CBE 98: A Chat with Doug Thonus

[houheffna]

If Kirk is so great, why does SG have the worst +/- differential on the team? Yes worse than PF, that had Tyrus and rookie Taj getting all the minutes.

Oh great, here's Captain Statsheet everybody!

You are really going to use a hockey stat to justify who is better or worst defensively? Seriously? Kirk guards shooting guards, point guards and small forwards. So are you saying Tyrus is a better player defensively than Hinrich? According to what? Yep...the statsheet...you should watch a game sometime, it will enlighten you. Kirk and Kobe are playing in the playoffs this year, check them out and holla back later...

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

If Kirk is so great, why does SG have the worst +/- differential on the team? Yes worse than PF, that had Tyrus and rookie Taj getting all the minutes.

Oh great, here's Captain Statsheet everybody!

You are really going to use a hockey stat to justify who is better or worst defensively? Seriously? Kirk guards shooting guards, point guards and small forwards. So are you saying Tyrus is a better player defensively than Hinrich? According to what? Yep...the statsheet...you should watch a game sometime, it will enlighten you. Kirk and Kobe are playing in the playoffs this year, check them out and holla back later...

What do Kirk and Kobe have in common besides playing in the same league? Kirk is not the best defender in the league, he never has been. And where did I mention Tyrus being a better defender. I mentioned differential, not defensive +/-. Differential involves both sides of the ball. Maybe you should stop staring at the tv when you reply to these. Check it out and holla back later

 

[houheffna]

What do Kirk and Kobe have in common besides playing in the same league? Kirk is not the best defender in the league, he never has been. And where did I mention Tyrus being a better defender. I mentioned differential, not defensive +/-. Differential involves both sides of the ball. Maybe you should stop staring at the tv when you reply to these. Check it out and holla back later

So then you were changing the subject? We were talking about defense over here. You're a big BG fan so I understand if you don't know much about defense...

I brought Kirk and Kobe up because you don't know much about either of them. I was saying to turn the television on and watch them play sometime, then you can give a more in depth analysis of their respective games...

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

I mentioned differential, not defensive +/-.

Differential at a position isn't really a good stat when talking about a guy like Kirk, because Kirk plays both PG and SG on offense, and he guards both defensively (and even SF at times). I'm not saying Kirk is OMG the greatest defensively like Hou, or saying he's been remotely good on offense outside of a few games recently, but differential isn't the way to prove that.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

I mentioned differential, not defensive +/-.

Differential at a position isn't really a good stat when talking about a guy like Kirk, because Kirk plays both PG and SG on offense, and he guards both defensively (and even SF at times). I'm not saying Kirk is OMG the greatest defensively like Hou, or saying he's been remotely good on offense outside of a few games recently, but differential isn't the way to prove that.

I was just trying to point out that up until last week, despite his above average defense, that Kirk is still the biggest net negative starter on this team. A rookie like Gibson and TT still beat him out overall. The guy should be a combo guard off the bench, not a starter. But Hou will snip off cute catch phrases about watching games or stats sucking or bg or some other sensationalist tactic to take away from a simple true point. Kirk's defense isn't stifling, for ever great defensive game he has, he has one where he picks up quick fouls and sits on the bench more than not or shoots 2 for 9.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Well when you have to guard the best perimeter player on the other team while having the crazily inconsistent offensive game that Kirk has, your +/- isn't going to be too great. Just saying. If Kobe scores 27 on Kirk, does that mean Kirk did a bad job or that Kobe was Kobe? I'm going to bet that there are a few people who would say it's Kirk's fault.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

I was just trying to point out that up until last week, despite his above average defense, that Kirk is still the biggest net negative starter on this team. A rookie like Gibson and TT still beat him out overall. The guy should be a combo guard off the bench, not a starter. But Hou will snip off cute catch phrases about watching games or stats sucking or bg or some other sensationalist tactic to take away from a simple true point. Kirk's defense isn't stifling, for ever great defensive game he has, he has one where he picks up quick fouls and sits on the bench more than not or shoots 2 for 9.

Well to be fair I don't think Hou claimed Kirk was a great all around player, I think he said his defense is as good as Gordon's offense. I'd say that's a reasonable claim. Kirk's best defensive year he was named 2nd team all-defense. Gordon's best scoring year 8 other SGs scored more than him. If anything I'd say relative to his peers Kirk is a better defender than Gordon is a scorer.

Of course it's kind of a trick claim because he's not comparing like to like: perimeter defense doesn't translate to as many wins as scoring does. But I think his basic claim is correct (although his stats rant was ridiculous).

BTW, wasn't "a combo guard off the bench" exactly what Kirk was until Vinny decided to "temporarily" replace Salmons in the starting lineup and never remembered to put him back? Hopefully the new coach will stick to his guns a bit better.

 

[houheffna]

Differential at a position isn't really a good stat when talking about a guy like Kirk, because Kirk plays both PG and SG on offense, and he guards both defensively (and even SF at times). I'm not saying Kirk is OMG the greatest defensively like Hou, or saying he's been remotely good on offense outside of a few games recently, but differential isn't the way to prove that.

WHO SAID KIRK WAS OMG THE GREATEST DEFENSIVELY? Did I use the term "great" at all?

I was just trying to point out that up until last week, despite his above average defense, that Kirk is still the biggest net negative starter on this team. A rookie like Gibson and TT still beat him out overall. The guy should be a combo guard off the bench, not a starter. But Hou will snip off cute catch phrases about watching games or stats sucking or bg or some other sensationalist tactic to take away from a simple true point. Kirk's defense isn't stifling, for ever great defensive game he has, he has one where he picks up quick fouls and sits on the bench more than not or shoots 2 for 9.

He WAS a combo guard off the bench...who are you going to start in front of him? Flip Murray is not a better player...Pargo? Who? You don't think the Bulls know they have to improve that position? They have been trying to improve it since Jordan left. You just did a fantastic job of making a point that is absolutely, positively, unbelievably pointless!!! And may I add its redundant. Kirk did not have a good year, great, everyone knows that including Kirk. That said he has been a good defender this year. He is aggressive which would explain the fouls, but he is the best defender one on one the team has and he has been for a long, long time.

This OMG great crap notwithstanding, he is a good defender...

 

[Shakes]

Well the greatest was hyperbole, but you did approvingly quote a coach saying he was the best defender at his position in the league.

 

[houheffna]

I quoted him, I didn't say I believed it myself. That is not the case. But I do think that he is a very good defensive player.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Kirk's a good defender, even Kirk haters have to admit that. HOW good is a different debate. If a coach thinks Kirk is the best on ball defender in the NBA, great, maybe we can con him into talking his front office guys to take Kirk for someone far better. Hyperbole notwithstanding, how many 6'3" PGs could guard PGs, SGs, and SFs, most of which are the best perimeter players for their respective teams? There's not a whole lot of guys in my mind who could do that.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

I was just trying to point out that up until last week, despite his above average defense, that Kirk is still the biggest net negative starter on this team. A rookie like Gibson and TT still beat him out overall. The guy should be a combo guard off the bench, not a starter. But Hou will snip off cute catch phrases about watching games or stats sucking or bg or some other sensationalist tactic to take away from a simple true point. Kirk's defense isn't stifling, for ever great defensive game he has, he has one where he picks up quick fouls and sits on the bench more than not or shoots 2 for 9.

Well to be fair I don't think Hou claimed Kirk was a great all around player, I think he said his defense is as good as Gordon's offense. I'd say that's a reasonable claim. Kirk's best defensive year he was named 2nd team all-defense. Gordon's best scoring year 8 other SGs scored more than him. If anything I'd say relative to his peers Kirk is a better defender than Gordon is a scorer.

Of course it's kind of a trick claim because he's not comparing like to like: perimeter defense doesn't translate to as many wins as scoring does. But I think his basic claim is correct (although his stats rant was ridiculous).

BTW, wasn't "a combo guard off the bench" exactly what Kirk was until Vinny decided to "temporarily" replace Salmons in the starting lineup and never remembered to put him back? Hopefully the new coach will stick to his guns a bit better.

But that is the point. Defensive specialist wings that can't shoot don't get paid big bucks. What did Bruce Bowen make again? Scores get paid, look at the extension Ginobli just got. I have no problem with Kirk personally, just with the amount of money he takes for his production. If we ended up resigning him for the mle to backup Rose and a real starting SG I would be happy.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Differential at a position isn't really a good stat when talking about a guy like Kirk, because Kirk plays both PG and SG on offense, and he guards both defensively (and even SF at times). I'm not saying Kirk is OMG the greatest defensively like Hou, or saying he's been remotely good on offense outside of a few games recently, but differential isn't the way to prove that.

WHO SAID KIRK WAS OMG THE GREATEST DEFENSIVELY? Did I use the term "great" at all?

I was just trying to point out that up until last week, despite his above average defense, that Kirk is still the biggest net negative starter on this team. A rookie like Gibson and TT still beat him out overall. The guy should be a combo guard off the bench, not a starter. But Hou will snip off cute catch phrases about watching games or stats sucking or bg or some other sensationalist tactic to take away from a simple true point. Kirk's defense isn't stifling, for ever great defensive game he has, he has one where he picks up quick fouls and sits on the bench more than not or shoots 2 for 9.

He WAS a combo guard off the bench...who are you going to start in front of him? Flip Murray is not a better player...Pargo? Who? You don't think the Bulls know they have to improve that position? They have been trying to improve it since Jordan left. You just did a fantastic job of making a point that is absolutely, positively, unbelievably pointless!!! And may I add its redundant. Kirk did not have a good year, great, everyone knows that including Kirk. That said he has been a good defender this year. He is aggressive which would explain the fouls, but he is the best defender one on one the team has and he has been for a long, long time.

This OMG great crap notwithstanding, he is a good defender...

We must be really stupid to have have given a 5yr 47.5 mill deal to a combo guard of the bench. You know what I mean Hou. He wasn't brought here to be a combo guard off the bench, he wasn't resigned to be a combo guard off the bench and had he not totally regressed offensively we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[clonetrooper264]

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

I was just trying to point out that up until last week, despite his above average defense, that Kirk is still the biggest net negative starter on this team. A rookie like Gibson and TT still beat him out overall. The guy should be a combo guard off the bench, not a starter. But Hou will snip off cute catch phrases about watching games or stats sucking or bg or some other sensationalist tactic to take away from a simple true point. Kirk's defense isn't stifling, for ever great defensive game he has, he has one where he picks up quick fouls and sits on the bench more than not or shoots 2 for 9.

Well to be fair I don't think Hou claimed Kirk was a great all around player, I think he said his defense is as good as Gordon's offense. I'd say that's a reasonable claim. Kirk's best defensive year he was named 2nd team all-defense. Gordon's best scoring year 8 other SGs scored more than him. If anything I'd say relative to his peers Kirk is a better defender than Gordon is a scorer.

Of course it's kind of a trick claim because he's not comparing like to like: perimeter defense doesn't translate to as many wins as scoring does. But I think his basic claim is correct (although his stats rant was ridiculous).

BTW, wasn't "a combo guard off the bench" exactly what Kirk was until Vinny decided to "temporarily" replace Salmons in the starting lineup and never remembered to put him back? Hopefully the new coach will stick to his guns a bit better.

But that is the point. Defensive specialist wings that can't shoot don't get paid big bucks. What did Bruce Bowen make again? Scores get paid, look at the extension Ginobli just got. I have no problem with Kirk personally, just with the amount of money he takes for his production. If we ended up resigning him for the mle to backup Rose and a real starting SG I would be happy.

And at the time, Hinrich was believed to be a scorer too. 16.6 points and pretty darn good defense = 5 years 47.5 million. Bowen I believe got paid about...4 million per year. For a defensive player of his caliber, I think that was a pretty good deal to say the least. Bowen was not a good offensive player, which is why he only got paid that much. He played solely to play defense and maybe knock down the occasional 3.

 

[houheffna]

We must be really stupid to have have given a 5yr 47.5 mill deal to a combo guard of the bench. You know what I mean Hou. He wasn't brought here to be a combo guard off the bench, he wasn't resigned to be a combo guard off the bench and had he not totally regressed offensively we wouldn't be having this discussion.

He was paid to be a starting point guard. So what do you want? Him starting ahead of Rose? He is definitely not a starting shooting guard.

 

[pinkizdead]

well we're stuck with him until we can trade him for turk. ( god dammit. )

 

[TheStig]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

I was just trying to point out that up until last week, despite his above average defense, that Kirk is still the biggest net negative starter on this team. A rookie like Gibson and TT still beat him out overall. The guy should be a combo guard off the bench, not a starter. But Hou will snip off cute catch phrases about watching games or stats sucking or bg or some other sensationalist tactic to take away from a simple true point. Kirk's defense isn't stifling, for ever great defensive game he has, he has one where he picks up quick fouls and sits on the bench more than not or shoots 2 for 9.

Well to be fair I don't think Hou claimed Kirk was a great all around player, I think he said his defense is as good as Gordon's offense. I'd say that's a reasonable claim. Kirk's best defensive year he was named 2nd team all-defense. Gordon's best scoring year 8 other SGs scored more than him. If anything I'd say relative to his peers Kirk is a better defender than Gordon is a scorer.

Of course it's kind of a trick claim because he's not comparing like to like: perimeter defense doesn't translate to as many wins as scoring does. But I think his basic claim is correct (although his stats rant was ridiculous).

BTW, wasn't "a combo guard off the bench" exactly what Kirk was until Vinny decided to "temporarily" replace Salmons in the starting lineup and never remembered to put him back? Hopefully the new coach will stick to his guns a bit better.

But that is the point. Defensive specialist wings that can't shoot don't get paid big bucks. What did Bruce Bowen make again? Scores get paid, look at the extension Ginobli just got. I have no problem with Kirk personally, just with the amount of money he takes for his production. If we ended up resigning him for the mle to backup Rose and a real starting SG I would be happy.

And at the time, Hinrich was believed to be a scorer too. 16.6 points and pretty darn good defense = 5 years 47.5 million. Bowen I believe got paid about...4 million per year. For a defensive player of his caliber, I think that was a pretty good deal to say the least. Bowen was not a good offensive player, which is why he only got paid that much. He played solely to play defense and maybe knock down the occasional 3.

That is exactly my point, that Kirk got paid to do more and its not like he doesn't have playing time here. He has been reduced to exactly what you described and bowen was a better defender.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

We must be really stupid to have have given a 5yr 47.5 mill deal to a combo guard of the bench. You know what I mean Hou. He wasn't brought here to be a combo guard off the bench, he wasn't resigned to be a combo guard off the bench and had he not totally regressed offensively we wouldn't be having this discussion.

He was paid to be a starting point guard. So what do you want? Him starting ahead of Rose? He is definitely not a starting shooting guard.

And where was Rose in 07-08? Surely he must have been doing great. Wait that was the start of the regression. Surely getting more open shot attempts from Rose wouldn't decrease his fg %. But I forget, you don't like stats and watch games. Perhaps you may have noticed the bricks kirk has been throwing up.

 

[houheffna]

And where was Rose in 07-08? Surely he must have been doing great. Wait that was the start of the regression. Surely getting more open shot attempts from Rose wouldn't decrease his fg %. But I forget, you don't like stats and watch games. Perhaps you may have noticed the bricks kirk has been throwing up.

I once again state that he was paid what he was worth at the time. He was projected to be present and future the point guard for the Bulls. He signed the contract, and hasn't lived up to it. It wasn't a bad contract when he signed it. Kirk was a pretty good player at one time, and the most skilled guard on the team. He has regressed, but he still can offer some positives to a team. I guess its your thing to totally change the subject after looking at your statsheets, because nothing in your statsheets support your off the wall analysis of the NBA. Especially league wide. I'm sorry but after the whole Kobe thing, the worst argument in history, seriously, history, not even in sports history, but history...I don't think player analysis is your strong suit. Stevie Wonder could do a better job...

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

And where was Rose in 07-08? Surely he must have been doing great. Wait that was the start of the regression. Surely getting more open shot attempts from Rose wouldn't decrease his fg %. But I forget, you don't like stats and watch games. Perhaps you may have noticed the bricks kirk has been throwing up.

I once again state that he was paid what he was worth at the time. He was projected to be present and future the point guard for the Bulls. He signed the contract, and hasn't lived up to it. It wasn't a bad contract when he signed it. Kirk was a pretty good player at one time, and the most skilled guard on the team. He has regressed, but he still can offer some positives to a team. I guess its your thing to totally change the subject after looking at your statsheets, because nothing in your statsheets support your off the wall analysis of the NBA. Especially league wide. I'm sorry but after the whole Kobe thing, the worst argument in history, seriously, history, not even in sports history, but history...I don't think player analysis is your strong suit. Stevie Wonder could do a better job...

Ooohh another snazzy zinger. That solved everything. Ignore the point, Rose didn't make Hinrich expendable and regress, he already did that the year before. But lets get our clever catch phrases together so we can make a few zingers and dance around the obvious all day. Stats don't matter, its all a coincidence the best players have the best stats or the best teams employee advanced stat guys, lets all blindly follow old school management that overpays supposed "perimeter defensive stoppers" and has no shooters on a team. Too bad its not 1991 anymore. Why evolve with the league when we can have good guys and defenders that can't shoot.