hinrich a no stat, all star?

[pinkizdead]

Does anyone else think that there are small things that hinrich does that we shall surely miss when he's gone?( he's not a back up pg. he deserves better. ) err guarding a good perimeter defender, fouling in order to prevent an easy lay up, other crap like that.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html

 

[??? ??????]

I wouldn't call Hinrich an allstar, but he has been a nice component to this team this year.

The problem is that Jerry Reinsdorf probably won't be willing to have all three of Gordon, Hinrich, and Deng getting paid. I think there is a strong argument for keeping Hinrich over Deng, but it will also be easier to move Hinrich than Deng. And if it comes down to Ben Gordon or Kirk Hinrich, you have to keep Ben Gordon because he's a much better player.

Kirk Hinrich's ideal role in the NBA is as a 6th man. He doesn't have the creativity you want from the point guard position and doesn't posses the scoring tenacity that you want from the shooting guard position. But he can do some point guard duties and can score a bit, and defends pretty well, and provides nice energy off the bench. While I think the dropoff between Rose/Gordon and Hinrich is noticeable, it's not a drop off from near star players to scrub. It's near star players to a good, solid NBA player.

I'd prefer keeping him as a 6th man going forward, but not over our current best player, and starting shooting guard, Ben Gordon.

The one complain that I have about Hinrich is that he is an instant fastbreak killer. Derrick Rose, John Salmons, Ben Gordon, they know how to run a fastbreak. Kirk Hinrich doesn't have a clue. He thinks that to run a fastbreak, the ball is in his hands and it is his role to dribble it up. But that's not how it works. You have to push the ball. If you watch Derrick Rose, if he has Gordon, Salmons ahead of him, he pushed the ball up to them, so they can take advantage of the numbers they have. Hinrich always dribbles it up, rather slowly, which kills the fastbreak. Someone needs to drill it in his head to push the ball on the fastbreak and not dribble.

 

[pinkizdead]

i disagree. hinrich is terrible off the bench. he doesn't have that offensive umph that a bench player has. he needs to be a starter to be effective. i see him fitting into a place like portland, cleveland, miami, and the lakers. Those places don't need a traditional point guard.

however i agree holeheartedly that we need gordon rather than hinrich. i just like hinrich. i hated him last year, but i like him this year.

 

[dougthonus]

I think this year Hinrich's impact has eclipsed his stats.

I think we'll miss him if he leaves. We'll miss Gordon more if he leaves though. Maybe not a lot more. I don't know, I think that is difficult to judge. I think Salmons helps fill the Gordon role so well now.

It really depends if we get Deng back to playing like 07/08 Luol Deng (or heaven forbid) 06/07 Luol Deng. If we do, then I think the foursome of Rose, Hinrich, Salmons, Deng is just as good as if you swap Gordon in for any of those players.

The problem is that I have little faith in Deng coming back and playing great.

 

[dougthonus]

pinkizdead wrote:

i disagree. hinrich is terrible off the bench. he doesn't have that offensive umph that a bench player has. he needs to be a starter to be effective. i see him fitting into a place like portland, cleveland, miami, and the lakers. Those places don't need a traditional point guard.

however i agree holeheartedly that we need gordon rather than hinrich. i just like hinrich. i hated him last year, but i like him this year.

Hinrich's been great off the bench this year IMO. I think he's an ideal 6th man really, he can come in and calm down your offense if you need to sub your PG, he can come in and give you defense, and to some extent he can come in and give you scoring if Gordon were to be off.

 

[JustinC5]

dougthonus wrote:

pinkizdead wrote:

Hinrich's been great off the bench this year IMO. I think he's an ideal 6th man really, he can come in and calm down your offense if you need to sub your PG, he can come in and give you defense, and to some extent he can come in and give you scoring if Gordon were to be off.

I agree that Hinrich has been very good off the bench this year. I still don't think he's an ideal 6th man. When I think of a 6th man, I don't think of a 'jack-of-all trades' kind of guy, I think of a guy that can come in and deliver one thing very well.. whether that's 'energy', a burst of scoring, lockdown defense, sharp-shooting..etc.

Hinrich is a jack of all trades, master of none. He has an above avg shot, he defends well, and he's an average, maybe slightly above avg distributor although he gets into those fits where he dribbles w his head down which is TERRIBLE for any PG. I think he fits well in an offense where he's a 3rd/4th option. Maybe in Orlando where he has adequate spacing to just shoot. Perhaps somewhere like Clevland - though they already have guards that can score, so I'm not sure you replace scoring w/ distribution when you need scoring besides Lebron. My point is, Hinrich is in the Top 30 (Probably top 15) of PGs in the NBA, which means he should start, not come off the bench on most teams.

 

[Fred]

I believe Shane Battier averages around 6.5 million a year. Hinrich is nowhere near as good as Shane Battier when it comes to defense. Kirk's supposed to bring more on the offensive end for the money he's being paid. He's had a nice rebound from last year's train wreck, but let's not overstate how good he's been.

He's played better this year, no doubt. But you don't average 10 million a year for defense alone. He's scored 20+ against 4 teams: Indiana, Milwaukee, the defensive-minded Knicks, and the Pistons, minus 2 starters. These aren't exactly the best teams in the league. Here are some of his bad games this year:

0-5 against Cleveland in 20 minutes, 2 pts.
2-9 against the Spurs, 23 minutes, 4 pts.
3-9 against Houston, 21 minutes, 7 points.
In 49 games, he's hit double digits against 4 teams with a winning record. Does anyone see a pattern here?

Hinrich was 34th in the league in fouls last year, in 75 games. I believe he was in the top 3 when it came to guards...I may be wrong, but he was definitely top 5 in terms of fouls for guards. He was 8th on the Bulls in free throw attempts.

This will kill a team. When your opponent is in the bonus, and you're not, it's hard to win consistently. He's a guy who commits fouls, but doesn't draw them.

I'm not ready to donate money to make a statue for him unless it's located next to a toilet in the 300 level.

 

[fola]

dougthonus wrote:

I think Salmons helps fill the Gordon role so well now.

I'm still not fully sold on John. Dont get me wrong, I love his game. But, being that Sac is my 2nd team ( i was a HUGE j-will and peja fan back in the day) i've watched him play quite a bit over the last couple of years. And i dont know... he's been a decent scorer, but for me, there's always been something missing. Even before it became evident that he'd probably be taking BG's spot. Maybe its just that he didnt seem like a bigshot guy, and at times he appeared to play pretty.. lackadaisical on occasion. In any case, there's just nothing that i've seen that leads me to believe that we wont skip any beats if he slides into Ben's shoes. Even if Deng returns to old form.


Concerning Hinrich; the biggest reason I want him gone are not because I think it'll help us sign BG (but to be fair, i do believe it), it's mostly because i think that he's young enough (and good enough) to start somewhere it this league. And i'm sure he'd sing the company line until he's blue in the face, which speaks volumes for his character, but there's no doubt in my mind that he believes he's a starter in the league. And probably, rightfully so. I think paired with a super-star is where his game would truly shine and his true worth understood. Unfortunately our super-star (potentially) plays his position.

 

[clonetrooper264]

There's no doubt that Hinrich is a starter in this league. It's not even a question. While I would absolutely love to keep him here, realistically it doesn't work since our future star plays his position. Hinrich deserves better than to be coming off the bench. I'm sure he's fine with it, but as I and others have said, he deserves better.

Also, I think that the reason Battier is better on defense is because he's a good 5-6 inches taller. And while on the topic of defense, should Hinrich leave, Rose and Gordon (I would assume that he would then be resigned) would have to improve their defense quite a bit to make up for it. Perhaps that's a tiny bit of an overstatement, but believe me, the difference would be noticeable. Hinrich as a defender does a lot of little things that don't show up on the stat sheet. He's just fundamentally better than both Gordon and Rose right now, but he's not that athletic. If you take BG or Rose and put Hinrich's defense into them, they instantly become better than he is because they are more athletic. You make Gordon into the defender that Kirk is now and the only thing we would be missing should Hinrich leaves is a backup PG.

As for the no stat all star question, I would have to say no as of right now. As much as it kills me to say, he doesn't have it as much on the offensive end. Perhaps you put him on a team like Portland, Orlando, Cleveland, or Miami, then he would most likely. If he could consistently hit an open 3pt shot, then I would say that he would be very close or possibly be a no stat all star as of right now.

 

[collisrost]

I think the problem with keeping Kirk is that we don't want to get rid of Gordon. I agree that Kirk's an asset, but Ben's a bigger asset. We almost certainly have to trade Kirk to keep Ben, so that's what we'll have to do. If we can make a nblockbuste3r trade or if we can trade Deng for expirings then fine, but otherwise Kirk's out.

 

[??? ??????]

collisrost wrote:

I think the problem with keeping Kirk is that we don't want to get rid of Gordon. I agree that Kirk's an asset, but Ben's a bigger asset. We almost certainly have to trade Kirk to keep Ben, so that's what we'll have to do. If we can make a nblockbuste3r trade or if we can trade Deng for expirings then fine, but otherwise Kirk's out.

We don't have to get rid of Kirk to keep Ben. That's just what Reinsdorf wants you to think The $300+ million the Bulls have made in profit over the past 10 years tells a different story of whether we have to choose between Ben and Kirk.

 

[wjb1492]

Fred wrote:

Kirk's supposed to bring more on the offensive end for the money he's being paid. He's had a nice rebound from last year's train wreck, but let's not overstate how good he's been.

Way to set up a total Catch-22. In playing the role/minutes available, it would be difficult for any player to hit the offensive mark you are establishing. His shooting has been fine - so the logical means of scoring more would be playing more minutes or taking more shots. I think it's a fair assumption that either course would decidedly not meet with your approval.

Sure, there's an argument against carrying Kirk's contract going forward, but it's hardly fair to Kirk to understate how well he's played the role that's there for him as long as the Bulls org keeps him on the team and asks him to play this role.

 

[wjb1492]

??? ?????? wrote:

collisrost wrote:

I think the problem with keeping Kirk is that we don't want to get rid of Gordon. I agree that Kirk's an asset, but Ben's a bigger asset. We almost certainly have to trade Kirk to keep Ben, so that's what we'll have to do. If we can make a nblockbuste3r trade or if we can trade Deng for expirings then fine, but otherwise Kirk's out.

We don't have to get rid of Kirk to keep Ben. That's just what Reinsdorf wants you to think The $300+ million the Bulls have made in profit over the past 10 years tells a different story of whether we have to choose between Ben and Kirk.

I've never quite understood why it's always been Ben vs. Kirk anyway. They're on the same team, they compliment each other pretty well, and guard has long been a strength of the team. As far as I know, they even get along fine as "coworkers." How and why that led to people building up one guy by trashing the other is beyond me. Whatever the Bulls end up deciding this summer, I hope Ben gets paid and both are in good situations next season - and I'd love that to be both with the Bulls, I'm just not getting my hopes up.

 

[Fred]

wjb1492 wrote:

Fred wrote:

Kirk's supposed to bring more on the offensive end for the money he's being paid. He's had a nice rebound from last year's train wreck, but let's not overstate how good he's been.

Way to set up a total Catch-22. In playing the role/minutes available, it would be difficult for any player to hit the offensive mark you are establishing. His shooting has been fine - so the logical means of scoring more would be playing more minutes or taking more shots. I think it's a fair assumption that either course would decidedly not meet with your approval.

Hinrich's averaging 26 minutes a game this year. In Ben's rookie year, he averaged 24 minutes per game. Ben hit 20+ 24 times in 24 MPG. Now, Kirk's no Ben Gordon, but I'd like him to hit 20+ 10-12 times, and against good competition for once.

Then again, last year, Hinrich led the team in minutes, and he only hit 20+ 6 times. (4 times against lottery teams, 1 time against the Mike D's Defensive juggernaut the Suns, and the Rockets). But hey, he's providing us with 10 million dollars worth of defense and leadership.

 

[Fred]

wjb1492 wrote:

I've never quite understood why it's always been Ben vs. Kirk anyway. They're on the same team, they compliment each other pretty well, and guard has long been a strength of the team. As far as I know, they even get along fine as "coworkers." How and why that led to people building up one guy by trashing the other is beyond me. Whatever the Bulls end up deciding this summer, I hope Ben gets paid and both are in good situations next season - and I'd love that to be both with the Bulls, I'm just not getting my hopes up.

I've never understood it either. I think it's because they both are similar sized guards, and one of them (Hinrich) has been shown the love by the majority of fans and the organization, and the other (Gordon) hasn't, for whatever reason.

And I've found, with rare exception, that the biggest Gordon-haters are Hinrich lovers. I have no idea why, but I've been in many heated arguments defending Ben, and this is usually true.

 

[wjb1492]

Fred wrote:

wjb1492 wrote:

Fred wrote:

Kirk's supposed to bring more on the offensive end for the money he's being paid. He's had a nice rebound from last year's train wreck, but let's not overstate how good he's been.

Way to set up a total Catch-22. In playing the role/minutes available, it would be difficult for any player to hit the offensive mark you are establishing. His shooting has been fine - so the logical means of scoring more would be playing more minutes or taking more shots. I think it's a fair assumption that either course would decidedly not meet with your approval.

Hinrich's averaging 26 minutes a game this year. In Ben's rookie year, he averaged 24 minutes per game. Ben hit 20+ 24 times in 24 MPG. Now, Kirk's no Ben Gordon, but I'd like him to hit 20+ 10-12 times, and against good competition for once.

Then again, last year, Hinrich led the team in minutes, and he only hit 20+ 6 times. (4 times against lottery teams, 1 time against the Mike D's Defensive juggernaut the Suns, and the Rockets). But hey, he's providing us with 10 million dollars worth of defense and leadership.

It's not just minutes, it's role. Ben's rookie season he averaged 12.9 FGA to average 15.1 pts in his 24.4 minutes. His primary role on the team was to score. Kirk is taking 8.3 FGA per game to average 10.2 pts in his 26.5 minutes, and he's very obviously not the first, second, or third scoring option - maybe third in some lineups. I think it's pretty logical that most players won't score 20+ points in a game while taking only 8.3 shots.

In those 4 20+ games you point to, Kirk shot very well (.530 in those games), but he also shot more (16.5 FGA per game) and played more minutes (37:52/game) than his season average. Even just looking at Ben's FGA average from his rookie season, that would be 4.6 more FGA per game than Kirk takes on average - so are you advocating that Vinny find 4.6 more shots for Kirk?

And everyone knows that last year totally sucked. The big question coming into this year was how much of that was a bad year and how much was the first sign of perpetual down hill. I think this year has pretty much shown last to be the aberration. This does not excuse last year - he was bad, nightmarishly bad, and as it turned out it cost him his starting spot and possibly his place on the team. But continuing to take stats from that year as if reflective of Kirk's general level of offensive ability is misleading. In 06/07, when he was asked to play a much larger role in the offense, he scored 20+ points 30 times in the regular season while averaging 13.3 FGA. In 05/06, he did it 23 times on 13.3 FGA. And in 04/05, 19 times on 14.6 FGA.

 

[Diddy1122]

Fred wrote:
I've never understood it either. I think it's because they both are similar sized guards, and one of them (Hinrich) has been shown the love by the majority of fans and the organization, and the other (Gordon) hasn't, for whatever reason.

wjb, you're spot on with your assessment about their roles. Which is honestly why I find it very humorous that people always argue over Gordon and Hinrich. They are completely different players. Ones a PG, the others a SG.

Fred definitely hit upon a good point. This organization has made Hinrich the poster boy since day 1 of the 03-04 draft. And why not? He was perfect for it. A midwestern boy who grew up wanting to play for the Bulls and gets his wish. And makes the All-Rookie First Team and becomes the lone bright spot of a season that saw Eddy Curry regress, Chandler fight back issues missing 30 games, a change of head coach, the trading of Jalen Rose and Donyell Marshall for Antonio Davis and Jerome Williams, and a shift in team strategy that produced a 23-59 record, 2nd worst in the NBA and 5th worst in Team History.

Since that season, Kirk has been praised for his grittiness, defense, hard work, and professionalism. He's in almost every advertisement on TV for the Bulls. He even got an Adidas spot in a commercial, as well as a Chevy commercial. For whatever reason, and it's not Kirk's fault, Ben is just not as marketable. Maybe he needs a new agent. Cuz honestly the last commercial I remeber with BG was on the radio and it was for pizza puffs. And was pretty good, so maybe someone should get this guy a close-up already.

 

[dunkside.com]

pinkizdead wrote:

Does anyone else think that there are small things that hinrich does that we shall surely miss when he's gone?( he's not a back up pg. he deserves better. ) err guarding a good perimeter defender, fouling in order to prevent an easy lay up, other crap like that.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html

no, not really.
if there are things that he does and the bulls will miss, for sure they can find those things from a guy making half what hinrich is making.


fola wrote:

I'm still not fully sold on John. Dont get me wrong, I love his game. But, being that Sac is my 2nd team ( i was a HUGE j-will and peja fan back in the day) i've watched him play quite a bit over the last couple of years. And i dont know... he's been a decent scorer, but for me, there's always been something missing.

hmmm, that doesn't exactly make me trust your evaluations
(just kidding)

salmons seems lackadaisical but i think that's his demeanor. he seems closer to duncan than to sheed in terms of expressing emotions on the court.

Fred wrote:

I believe Shane Battier averages around 6.5 million a year. Hinrich is nowhere near as good as Shane Battier when it comes to defense. Kirk's supposed to bring more on the offensive end for the money he's being paid. He's had a nice rebound from last year's train wreck, but let's not overstate how good he's been.

He's played better this year, no doubt. But you don't average 10 million a year for defense alone. He's scored 20+ against 4 teams: Indiana, Milwaukee, the defensive-minded Knicks, and the Pistons, minus 2 starters. These aren't exactly the best teams in the league. Here are some of his bad games this year:

0-5 against Cleveland in 20 minutes, 2 pts.
2-9 against the Spurs, 23 minutes, 4 pts.
3-9 against Houston, 21 minutes, 7 points.
In 49 games, he's hit double digits against 4 teams with a winning record. Does anyone see a pattern here?

Hinrich was 34th in the league in fouls last year, in 75 games. I believe he was in the top 3 when it came to guards...I may be wrong, but he was definitely top 5 in terms of fouls for guards. He was 8th on the Bulls in free throw attempts.

This will kill a team. When your opponent is in the bonus, and you're not, it's hard to win consistently. He's a guy who commits fouls, but doesn't draw them.

I'm not ready to donate money to make a statue for him unless it's located next to a toilet in the 300 level.

i think i love you.
yeap, i'm pretty sure i do.

i've been saying it for years - hinrich is not a PG. he's a poor playmaker. he makes bad decisions (especially on the fast break), takes bad shots early in the shotclock, doesn't penetrate enough. and his defense is overrated too.

he's been massively overrated by bulls fans, and then massively overpaid by paxson.

he can be a very good 6th man, or would thrive as a starter with a superstar with playmaking abilities. his own abilities would be maximized if he was only asked to defend and hit the open shot. a rich man's eric snow, if you will.

but as it stands now, with the bulls not wanting to pay the tax and hinrich overpaid by quite a lot, he needs to go.

just to make it clear, i don't blame it on him.
he's been giving the effort but he just didn't have the talent to lead the team. and he would have been a fool to refuse the money.
he has done what was in his best interest, but now so should the bulls. and that means trading him.

Fred wrote:

I've never understood it either. I think it's because they both are similar sized guards, and one of them (Hinrich) has been shown the love by the majority of fans and the organization, and the other (Gordon) hasn't, for whatever reason.

And I've found, with rare exception, that the biggest Gordon-haters are Hinrich lovers. I have no idea why, but I've been in many heated arguments defending Ben, and this is usually true.

hmmm ... the difference between hinrich and gordon ....
dare i say ... color ?!

larry bird said a while ago:

I think it’s good for a fan base because, as we all know, the majority of the fans are white America. And if you just had a couple of white guys in there, you might get them a little excited.

and it doesn't mean it's racism. it's just that most people find it easier to identify themselves with people (players) that look like them. it can be subconscious, so many don't even realize it.

 

[dougthonus]

Hinrich's averaging 26 minutes a game this year. In Ben's rookie year, he averaged 24 minutes per game. Ben hit 20+ 24 times in 24 MPG. Now, Kirk's no Ben Gordon, but I'd like him to hit 20+ 10-12 times, and against good competition for once.

Then again, last year, Hinrich led the team in minutes, and he only hit 20+ 6 times. (4 times against lottery teams, 1 time against the Mike D's Defensive juggernaut the Suns, and the Rockets). But hey, he's providing us with 10 million dollars worth of defense and leadership.

We all know Gordon is a better scorer than Hinrich, who are you arguing with? Who denies this? Is there anything else on the basketball court that he's better at Hinrich at? Possibly not.

Even so, I think most people also believe that Gordon is a better play than Kirk as well in fact, despite your assertion that the world is filled with Hinrich lovers who hate Gordon I've yet to be overwhelmed by this group you suggest exists and in fact, can think of no one who takes this stance at all.

Kirk has played well this year. I believe at his current level of play he's probably worth his contract, and if it weren't for the economic decline, he would have definitely been worth it. I'd still keep Gordon over Kirk if we could come to reasonable terms with him.

 

[st. park]

Most casual fans I talk to prefer Kirk over Gordon and will spit out generic arguments in support of Kirk. People that post on realgm and bullspodcasters represent a unique, die-hard microcosm within Bulls fans, but if you take a random poll including the general population of Chicago, Kirk is still the more popular player.

Oh yea, it's pretty much insane to think that Kirk is some sort of all-star in any basketball context.