spurs brought in steve smith,ron mercer, barry and da their shooting % with duncan did nto go up
alot thought with barry it would but when he was almost traded he started playing ok
so do not assume that palyign with duncan will make him shot better
working with chip yes....
Stick "Brent Barry" and "Sonics" in there and you get us two summers ago.Kirk is a certain niche type of player that can iplay in a good system on a good team. The Bulls are a few pieces away from that, but I bet if you stick him in here he starts looking very good.
You don't know much.
So far in this thread you've said a lot of things that were just flat out wrong.
You said for me to go look at NVE's minutes in the playoffs compared to regular season because they went WAY WAY UP because Tony choked. Meanwhile, NVE played only 10 minutes a game against the Mavs and played 16 mpg in the regular season.
It's like you spout off without watching anything.
Now you are telling me that Hinrich's numbers are about equal to Tony's numbers even though Tony's shooting percentage is 13% higher. THIRTEEN PERCENT .. that's frickin huge. Maybe if you brought him here Hinrich could shoot 45% and be an average NBA guard. Maybe not.
I'm just comparing the two. Not holding anything against anyone.
Parker is like 8000x better than Kirk Hinrich. How is this even a question?
Parker is so efficient it's not even funny. He was injured and he played through it pretty damn well. He has improved every year and the league and is likely to end up one of the most unique, awesome forces in the NBA in a couple of years. Why would we trade him?
Parker's jumpshot is good when the rest of the Spurs aren't sitting around waiting for him to create something for them. When the Spurs are stagnant, then it becomes a problem, because he really doesn't want to just chunk up jumpshots.
If anything, Parker was probably the MVP of the season for SA.
Hinrich has the better shot overall, but Tony does so much more and has so much more ability, I don't really even think they are in the same category. Anyway you slice it, I'll take a worse shooter that shoots 54% to a better jump shooter that hits at 41.
I'm not talking about the regular season.
His jumpshot improved greatly this season. But it seemed like in the playoffs he sort of reverted to his old shot. With pure shooters you say 'keep shooting' but with a guy like Tony...you can't do that. He's an improved shooter. Not a pure shooter by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't think Heinrich would get to 54%. That said, I do think he could get up to around 47-50% which is better than TP shooting 56% all season then getting into the playoffs and shooting 46%.
(damn you for making me go and look up statistics)
Steve Smith?
Well Hinrich shot 41% in the playoffs. So I doubt he can even reach Parker's 50% that he shot in the Kings series.
I'm not going to continue this argument, but you repeating over and over and over in different threads about how Tony choked in the playoffs just makes you look stupid.
None of the Spurs choked in the playoffs. They just got beat because we couldn't match up with the Mavs because the centers suck.
I'm not sure if it's the same.
Barry was a really good player on an average team.
Heinrich is an average player on an average team. The difference is Barry needs the ball in his hands (in my opinion) more than Heinrich (other than bringing it up court) and Barry is more of a slasher.
It's just my opinion.
I don't see why this has to turn into "I disagree with you, therefor you know nothing about basketball".
steve smith was a spur yes
I wasn't "wrong".
I told you I didn't have the stats in front of me.
That said, let's discuss shooting percentages. Since you're bent on stats. Heincrich shot 42% in the regular season, and 42% in the playoffs.
Parker shot 55% in the season and then 46% in the playoffs. Yes I realize 46% > 42% but a the same time, you have to look at who is more consistent and what type of system they're playing in. In an offense with Duncan and Manu to divert the defenses attention you're shooting percentage should not drop 10 points.
Look at Heinrich...in an offense with a bunch of average players he still managed to put out as much (percentage wise, since that's what you're focused on) in the playoffs as he did in the regular season. You're telling me if he's shooting 42% with the Bulls he can't shoot say...45-48% with the Spurs filling a role?
I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but I do know a little about basketball.
Sorry I thought you meant Charles Smith.
But ya, Steve Smith was on old fart man.
How did Tony choke? I must have missed that between him limping up the floor and rehabbing every day between the games just to play for his team.I'm not sure if it's the same.
Barry was a really good player on an average team.
Heinrich is an average player on an average team. The difference is Barry needs the ball in his hands (in my opinion) more than Heinrich (other than bringing it up court) and Barry is more of a slasher.
It's just my opinion.
I don't see why this has to turn into "I disagree with you, therefor you know nothing about basketball".
Choke is a bad choice of words.
He left much to be desired, I guess is better.
Umm like I've repeated 100 times. I am discounting Tony's percentages vs the Mavs. He could barely walk and almost didn't play in three of the games.
Compare Tony's regular season stats to the Kings series. What is 54% and 51%?? I'll take that over Hinrich's suckass consistent 41%.
Heinrich shot 42% and Parker shot 46%.
That is not an earth-shattering difference.
Are you not reading??!
YOU SHOULD NOT COUNT THE MAVS SERIES. HE COULD BARELY WALK. THE NIGHT BEFORE GAME 2, THEY DECIDED THEY WEREN'T EVEN GOING TO PLAY HIM.
Suckass 42% on the f'ing Bulls.
Compare that to Tony Parkers 10 percentage point let down from the regular season to the playoffs. So now we're discussing his stats in the Kings series only?C'mon Kori, you can't just use the stats that are convenient for your argument.
So say he was playing injured.
Stop trying to spit out his stats like they're orgasmic.
Okay, add in his sucky Mavs series percentage. Use 46% if you want. That's better than Hinrich would shoot on the Spurs.Suckass 42% on the f'ing Bulls.
Compare that to Tony Parkers 10 percentage point let down from the regular season to the playoffs. So now we're discussing his stats in the Kings series only?
Name players that their percentages skyrocketed by more than 5 percent when they got to the Spurs.
I've said it 100 times.
Parker is like 8000x better than Kirk Hinrich. How is this even a question?
Parker is so efficient it's not even funny. He was injured and he played through it pretty damn well. He has improved every year and the league and is likely to end up one of the most unique, awesome forces in the NBA in a couple of years. Why would we trade him?
Parker's jumpshot is good when the rest of the Spurs aren't sitting around waiting for him to create something for them. When the Spurs are stagnant, then it becomes a problem, because he really doesn't want to just chunk up jumpshots.
If anything, Parker was probably the MVP of the season for SA.
Hinrich has the better shot overall, but Tony does so much more and has so much more ability, I don't really even think they are in the same category. Anyway you slice it, I'll take a worse shooter that shoots 54% to a better jump shooter that hits at 41.
You're right, he is efficient and he has improved every year.
You're right, he probably was the MVP of the regular season.
The only major difference in my opinion is TP attacks the rim, while Henrichs game is predicated around the perimeter..although he can get to the rim at tims.
So why do you not prefer a point guard who can attack the rim and open up the floor for his shooters?The only major difference in my opinion is TP attacks the rim, while Henrichs game is predicated around the perimeter..although he can get to the rim at tims.
Not to me...
The one or two times you did I replies with a "that's fine, just say he's playing injured" type response. But you kept throwing his stats out there like they were earth-shattering compared to Kirk's.
They are.
He shoots 13% better from the field than Kirk.
I don't know if you realize how low Kirk's percentage is. He's not even close to average.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
