Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
61 - 80 of 80 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
9,350 Posts
VincentVega said:
Hinrich would start for more than half the teams in the NBA. Again, your thoughts are not the same as transplant's.
No, I agree with transplant.

Hinrich is not a difference maker.

Deng and Hinrich may be the best players on the Bulls, but all that situation gets you is a losing NBA team.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,044 Posts
kukoc4ever said:
No, I agree with transplant.
transplant says Hinrich would start for more than half the teams in the NBA. You say Hinrich would only start for half.

Hinrich is not a difference maker.
Hinrich will never make it in this league.

Deng and Hinrich may be the best players on the Bulls, but all that situation gets you is a losing NBA team.
What about last season?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
628 Posts
Frankensteiner said:
Yeah, I counted 22 teams last time we did this topic.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=238454
I pretty much agree with your list, except I didn't think Hinrich would start in Milwaukee, and I was kind of on the fence with Dallas, just cause I think there is a chance he could start there because he'd be more of a true point than anyone they have at present.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
I think that wherever Hinrich plays he would start.

Let me do the teams that he would NOT start on if he was just added to the team:
- New Jersey
- Detroit
- San Antonio

I think vurtually EVERY other team would try to make room for Kirk at either the 2 guard or PG if they could. The only reason he wouldn't start on NJ, Det, or SA is because why woulld they acquire Kirk without leaving any room for him? You can't just say I am going to add Kirk to any team an dsee if he starts. There are already teams with established backcourts.

No matter where Kirk is traded, again I say, he will ALWAYS start, no matter what (unless he's elderly player then declining)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
Babble-On said:
I pretty much agree with your list, except I didn't think Hinrich would start in Milwaukee, and I was kind of on the fence with Dallas, just cause I think there is a chance he could start there because he'd be more of a true point than anyone they have at present.
You don't think Hinrich would start ahead of TJ Ford? Really? Hinrich is better than Ford in just about every statistical category, not to mention a better defender.

I don't think Hinrich would start for the Mavs, although looking at Terry's stats before he arrived in Dallas (.417 FG) to where they are now (.501, .470 the last 2 seasons) makes me wonder if Hinrich wouldn't benefit in much the same way playing for that team.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
628 Posts
Frankensteiner said:
You don't think Hinrich would start ahead of TJ Ford? Really? Hinrich is better than Ford in just about every statistical category, not to mention a better defender.

I don't think Hinrich would start for the Mavs, although looking at Terry's stats before he arrived in Dallas (.417 FG) to where they are now (.501, .470 the last 2 seasons) makes me wonder if Hinrich wouldn't benefit in much the same way playing for that team.
My rationale with Milwaukee was just me thinking that the Bucks are looking at Ford as sort of the future and as having more upside than Hinrich, though, I wouldn't be surpised if they chose Hinrich over him.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
Yikes! I innocently stop by the board today to find that I've become K4E's ally. Go figure.

I stand by my comments, but will try to expand.

Hinrich is very clearly an above average NBA guard. I LIKE HIM and am glad he's on the Bulls. He plays hard and effectively on both ends. He's a gamer. He's also an extraordinarily good fit on a Skiles-coached team. He may well be worth more to the Bulls than he would be to any other team. Because of this, he'd be unlikely trade bait. He may not be untouchable in trade, but he's the least likely Bull to be traded.

Is he a "difference maker?" Depends on your definition. He's the best and most valuable player on a below average team. The Bulls would be downright bad if they lost him for an extended period. However, the Bulls have played a lot of games this season they had an opportunity to win late. Unlike the great ones, Hinrich was not able to successfully "take over" very many of those games.

At this point, Hinrich has not shown himself to be a great player. That's not meant as a criticism. There are only a handful (OK, maybe a couple handfuls) of great players in the game right now.

Do you build AROUND Hinrich? This is semantics to some extent. What a player with Hinrich's considerable abilities needs is a 35mpg stud big man who makes the opposition worry about the Bulls playing "inside-out" on offense and is enough of a defensive presence that the Bulls' guards can play aggressively on the ball. So if getting this kind of player is "building around Kirk," yeah, you build around Kirk.

In my heart, I believe that the Bulls need a "Batman." Kirk could be a great "Robin."

Oh yeah, and I want to see Hinrich play point guard...on both ends. Get me a starting SG with a little size.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
Kirk Hinrich last night took control of the game in the 2nd half hes the leader of the game. Tyson Chandler does all the dirty work and isnt there for scoring but defense and his great jumps for rebounding. Nocioni is very underrated as well, same with Deng. In a few years I see the Bulls going far if they have the same team or get more stars.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
Ron Cey said:
This is my opinion of the situation as well.
I third that. Hinrich, like Brand, has value that can't be seen. We are so lucky to have two PGs who CAN score decently, but who don't have to unless the onus is put on them. Hinrich and Duhon could immediately turn themselves into horsedung if they wanted to show you that they can be a "two guard when I want to fool" and show you that "if you sleep on my PG skills, I'll hurt you with my scoring."

This is why I liked Curry too. In an age when centers have to pretend to be shooting guards and show you that they can hit the three, Curry's game is to back people down and put it in the hole, even if he's not a very good overall all-around player. AND similarly, in an age when PGs can't wait to show you that they are really shooting guards who happen to play the point, Hinrich is content to be a point guard.

I have this wild theory that the more a center plays like a center and the more a PG plays like a point, the easier, given the same talents, it is for the team to function as a unit.

Kirk's value, basically, is that he can be a leader, and be a point guard, and still leave you with plenty of basketballs to go around when you get that "Star." Which is exactly what Brand's value was. Which is why it's not about the numbers at all. You could put Kobe on a team with Brand and his numbers would go down, but he'd actually be a better player, because he's the rare talented player who can be better as his shots go down. Put Kobe out there with Webber and it's a disaster.

The more players like Hinrich you can get, the better, because they make it easier for you to put talented guys on the floor around them and still have enough shots to go around. THIS is why numbers to me don't matter as much as what you actually SEE transpiring on the basketball court.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
transplant said:
Yikes! I innocently stop by the board today to find that I've become K4E's ally. Go figure.

I stand by my comments, but will try to expand.

Hinrich is very clearly an above average NBA guard. I LIKE HIM and am glad he's on the Bulls. He plays hard and effectively on both ends. He's a gamer. He's also an extraordinarily good fit on a Skiles-coached team. He may well be worth more to the Bulls than he would be to any other team. Because of this, he'd be unlikely trade bait. He may not be untouchable in trade, but he's the least likely Bull to be traded.

Is he a "difference maker?" Depends on your definition. He's the best and most valuable player on a below average team. The Bulls would be downright bad if they lost him for an extended period. However, the Bulls have played a lot of games this season they had an opportunity to win late. Unlike the great ones, Hinrich was not able to successfully "take over" very many of those games.

At this point, Hinrich has not shown himself to be a great player. That's not meant as a criticism. There are only a handful (OK, maybe a couple handfuls) of great players in the game right now.

Do you build AROUND Hinrich? This is semantics to some extent. What a player with Hinrich's considerable abilities needs is a 35mpg stud big man who makes the opposition worry about the Bulls playing "inside-out" on offense and is enough of a defensive presence that the Bulls' guards can play aggressively on the ball. So if getting this kind of player is "building around Kirk," yeah, you build around Kirk.

In my heart, I believe that the Bulls need a "Batman." Kirk could be a great "Robin."

Oh yeah, and I want to see Hinrich play point guard...on both ends. Get me a starting SG with a little size.
Ahh yes, but just as you build a house, the foundation may be your star, but the electrical is very important too, or something.

The point is... in today's NBA... Great "Robin"s are hard to find. Very hard! Elton Brand is a great robin, Emeka Okafor will be one as well. Ginobili. Pippen was perhaps the greatest robin of all time. People underestimate this by leaps and bounds. These are the players that are good, and you can put them out there with other good players who have to be the lead guy, and they both can play their game. Put two lead guys out there and one of them has to leave some of their game on the sideline or it won't work. Kareem decided to do this, so it worked in LA. Kobe decided not to IN THE END. It's why the olympic team lost. A bunch of batmans and nobody wanted to play robin.[/b]

Noce is a robin type of player. Deng has shades of both. Gordon is batman. Another Gordon on this team (assuming you kept Gordon) and we'd be in trouble, UNLESS that Gordon is a center (polarization). But even with Gordon and Curry, it ONLY WORKED because we have so many more guys who can play and who also can be robin than any other team. The reason Eddy Curry was part of a winning concept last year is cause there were 10 robins on the team. And we had more good ones than anyone else in the league. The 2003 team had more talent than last years team, but, on that team who would step up and play robin? Donyell and Corie? (Vulgar hand gesture)

So I think it is semantics. You can build around Kirk, but you need other pieces as well. Think of Kirk as a well built house with a great foundation and now we need that all-star real estate agent to bring home the capital gains lol.

I know that nothing I said disagrees with what you said, I just wanted to elaborate a little and see what you think.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,148 Posts
Hinrich's now scored in double figures in 24 straight games. Given the consistency issues that have plagued the Bulls all year that's a really encouraging streak. Here's hoping I didn't just jinx it...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,604 Posts
GB, not all of us do! come on.


Kirk was named Bulls Player of the Month for March. (he hasn't gotten one of these since his rookie year as crazy as that might sound)


In 16 games during March, Hinrich averaged 17.4 ppg, 6.0 apg, 2.6 rpg, 1.07 spg and 37.0 mpg, and shot .453 from the floor, including .431 from downtown, and .800 from the free throw line. He reached double figures in every game, including four games of 20+ points and one game of 30+ points and led the Bulls in assists 11 times and in scoring three times. He also registered two double-doubles


http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/hinrich_pom_060403.html
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
8,415 Posts
mizenkay said:
In 16 games during March, Hinrich averaged 17.4 ppg, 6.0 apg, 2.6 rpg, 1.07 spg and 37.0 mpg, and shot .453 from the floor, including .431 from downtown, and .800 from the free throw line.



Now there's a line I could get used to. I wonder what his TOs per game were during the same stretch.

:clap:
 

· Is not afraid of shadows!
Joined
·
5,094 Posts
jnrjr79 said:
Now there's a line I could get used to. I wonder what his TOs per game were during the same stretch.

:clap:
2.56 TO/G

Interestingly enough, while his shooting % is higher, the rest of the numbers are very similar to his averages for this season:

March
37.0mpg 17.4ppg (.453 FG% - .431 3P% - .800 FT%) 2.6rpg 6.0apg 1.07spg 2.56TO/G

Season
36.4mpg 15.7ppg (.424 FG% - .367 3P% - .827 FT%) 3.4rpg 6.3apg 1.15spg 2.32TO/G

In fact, Kirk has been remarkably consistent through his three year career.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
mizenkay said:
Kirk was named Bulls Player of the Month for March. (he hasn't gotten one of these since his rookie year as crazy as that might sound)
WHAT?!?!! Who makes the decision, Stevie Wonder?

Miz, as you know, I'm an old guy. I'm seldom surprised anymore, but that shocked the beejeezus out of me. Unbelievable!
 
61 - 80 of 80 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top