous and beside the point, becuase Battier , though light complected, is black....


----------



## RATF (Oct 22, 2002)

WOW!!!!!!!! Great freaking post!!!!!!!! 

I agree!!!!!!!


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Hey, did anyone notice that Kirk Hinrich is white?*



> Originally posted by <b>ztect</b>!
> 
> Arguing the race card is a bit superfluous and beside the point, becuase Battier , though light complected, is black....


Well, his mom is white so geneticly he is as much white as black. 

Anyway, Battier didn't get bashed when he was selected by the Grizzlies as Hinrich is now. I don't think it is a fair comparison.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Hey, did anyone notice that Kirk Hinrich is white?*



> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, his mom is white so geneticly he is as much white as black.
> ...


Genetically yes....culturally(ie. in the context of race in the US) no.

Again, my counterpoints pertain more to your notion that his "upside" is constrained by the color of his skin, rather than comparison especially to white foreigners (Lampe, and Darko) or black foriegners (like Pieturs) the notion that familiar players have less upside simply becuase more is known about them.

It's easy to conjure up fantasies about the potential of players we haven't seen, rather than ones we've seen frequently.

So my comparison to battier, regardless of how he was accepted by Memphis's fans, is a very fair comparison, and debunks some of your arguments.


Heck, if Kirk was the 20 year old Kirk Heinreich from germany, who had played for Bolognia in the Euroleague( that very few fans had actually seen play), then he'd have plenty of "upside"


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DYNASTY</b>!
> Didn't Hinric play 2-3 years morethan the players you are comparing him too therefore giving him two more years to work on his game and conditioning + strength just wondering?


Are you suggesting he also increased his spead by staying in college? Just wondering as well...


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, did anyone notice that Kirk Hinrich is white?*



> Originally posted by <b>ztect</b>!
> 
> 
> Genetically yes....culturally(ie. in the context of race in the US) no.
> ...


I agree with your points about the "upside" comparison with Battier. You're probably right about "Kirk Heinreich" too. :grinning:

I do believe race is an issue with many fans, though. You see it in the quick comparisons to many less athletic white American players. Perhaps European players are judged differently these days. Nobody is comparing Hinrich with Petrovic for instance. Nobody said Dunleavy was the next Dirk Nowitzski either. Personally, I believe if TJ Ford was a player that could shoot and then somehow slipped to 7 he would have been more readily accepted. 

What ifs are hard to argue, though, It's even more difficult to argue the race card. I see how many people would disagree. Anyway, I hope this thread will be more about Hinrich than white American ballplayers in general.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Great post, but then again, you dont need to convince me about Hinrich, I was sold a long time ago!


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I disagree with him being a winner. What did Hinrich and Collison win in college, exactly?

A lot of hype year in and out, but they always lost the big one.

4 years. No championship.

I agree, we didn't draft Steve Kerr or John Paxson--though that is how Bill Cartwright made it seem on ESPN.

We drafted the white Jamal Crawford.
Why? 
We already have him. And he's taller. And he's got NBA experience at the point.

Nice post though.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

I got a few "nice post" comments but nobody gave me a " post quality" rating? :upset:


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> I got a few "nice post" comments but nobody gave me a " post quality" rating? :upset:


I noticed the same thing! Here's a 5 star. Nice post!! Now stop begging!:grinning:


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

Just to note, NBADraft.net's comparison for Hinrich's play was Sam Cassell, which certainly differs from the other same-ethnicity comparisons prevalent on most analysis sites, like Nash, Hornacek, Paxson, and so on...


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kramer</b>!
> 
> 
> I noticed the same thing! Here's a 5 star. Nice post!! Now stop begging!:grinning:


 Thank you.


----------



## DYNASTY (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Coyat</b>!
> 
> 
> If you're talking about college, then most likely yes. But just because he stayed in college 2-3 more yrs. than Ridnour and Ford doesn't mean that he has a complete advantage. Hinrich worked hard to get into that physical shape.
> ...


I'm not saying that but as a Sophmore or freshman wasn't Hinrich a little hoser?


----------



## DYNASTY (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>laso</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting he also increased his spead by staying in college? Just wondering as well...


possibility, strength, conditioning and the older you get the more physically mature you can get and that could help your speed reach it's highest potential.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> 
> I admit I did not see Hinrich play as much as some of you the last few years.


Not to beat a dead horse, but Paxson and bulls management were surprised by Hinrich's athleticism.

IMO this surprise has everything to do with Kirk's style of play rather than the color of his skin.

Kirk is a very "solid" player. Kirk is not a very spectacular player.

On a breakaway, Kirk is the type of player inclined to simply do a lay-up rather than a 360 tomahawk dunk.

He's makes the simple bounce pass rather than the no look behind your back pass

Unlike a player like Wade, Kirk isn't a one on one break down his opponent off a cross-over, switch hands players. He's a systems player, who can find his spots on the floor.

The spectacular players (Kobe, Pierce, Vince, TMac) are the players who sell tickets and fill seats. The solid players are the players who win World Championships with team or systems play.

Kirk will fit into the Bulls triangle pretty well like some white players (Buechler, Kerr, Pax) as well as some black players (Hodges, Harper). He's a player who'll be able to handle, push the ball, but more importantly get to spots on the floor (off the ball) in the triangle where he can get open looks.

Just a couple minor points regarding upside and athleticism (particularly strength)... Tskits was drafted fifth last year based on his "upside". Tskits is white. Tskits had little to no exposure unlike a player like Hinrich

The bench press is a very deceptive barometer of strength. 

A player's wing span and standing reach are considered assets. 
http://www.nba.com/media/bulls/lottery_vitals_03.pdf

Both stats typically are indicative of a player's arm length

Hinrich is 6'3.75 with shoes and has a wing span of 6'6 and a reach of 8'2.5... This is "okay". Whereas Wade, for example, is 6'4.75 in shoes, but has a wing span of 6'10.75 and reach of 8'6 which, according to the pundits, allows Wade to play much bigger.

Thus Wade's 9 reps is a lot more impressive than Hinrich's 10 reps.

Why? Because long arms make the bench press more difficult to do becuase the player has to push the bar a further distance up.
In Wade's case on each rep, he has to push the bar 4 inches more than Hinrich.

The point of this expose is that these tests have to be put in context and can't always be used as a system to rank players.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

One last point.....

In the 2000 draft, many fans were befuddled becuase the Bulls selected Marcus Fizer (a black player) over Mike Miller ( a white player).

Why? The Bulls had Elton brand at the time, and had greater needs at other positions. Miller better fit those needs.

With Jamal, the situation is similar, except in this year's draft the players who best fit the Bulls needs were black instead of white.

So again, imo this whole issue of race is a red herring.


----------



## Bighead734 (Jul 15, 2002)

Great post Aesop, Hinrich was the best player at #7.

The only players I liked better than Hinrich were picked in the top 5.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I disagree with him being a winner. What did Hinrich and Collison win in college, exactly?
> 
> A lot of hype year in and out, but they always lost the big one.
> ...


He went to the Final Four twice though pal, that should count for something. And in this past year they were without the third best player on the team, and were counted out long before the tourney. They got off to a poor start in the season, then Simien goes down, which weakens the thin bench even more, but they still manage to beat Arizona and then destroy Marquette and advance to the Cuse game in the championship, where they only lost by three points despite playing a very mediocre game. He is a winner, you can't argue that simply because he doesn't have a ring on his finger. You have to win a championship in college to be a winner? I don't think so, Bird didn't win one but I think virtually everyone on the planet will agree he's a winner.


----------



## ATM (Jun 23, 2003)

there is no reason to knock on hinrich, i think he will be a very solid starter, not a perennial all-star, but i see him making his way into 1 or 2 all-star games over the course of his career, he will produce and be a leader, his maturity will help eddy curry and tyson chandler in the long run


----------



## jacraw1 (Jun 19, 2003)

yeah all the young bulls need direction and someone to give them a good example on the court. someone who will play with a little intensity, like tyson does. kirk has the brains to match. he is smart, athletic, and a damn good shooter. eddy and tyson will benefit immensly.


----------



## Kildar (Nov 17, 2002)

Part of the "team player", "gritty", "coaches son" comments are coming from the Bulls for an EXTREMELY good reason. Number 7 picks may think they should be "the man", but the Bulls are overloaded with guys wanting to be that. 

The Bulls have their stars of the future in Curry, Chandler and Crawford. They also have an whinny old all-star in Rose. Another go-to player (Wade), may just caused more problems then they're worth.

Also, Crawford's not a Chicago guy. He doesn't stay there when he doesn't have to and doesn't return much even when asked. He needs a little push to become the great player most of us believe he could become. If he doesn't, then the Bulls just got a backup plan. Until then, Kirk Hinrich needs to view himself as just a complimentary player.


----------



## DYNASTY (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kildar</b>!
> Part of the "team player", "gritty", "coaches son" comments are coming from the Bulls for an EXTREMELY good reason. Number 7 picks may think they should be "the man", but the Bulls are overloaded with guys wanting to be that.
> 
> The Bulls have their stars of the future in Curry, Chandler and Crawford. They also have an whinny old all-star in Rose. Another go-to player (Wade), may just caused more problems then they're worth.
> ...


the reason he wasn't in Chicago was because he was working out with GP in seattle. IMO I don't see nothing wrong with not coming to work with Rick Brunson. DO U?


----------



## DYNASTY (Jun 18, 2003)

*Re: Re: Hey, did anyone notice that Kirk Hinrich is white?*



> Originally posted by <b>ztect</b>!
> 
> 
> Not to beat a dead horse, but Paxson and bulls management were surprised by Hinrich's athleticism.
> ...


So if you have longer legs does that exaggerrate how quicker you r 2 some1?


----------



## Coyat (Jun 18, 2003)

> So if you have longer legs does that exaggerrate how quicker you r 2 some1?


Not quite sure what ur getting at, but it's a known fact that people with shorter arms have an easier time benching than those with longer arms.


----------



## rhbrunner (Jun 28, 2003)

Aesop, while I agree with you that Hinrich is underrated as an athlete, I think you went way too far in the other direction with your evaluation of Hinrich's potential. Since so many people agreed with your post, I thought I would bring another perspective to the discussion, so forgive me if I'm being too harsh.

Firstly, let's assume that you're right and that Hinrich is an awesome athlete. How do you know that teams didn't look at Hinrich and thought "Hmm, he's a great athlete and possesses very good skills. However, for some reason, he hasn't dominated in an extremely weak college game. He got outplayed by Luke Ridnour, a below average athlete, by most standards." How do you know that teams didn't compared Hinrich to Tim Thomas, a great athlete with great skills, who never dominate? Hinrich's college career has to be considered, at least, a little disappointing if he does have the great athletic ability and skills that you mention. Carmelo Anthony came in and dominated, despite not having enough experience and time in the weight room. Also, Carmelo's considered a step below the Kobes, Carters, Mcgardys when it comes to athleticism. No one is deceived into thinking that Carmelo has awesome explosiveness because he's black. People think that Carmelo is worth the #2 pick because he's shown that he can be a franchise player, with the way he dominated the college game.

In terms of Hinrich's athleticism, he's shown that he's a good athlete, but by no means can he be considered a great one. He's ranked #20 in a draft that's considered very weak, after the first three guys. How do you think that being #20 among the potential draftees translate to superstar athleticism in the NBA? Also, he's a coach's son, so he's better prepared to handle such drills. Remember when Wally Szczerbiak's quickness was questioned, and his agent mentioned that in the workouts, he had a better time in the agility drill than Jason Terry? Does anyone even think that anymore that Wally is as agile as Terry? Just that fact alone shows how the drills can be deceiving. 

I think Hinrich will be a productive player for the Bulls, but I think it's ridiculous to say he's a "can't miss" superstar. If he's as good as you say he is, he would be taken in the top 3, regardless of color. Don't forget that Dunleavy was taken #3 last year, and he's very much like Hinrich. Dunleavy was a very good college player with good athleticism & skills, plus he was the son of a coach. Dunleavy shows clearly that a white player can be taken high, even if he's not from europe. One can make the argument that Caron Butler wasn't given enough respect for his court sense, because he was black. I don't think that most people involved in basketball have racial stereotypes. Most opinions of players are based on their performances, and not their skin colors. We thought that Jay Williams was going to become a superstar, because of the way he played in College, not because he's black. We were wrong, at least for now. Many of us don't feel that Hinrich is worth the 7th pick, because of his past performances, not because he's white. We judge players coming into the NBA, based on what they've shown in the past. Sometimes, we're right, and sometimes, we're wrong. However, we're not wrong because of our racism. Fans are mad at the Bulls for picking Hinrich because they don't think a senior who averaged 17 points and 3 assists per game, in a very weak college game, is worth the 7th pick. It's that simple.

Overall, I'll give your post a 6/10. You made some good points
but it's too much like a "white guy defending another white guy" column that Bill Simmons of ESPN mentioned.


----------



## DYNASTY (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rhbrunner</b>!
> Aesop, while I agree with you that Hinrich is underrated as an athlete, I think you went way too far in the other direction with your evaluation of Hinrich's potential. Since so many people agreed with your post, I thought I would bring another perspective to the discussion, so forgive me if I'm being too harsh.
> 
> Firstly, let's assume that you're right and that Hinrich is an awesome athlete. How do you know that teams didn't look at Hinrich and thought "Hmm, he's a great athlete and possesses very good skills. However, for some reason, he hasn't dominated in an extremely weak college game. He got outplayed by Luke Ridnour, a below average athlete, by most standards." How do you know that teams didn't compared Hinrich to Tim Thomas, a great athlete with great skills, who never dominate? Hinrich's college career has to be considered, at least, a little disappointing if he does have the great athletic ability and skills that you mention. Carmelo Anthony came in and dominated, despite not having enough experience and time in the weight room. Also, Carmelo's considered a step below the Kobes, Carters, Mcgardys when it comes to athleticism. No one is deceived into thinking that Carmelo has awesome explosiveness because he's black. People think that Carmelo is worth the #2 pick because he's shown that he can be a franchise player, with the way he dominated the college game.
> ...


:gossip: :frenchy:


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rhbrunner</b>!
> Aesop, while I agree with you that Hinrich is underrated as an athlete, I think you went way too far in the other direction with your evaluation of Hinrich's potential. Since so many people agreed with your post, I thought I would bring another perspective to the discussion, so forgive me if I'm being too harsh.
> 
> Firstly, let's assume that you're right and that Hinrich is an awesome athlete. How do you know that teams didn't look at Hinrich and thought "Hmm, he's a great athlete and possesses very good skills. However, for some reason, he hasn't dominated in an extremely weak college game. He got outplayed by Luke Ridnour, a below average athlete, by most standards." How do you know that teams didn't compared Hinrich to Tim Thomas, a great athlete with great skills, who never dominate? Hinrich's college career has to be considered, at least, a little disappointing if he does have the great athletic ability and skills that you mention. Carmelo Anthony came in and dominated, despite not having enough experience and time in the weight room. Also, Carmelo's considered a step below the Kobes, Carters, Mcgardys when it comes to athleticism. No one is deceived into thinking that Carmelo has awesome explosiveness because he's black. People think that Carmelo is worth the #2 pick because he's shown that he can be a franchise player, with the way he dominated the college game.
> ...


Very Nice post, i agree these drills are a bit overrated. I dont care how fast HInrich can run 3/4th's of the court. I'd rather time how fast he can push the ball up the floor and still make a good pass to a teammate. Ok... so he's got a good vertical, unless he plans to develop an above the rim game, sure that vertical might help him grab some boards, but i'd set up drills to see how well he can position himself to get those boards. If he's constantly being boxed out or at the wrong spots, the jumping does nothing.


----------



## BSchmaranz (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DYNASTY</b>!
> Kurt Hinrich = BOBBY SURA


Well then, I'm glad we have *Kirk* Hinrich


----------



## rhbrunner (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>knickstorm</b>!
> 
> 
> Very Nice post, i agree these drills are a bit overrated. I dont care how fast HInrich can run 3/4th's of the court. I'd rather time how fast he can push the ball up the floor and still make a good pass to a teammate. Ok... so he's got a good vertical, unless he plans to develop an above the rim game, sure that vertical might help him grab some boards, but i'd set up drills to see how well he can position himself to get those boards. If he's constantly being boxed out or at the wrong spots, the jumping does nothing.


I agree with what you say about jumping ability. I'm 5'10 with extremely short arms. My reach is at most 7'6, but I could easily hang on the rim. Based on the fact that I could grab the rim, I would say my vertical leap is at least 30 inches. I was a little surprised to see the results of the potential draftees, because I always thought that NBA players were much more athletic than normal people. Well, anyways, I used to be a pretty good player, but after I sprained my ankle, I didn't play for a while. Now, I can still hang on the rim, but when I'm playing, it's like I can only jump 10 inches. Shorter guys with lesser hops often grab rebounds over me, because my body has forgotten the timing and positioning. So I definately think that measuring a vertical leap when you're not doing anything, is not really indicative of how you'll do in the game at all.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

RHBrunner you are ridiculous. first of all your whole personal athletic breakdown served no point whatsoever, please explain that whole thing to me again. All i got out of that was that your short and soft (for never being the same after a sprained ankle) and that you think you can jump higher than you can but who really cares. unless you were trying to say you are just as good a athlete as hinrich? anyways the dunleavey and hinrich comparison is just another ridiculous "there each white guys" comparison. They are nothing alike and play nothing alike and aside from being white they dont even look alike. hinrich was a great college player who did what his team needed from him to win. Kansas was fortunate to have enough ballplayers not to need him to score all the time. You keep calling it a weak college game and i assume that is a comparison to club european teams whom i have never seen play and i assume you havent either. But i do know a lot of players who were marginal players in college and are the best players on there european teams ill find some stats for you on that just to prove it. My point is that college basketball is still much stronger than club european ball and you no doubt wanted us to draft pietrus who did virtually nothing for his garbage european team. so remind me again what hinrich does poorly and tell me who you would have picked instead of him.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

http://www.eurobasket.com/esp/imports.asp
check that link out these are all american players 90 percent of them i never heard of them but if you start looking at thier stats it seems like they totally dominate basketball over there. Wonder why that is? can you imagine what hinrich would have done over there somehow i think he would have put up better stats than peitrus. Oh yeah and Rhbrunner i give your posts a 0 out of 10.


----------



## rhbrunner (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>caseyrh</b>!
> RHBrunner you are ridiculous. first of all your whole personal athletic breakdown served no point whatsoever, please explain that whole thing to me again. All i got out of that was that your short and soft (for never being the same after a sprained ankle) and that you think you can jump higher than you can but who really cares. unless you were trying to say you are just as good a athlete as hinrich? anyways the dunleavey and hinrich comparison is just another ridiculous "there each white guys" comparison. They are nothing alike and play nothing alike and aside from being white they dont even look alike. hinrich was a great college player who did what his team needed from him to win. Kansas was fortunate to have enough ballplayers not to need him to score all the time. You keep calling it a weak college game and i assume that is a comparison to club european teams whom i have never seen play and i assume you havent either. But i do know a lot of players who were marginal players in college and are the best players on there european teams ill find some stats for you on that just to prove it. My point is that college basketball is still much stronger than club european ball and you no doubt wanted us to draft pietrus who did virtually nothing for his garbage european team. so remind me again what hinrich does poorly and tell me who you would have picked instead of him.


Firstly, there's no need to be rule. One of the rules on this forum is that we should be polite. The point of me talking about my experience was not to compare myself to Hinrich, but to discuss about the validity of a vertical leap test. Where did you get that "you think you jump higher than you can" stuff? I mentioned that I can jump at least 30 inches, but I didn't say that I can dunk with both hands. The point is that even though I can jump higher than many people on the playground, I got out-jumped for rebounds during the game, so from my perspective, I feel that testing someone's vertical leap isn't a clear test of how he'll play on the court. 
You mention that comparing Hinrich to Dunleavy is ridiculous, but they have very similar backgrounds, that have nothing to do with race. They're both coaches' sons, they were stars on famous college programs, and they both have solid fundamentals. You describe Hinrich as " hinrich was a great college player who did what his team needed from him to win. Kansas was fortunate to have enough ballplayers not to need him to score all the time."

One could just easily say "Dunleavy was a great college player who did what his team needed from him to win. Duke was fortunate to have enough ballplayers not to need him to score all the time." Obviously, they are much more alike than you're willing to admit. Also, if Kansas didn't need Hinrich to score, why did he shoot 6-20 in the title game? If Kansas didn't Hinrich to score, then why didn't they put him at point guard? You think that Hinrich is above criticism, but Keith Lanford was a better player in the last two games. If anything, Hinrich is an underacheiver. Hinrich was the most popular choice to be "player of the year" according to ESPN's experts. http://msn.espn.go.com/ncb/s/200203projections.html Obviously, Hinrich didn't fulfill the expectations. Jay had the same expectations, and he was able to meet them. That's why no one complained when we picked the Bulls last year. 

You claimed that college basketball is better than european ball. If that's true, then why did the last USA team finished in 6th place? Are you trying to say that the last USA team wasn't as good as a bunch of college all-stars? Keep in mind, the best European players didn't even play on the same team, like the best NBA players did.

Hinrich has no glaring weaknesses, but that doesn't mean he's a great player, and is worth the 7th pick. Juwan Howard doesn't have many weaknesses, but he isn't a great player either, because he doesn't do anything exceptional. Kirk is a good solid player, but a club like Chicago can not afford to get a guy who's just a solid player. A solid pro is not going to help the Bulls get back on the proper track to a championship, or even the playoffs.
We might have had a chance at a great backcourt of two big guards, but instead we're gonna be stuck with an undersized SG (Hinrich or Jamal). The point that many anti-Hinrich guys are making, is that the Bulls should try to pick a potential star, at a position that is most needed, at the 7th spot and not a guy who is going to be a solid backup to Jamal, or a mediocre shooting guard.


----------



## rhbrunner (Jun 28, 2003)

I just want to clear up a mistake I made in the 1st sentence. I was trying say "rude" not "rule". DOH!


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

so who is the potential star they should have drafted? 
enough with the dunleavy hinrich comparison its horrible. 
Juwan Howard averaged almost 20 and 10. so there goes that arguement of how players play who have no glaring weaknesses. 
And forget glaring weaknesses just name any of his weaknesses?
"Keep in mind, the best European players didn't even play on the same team, like the best NBA players did."
Team USA has won for the last 20 some odd years and now we just send the best players who want to go. which ends up being second and third teir players. and all they do is screw around. the euros take it very serious and send their very best players who practice as a unit together like they do for a season. And they field a similar team every year. and our NBA players practice like one week beforehand together. and i dont get how you figure that the best nba players played on the same team. really i dont understand half of your post and wonder if you even understand what you are saying.
You also declined to mention how all of the american import players have such huge impacts on their euro teams but college basketball is weak. 
"Firstly, there's no need to be rule." oh and sorry for being rule. i just found a lot of what you posted to be offensive and untrue.


----------



## rhbrunner (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>caseyrh</b>!
> so who is the potential star they should have drafted?
> enough with the dunleavy hinrich comparison its horrible.
> Juwan Howard averaged almost 20 and 10. so there goes that arguement of how players play who have no glaring weaknesses.
> ...


Firstly, try to learn to flame. I already caught my own spelling error. Pointing out the spelling error was lamer than a sixth grade mom insult. But then again, you sound like a sixth grader. 

Why should I stop with the Hinrich/Dunleavy comparison? You can't come up with anything to hurt the comparison. 

So now you're saying that Howard is a star? Do you have any idea what you're saying? 

Hinrich has plenty of weaknesses if the Bulls're using him as a SG. He's too short, doesn't rebound well enough, can't guard guys like Mcgrady, Carter, etc. Of course, you can say that we can use Jamal to guard SGs, but then Jamal would be at a disadvantage as well. 

In terms of Hinrich's PG ability, what makes you think that he's better than Jamal? Jamal was better at PG than Jay, who was a far more accomplished player than Hinrich. You kept saying that Hinrich is awesome, but I notice you keep ignoring all the points I made about his mediocre performances in college. Why did Hinrich shoot 6-20 in the final game if Kansas didn't need him to score? Why didn't Hinrich win "player of the year" awards, when he was projected to do so?

It doesn't matter that we didn't send our best players in the last tournament. They're still several times better than the best twelve college players. The european leagues divided their stars among several teams, but the US team still finished 6th. Let me repeat that for you, since you're obviously quite thickheaded. The US team has 12 NBA stars, while each European team doesn't have 12 professional stars, because the best European professional players are from many different nations. While the best 2 or 3 players on each European team might be considered to be great players, the other nine players are most likely just average. 

There are many SGs that we could have drafted instead of Hinrich. The Bulls could have picked Hayes, if they didn't like european players. Hayes would make a much better SG than Hinrich. Like I said before, Hinrich is not going to displace Jamal as the starting PG, so why waste a #7 pick on a backup PG/mediocre SG? Anyway, I'm finished with you, Caseyrh. With the last two replies to you, my charity work with retarded kids for 2003 is done.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Let's try to learn NOT to flame.

Peace.


----------



## Coyat (Jun 18, 2003)

> There are many SGs that we could have drafted instead of Hinrich. The Bulls could have picked Hayes, if they didn't like european players. Hayes would make a much better SG than Hinrich. Like I said before, Hinrich is not going to displace Jamal as the starting PG, so why waste a #7 pick on a backup PG/mediocre SG? Anyway, I'm finished with you, Caseyrh. With the last two replies to you, my charity work with retarded kids for 2003 is done.


True, we could've drafted Pietrus or Hayes. But Hinrich was the best player available to contribute right away. With Hayes and Pietrus, we'd be waiting a few years for them to contribute, but Hinrich is ready to come off the bench and do whatever it takes to get the Bulls to win. 

Also, Hinrich = mediocre? How so? He was a great defender in college so I don't doubt his ability to guard people. He'll hit anything when he's left open. He's a proven leader and has the ball-handling skills and passing to contribute. Most people wanted a potential star with the 7th pick, but if anything, Hayes and Pietrus wouldn't show the greatness their first year. Hinrich could do that, so that's why he was a good pick. How great will Hinrich be? Probably not of All-Star quality, but he'll put up good numbers. Just wait and see.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Youre whole post is ridiculous. i dont even know where to start...
first of all just because the guy shoots 6-20 one game has nothing to do with his entire career. escpecially in the ncaa tournament where it is single elimination and every game could be your last. 2 games before that against arizona the #1 ranked team in the country for most of the season he scored 28 and had 5 assists and 5 rebounds. he is known as a very good defender. yeah he probably cant guoard TMAC but who can. Can jarvis hayes? somehow i doubt hayes would do a better job. Also hinrich averaged more rebounds per game (4.7) than either hayes(4.4) or Pietrus (2.5) so who is your rebounding solution at the guard spot?
when did i say howard was a star? all i said is he averages close to 20 and 10. just an interesting guy to slam in your post considering he is one of the most productive players in the NBA.
Hinrich=6'3 190 PG
Dunleavy=6'9 220 SF 
enough with that comparisons it is garbage
or should i compare wade to Chris Bosh or Dermarr johnson.
if you have to compare Hinrich to another white guy at least compare him to a white guy at his position or within 5 inches of his height.
Pietrus played on the french team who became champions. impressive right? However the two american players on that team Rod Sellers and Kyle hill both had better stats than him And i believe Sellers was that teams best player. 
i hope you are not trying to tell me that european basketball is better than american basketbal. but who knows maybe you are.
So then you say that the best players in europe are not all from one country. Really? you mean its not just one big country over there? interesting. 
id continue but im bored of arguing with a moron like you. at least i know that you jump really high... thats cool.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

The racial component in my arguement is certainly impossible to to prove one way or another. 

My main point in the original post was that Hinrich is more than just a good shooting, hard-working player with a solid basketball IQ. He is also an NBA athlete well above the mean. There was much criticism shortly after the draft (it might be subsiding some over time now -- I'm not sure) that this is a guy with very limited potential. He is seen as a John Paxson or a Steve Kerr -- two guys that were good basketball players but below average athletes. I still believe this connection is based on race.

The Dunleavy and Mike Miller examples don't exactly fit the situation here. These two guys (to my knowledge) were not getting criticized like Hinrich was after draft night. Part of this may have to do Hinrich being a suprise pick to many fans. When a player is rumored to be going to a team, fans normally have a chance to learn about them first. Perhaps they will be less likely to jump to conclusions like, I believe, many fans did.

Lastly, I want to make this point...

I don't want to give the impression that white players have it tough with NBA fans. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite. For instance, crowds have a tendency to have favorites like Mark Madsen and Jon Barry -- basically role players-- who get loudly cheered when they do ANYTHING of note. Does anyone else remember Pippen ranting about how the crowd never booed Kukoc? I do believe that many fans assume that white players are not as athletic as black players, though. This makes sense as, on average, this is true. It just isn't always the case and certainly isn't the case here.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> The racial component in my arguement is certainly impossible to to prove one way or another.
> 
> My main point in the original post was that Hinrich is more than just a good shooting, hard-working player with a solid basketball IQ. He is also an NBA athlete well above the mean. There was much criticism shortly after the draft (it might be subsiding some over time now -- I'm not sure) that this is a guy with very limited potential. He is seen as a John Paxson or a Steve Kerr -- two guys that were good basketball players but below average athletes. I still believe this connection is based on race.
> ...


well said. :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

His ability to be a point guard is in question i think not his race. Many think he is more of a two than a point.


----------



## 2cool4skool (Mar 30, 2003)

Hinrich a 2?!!? Don't make me laugh.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Hence...why pick him so high. If he can't be a two and may or may not have PG skills...why pick him at 7.


----------



## 2cool4skool (Mar 30, 2003)

He's a PG. Whoever said he doesn't have PG skills is just being ridiculous. I'd like to hear someone's argument against Hinrich's PG skills.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Hinrich is definitely a point guard, and he may well have been the best player left on the board. Whereas Pietrus may blow up someday, so much is unknown about him to anyone but rlucas that the rest of us would be silly to assume so.

I seem to remember that Hinrich's Bulls workout was odd because the point guards he was supposed to compete against got/were injured. Therefore, he had to D up against small forwards. I wonder if he played great defense against much larger players and sold Pax on his defensive ability that way...if he can D up larger players in the NBA (possible, but doubtful), he may be a steal at 7 who could definitely play alongside Jamal. This we will have to wait and see. Good college D doesn't always equal good pro D, but obviously it does sometimes.


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

Hinrich is a 1. He played some 2, and even some 3, but in the NBA, he's a 1. He's very capable of playing there.

Just like Jay played the 2 at Duke, but he's a 1.


----------



## Butt Cheese (Jun 27, 2003)

Hinrich is gritty and a hard worker and the prefect guy to "push" Crawford this year, and potentially start next year, if not sooner.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Wow.

rhbrunner was WAY off the mark.

I give him a 2/10 on his comments because he obviously spent a lot of time typing them out.


----------



## Snuffleupagus (May 8, 2003)

Kirk Hinrich = Gary Payton

:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: 

:scatter:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> 
> Thus, what do we have here in Hinrich? We have an EXCELLENT athlete. He is stronger than other guards, can jump and is as quicker than most of the other draftees.


And yet some think that he won't "improve" much more than he's shown already.

Good post. I'd missed it. No, GREAT post.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I disagree with him being a winner. What did Hinrich and Collison win in college, exactly?
> 
> A lot of hype year in and out, but they always lost the big one.
> ...


heck. With that, most collegiate athletes will end up not being winners.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> Just to note, NBADraft.net's comparison for Hinrich's play was Sam Cassell


 

And Sam is a winner...


----------

