Why Kirk Hinrich will be fine

by smegmatic on Jul 30, 2008 3:32 AM CDT Comment 69 comments

Can you spot the outlier in the plot below?

(Hint: I circled it for you)

I think it's safe to assume that November 2007 was an aberration. He never came close to shooting that badly in a month before or after. Based on his consistent shooting in every other month, it seems unlikely that he will repeat such a dismal performance again. Without that month, Hinrich's shooting didn't really drop off much last season.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

1 recs | Comment 69 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

And if you take out is best month of 50%...

...which is also an aberration (if not as much so), then he shot just over 35%-what he did for the entire year anyway-and just below his career average.

by tyger1147 on Jul 30, 2008 8:17 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

strange how they're in the same year.

Kirk Hinrich must be the dreaded ‘streak shooter’.

No, I don’t think he’ll be as bad this year, and I’m sure Kirk will be fine. On some other team.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 30, 2008 9:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of Hinrich numbers

how many people have seen his amazingly bad ‘clutch stats’?

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 30, 2008 9:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

This is a fine example

of where statistics support the on-court observations. But he’s Jerry’s kid!

by messwiththebull on Jul 30, 2008 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's the stat!

that drives one crazy watching Kirk…

by exult463 on Jul 30, 2008 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clutch Statistic FG% ...

.143.
Wow.
That’s … really scary.
Can we give him to the Clippers or something for the option to swap second round picks?

by Prevenge on Jul 30, 2008 11:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is an eye-opener even if it is consistent with on-court observation.

I read crunch -time FG% as .111. BaB we have a problem.

by chgobr on Aug 1, 2008 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

im not sure

how this works. but other thana drawing fouls arent him and BG just about the same?

Rose lobs it up for the alley oop... and it's caught and put down by Rose

by Yibs on Jul 30, 2008 10:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

BG can carry a team. Kirk can bury a team.

by messwiththebull on Jul 30, 2008 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yea

i dont see what that has to do with the stats that i had questioned. and no, BG can only carry a team on some occasional days. and bury the team always on defense.

Rose lobs it up for the alley oop... and it's caught and put down by Rose

by Yibs on Jul 30, 2008 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not arguing about his D

but he can carry the team offensively as we’ve all seen, for stretches and in the fourth quarters. Kirk can do a scrappy job on 2 guards but he’s pretty p-poor himself when it comes to guarding fast guards like Louis Williams. Kirk can also be a rally killer by missing too many wide open looks, just too many to excuse. Just relaying what my eyes have told me.

by messwiththebull on Jul 30, 2008 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

true

but his clut stats are really not very good for having the reputation of a clutch player.

by Jaina on Jul 30, 2008 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never said he was clutch

that last second airball vs Golden State still is etched into my mind.

by messwiththebull on Jul 30, 2008 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the one that kills me

is howard stealing the ball from him at the top of the key.

by Jaina on Jul 30, 2008 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still remember that ridiculous play clearly....

And the sad thing is that’s just one of many times he’s lost the ball BEFORE he even attempted a last-second shot.

by smash! on Jul 30, 2008 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can cherry pick bad plays too...

I don’t think any of Ben’s turnovers have been anywhere close to being as bad as Kirk on a 1-on-none fast break and him throwing the ball behind him to absolutely nobody.

And I don’t think Ben’s defense has ever been this bad either – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crs-QT1DERo

by NormVanBeer on Jul 30, 2008 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

as bad as that kirk play was

it wasn’t a critical play, unlike the two mentioned above.

by Jaina on Jul 30, 2008 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So Gordon's willing to take critical shots.

Everyone whines that Nocioni is the only aggressive offensive player on the team, and that’s just not true.

If both guys are going to mess up so poorly, I’d rather have the guy who is at least willing to take the shot.

by tyger1147 on Jul 30, 2008 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

true

and there’s the issue of running a play in a situation like that. not the “let gordon dribble it until it bounces off his foot” play. either draw something up for him or draw something up for someone else and force them to learn to take a big shot.

by Jaina on Jul 30, 2008 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've generally thought they handed the ball to Gordon

because as bad as he’s often looked in that role, everyone else has completely wet themselves when given a chance.

by Sports2 on Jul 30, 2008 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

perhaps

and i know he’s the one who wants it. but at least have a play in place. after watching him dribble it off his foot, have it stolen by dwight howard, airballing it, what have you, it’s clear that just letting him trying to create his own shot is not good enough.

and the reason i say draw up a play for someone else is if the coach tries to force it on them, they may get used to the pressure and be able to have more options at the end. instead, every team knows that if it is a close game, it’s going in gordon’s hands, and he’s easy to force to cough up the ball. the more crunch time situations a player is involved in, the easier it might be to get them to take the shot if they’re able.

by Jaina on Jul 30, 2008 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's true

Hinrich’s usually nowhere to be found on a critical play.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 30, 2008 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

HA!

by Belize on Jul 30, 2008 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

no

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 30, 2008 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually

just read this.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 30, 2008 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gordon is 100x the shooter Hinrich is

Hinrich is a set-shooter, and not a particularly great one at that. Half of Gordon’s shots are the dribble-through-your-legs-post-up-two-seven-footers-whirly-gig-and-fire variety, and his percentages still rank among the all-time greats.

by YaoPau on Jul 30, 2008 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Inconsistent

As good of shooter BG can be on some nights, he can be just as bad the next. And if all you can do is shoot and it’s not falling some nights, what good are you? No doubt BG is a great shooter when he’s on. He can light it up with the best of them, but when he’s off he hurts the team offensively and defensively.

by ronmexibull on Jul 30, 2008 11:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, when you have a "glut" of guards...

...you sit him on those nights. It’s called, um…

............um…..........

.............um…........

coaching!

by tyger1147 on Jul 30, 2008 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the problem is

sometimes he needs to be in a little while before he finds his rhythm, but in the meantime he’s hurting the team a lot. so do you pull him immediately not even giving him a chance to find his rhythm? he may never find it then. it’s not fair to say if he’s not immediately on fire he should be pulled.

by Jaina on Jul 30, 2008 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why the extremes?

He really isn’t hurting the team as poorly as you think.

by tyger1147 on Jul 30, 2008 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

should have been more clear with this comment

i was sorta speaking in the hypothetical.

nah he’s not that much of a detriment, but when he’s off he doesn’t help on defense, either, so it hurts both sides. we need to be able to pick up the slack better when he’s not producing – but that usually involves him not being on the floor.

by Jaina on Jul 30, 2008 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know, and that's fine.

I just think you can give him more than the Tyrus Thomas 3-minute tryout each game to gauge if he’s “on” or not, and not put the team in a horrible hole. He’ll be “on” more often than not, so I think it’s worth it. I mean, he’s not an all-or-nothing player and his average days are good enough for 25-30 mpg.

If there’s a better option after 8-10 mins and he’s totally stinking it up, they’ve got Thabo and then Hughes or Hinrich for the rest of the half. Try Gordon out again in the second half for maybe 5-8 minutes. Maybe he gets hot. Maybe he’s not. If not, sub. In those rare games where he’s completely off (or when he’s slightly off and Hinrich/Thabo/Hughes are red-hot), he sits.

I’m not saying it’s easy, but that’s one of the things a coach should be able to juggle.

by tyger1147 on Jul 30, 2008 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

again

i wasn’t really proposing the team do that. i’ll admit i’m not a huge gordon fan but i do like him well enough. i’d want him to stay a bull if possible, even though i have a love-hate relationship with his play because he can be SO good and SO bad in the span of just a few seconds.

i think you’re also underestimating how often he is “completely off.”

by Jaina on Jul 30, 2008 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never said

that BG should be pulled if he’s not off to a fast start. He would be a perfect off the bench instant offense guy, but he wants to be paid like a 35 min a night starter. I personally don’t think he’s worth it.

by ronmexibull on Jul 30, 2008 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right, so you're saying he needs to be an offensive option, like, oh say, a 6th man...

and not our first offensive option. But we can’t live or die with his jump shot as our first option on a nightly basis.

We desperately need BG. I 100% buy the idea that in an ideal line-up he should be the 6th man. The problem lies in the fact that he doesn’t want that role and he won’t except that salary.

by smash! on Jul 30, 2008 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, it would help

if he was a sixth man with better guards starting over him. Nothing worse than being a sixth man with someone like Duhon or Hughes starting in your stead for example. If we had obviously better guards starting over him then chances are this wouldn’t be such a problem for Gordon. As it is he has the right to be indignant about it.

Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.

by cranscape on Jul 30, 2008 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

bullsEye

target hit with 100% accuracy!

by exult463 on Jul 30, 2008 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

starting duhon over gordon

is and was always absolutely ridiculous. it’s a downgrade at both guard positions. and sending gordon the message that he doesn’t deserve to start over duhon is awful. and the idea that duhon may continue to start in NY is hilarious to me.

also, how much taller is hinrich than gordon, if at all? i know they are both listed at 6’3, but i know that gordon is noticeably smaller than that. if gordon is too short to start at SG shouldn’t hinrich be as well?

by Jaina on Jul 30, 2008 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hinrich should be listed at 6'4".

6’3.75” in shoes.

Gordon was 6’2.25”. I don’t know how that translates to “noticeably smaller” than 6’3”, though.

by tyger1147 on Jul 30, 2008 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ah

i thought i’d heard he was only about 6’ or 6’1.

by Jaina on Jul 30, 2008 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

6'1.25" no shoes???

by tyger1147 on Jul 30, 2008 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

could be that

and thanks for the official info :)

by Jaina on Jul 30, 2008 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I met Gordon in a mall and spoke to him. I'm 5'9" and he wasn't much

taller than I am. I think at most he is 6’. He was very nice. I replayed some his heroics against the Knicks and he laughed.

by chgobr on Aug 1, 2008 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're wrong.

You…. are… simply…. wrong….

I hope you’re just saying this to get someone riled, because, as much I know you read this site, you’d be an absolute fool to trust your judgment in this matter over the reported facts of NBA officials who have millions of dollars invested in the outcome.

by tyger1147 on Aug 1, 2008 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

With

arm length…probably should look Gordon’s reach up when I get home. They might not be that much different. AKA, both Gordon and Hinrich are short.

Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.

by cranscape on Jul 30, 2008 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gordon's actually bigger

In every basketball meaningful sense that I can think of.

More muscular
Bigger vertical
Bigger wingspan
Bigger standing reach

Aside from the fact Kirk’s got, I guess, a longer neck, I think Gordon is actually bigger.

by Sports2 on Jul 30, 2008 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude,

those bullets points made that look very official. I should use that in my next post…

Gordon’s standing reach 8’ 3” and Kirk’s is 8’ 2.5” according to a simple Google search. And Gordon does seem to have a stronger upper body. Maybe it is Kirk’s neck height that makes people think his reach must be better…he is taller…in the neck area. Anyway, if Gordon is too short then Kirk is also too short. I guess that was my point. :)

Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.

by cranscape on Jul 30, 2008 8:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Watermarks are very official looking too!

Ben’s reach is 6’8.5” and Kirk’s is 6’6”.

I agree, they’re both too short. From a purely mechanical perspective, Ben ought to better be able to stick his hand in an oponent’s face and get up and contest shots.

Kirk’s got better footwork, but if he’s as slow as he was last year it won’t matter.

I actually think that, while they’re both too short, what really made them look better the prior few years was having a strong interior defense. Having a good shotblocker behind you makes perimeter defenders look a lot better.

They’re both ok if you’ve got defenders behind them. They’re both not ok if you don’t. We don’t. :(

by Sports2 on Jul 30, 2008 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

even more

my point stands.

how do they think gordon is too short to be a starting 2 guard when his standing reach is bigger than hinrich, yet they expect hinrich to start next to rose next year?

by Jaina on Jul 30, 2008 11:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yup

I don’t get it either.

by Sports2 on Jul 31, 2008 8:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

because he's taller?

and plays defense?
and whines so it looks lik he cares?
and he’s white?
and he’s already signed?

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 9:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did you know:

whiteness automatically makes you tall and slow!
Look at all those centers.

by Prevenge on Jul 31, 2008 6:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Barkely and Pippen both said this publically

There was a comment about the Bulls having “a bunch of midgets playing guard.”

Thus the love affair with Thabo, and his very weird, flat shot, and his knack of getting airborne with the ball and nowhere to go.

by rtblues on Aug 1, 2008 4:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Barkley has made that midget comment about 10000000 times now regarding the Bulls

He has one cliche phrase for every team in the league.

I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)

by Ozzie Montana on Aug 1, 2008 4:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No. Start him so the team has a chance for some sort of offense to start the game.

by tyger1147 on Jul 30, 2008 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

............um...........

......do you really think BG would be happy playing some nights and not others? In fact, do you think he’d be happy being a 6th man for the next 3-5 years? Which is what he has excelled at. And if he is a bench player, should he be paid the type of money he’s looking for, which is Deng type money?

by ronmexibull on Jul 30, 2008 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never proposed him benig a 6th man.

You might have replied to the wrong comment.

by tyger1147 on Jul 30, 2008 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why Kirk Hinrich will be fine? If he can?

1) Put on some muscle during the off-season
2) Takes his job seriously like he’s fighting to stay a starting PG in the NBA
3) Exert himself more to play and force a running offensive.
4) Truly understand that SG position will not afford him to continue to start in the NBA
5) Show up in the 4th qtr, and learn when to exert himself, defer to teammates, and really understand how to read the flow of the game and teammates potential.
6) Develop amnesia when he misses a critical shot, and come back and make a play on the next possession or defensive assignment while keeping his shoulders erected firmly.

by exult463 on Jul 30, 2008 1:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

well this is all on some other team

Rose is the starting and finishing PG.

Also, you can’t expect Kirk to focus. He’s having a kid or something.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 30, 2008 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

talk about...

a laundry list of things to do.

I am exaggerating on purpose here, but imho Kirk is pretty horrible offensively. Paxson is facing a conundrum here. I would not want to be in his position. Unfortunately I think it is a forgone conclusion that Kirk will play at the 2 and BG will be shipped out.

by ridindirty on Jul 30, 2008 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

if BG would sign for a reasonable amount of money

i’d love to keep him. but this whole “he’s lead the team in scoring for 3 years so he should be the highest paid player on the team” bit (which would force his salary above hughes’ 13 mil) is ridiculous and he doesn’t deserve that kind of money. if he can find someone to give it to him… good for him because i wouldn’t want that to be the bulls.

by Jaina on Jul 30, 2008 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trade Hughes and Hinrich and don't tell him they signed Deng.

Bingo! Bango! $9 mil per year.

by tyger1147 on Jul 30, 2008 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm just going to guess

that none of those things will happen. Maybe the second and third, but not the others, definitely. That stuff looks ingrained.

by Prevenge on Jul 30, 2008 11:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trade Kirk

Keep Gordon!

Homecoming

by illwill on Jul 31, 2008 5:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Nocioni before Gordon

Guard glut or not, who still thinks Noc is worth what he is getting. What you see is what you get. He ain’t gonna get better, only older and slower.

Maybe it’s my imagination, but the guy doesn’t pass to guys he doesn’t like, i.e., Noah. He ignored him underneath too many times last year. Weird. But, he’s shoot-first in general.
Also, doesn’t rebound enough, even for a SF. Non-existent on the offensive glass.

The new flopping rules will impact him, for sure. It’s part of his game at this point. The dunk on Kevin Garnett in the Olympics when Nocioni was 18 years old sure seems like a distant memory! It’s still on YouTube. Whole Argentinian team goes bananas after the dunk. Yeah, he had chesse-y hair then too.

Then there’s Hinrich…
I’d also look to dump him before letting Gordon go…
ANYTHING has got to be an improvement over: Pounding the ball to the floor while running around aimlessly, including a mad dash under the basket only to do nothing with it, for 18 seconds, then leaving someone with a pass and 3 seconds to shoot it.

Also, very OVER-RATED defensively!
He was getting torched by the better guards all year, and the not so better guards too. Looks slow afoot defensively now. Shot in the tank. There aren’t a lot of positives. The big contract and it all adds up to get rid of him if and while you can, keep BG. Does more.

Yeah, BG has some problems, mostly when they had doing the things he isn’t good at, handling the ball especially. Struggles with double-teams resulting in turnovers.
But imaging D-Rose stepping up, and running it, BG can sit out there and do his thing. He is their only legit 3-point threat right now.

Oh, and please, no, “Nocioni can hit 3s” replies….

by rtblues on Aug 1, 2008 3:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Q: Why Kirk Hinrich will be fine?

A: Because he signed a 5 year 47.5M contract…and that doesn’t count his rookie contract, endorsements, and future earnings after that point….

Sorry I’m ragging on their salaries again. It just sucks that the govt doesn’t step in and either force the owners to supply the stadiums (Rather than the taxpayers) and if the taxpayers supply the stadiums—which they do, that the govt doesn’t cap the earnings of the athletes to a still solid $4M/year for the best of them and take a bigger chunk of these dollars to help fund things like our schools….

The athletes can still make ridiculous sums of money through endorsements (Which have no cap), but paying $80 a ticket for crappy seats (and much more for better seats) per person is ridiculous and that is last year’s prices….

by majoyenrac on Aug 1, 2008 7:39 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs