Bibby-Martin-Artest or Hinrich-Gordon-Deng?

[girlygirl]

-= original quote snipped =-



His defense isn't that bad although he is not as good as Hinrich.

Don't act like Hinrich is a better playmaker though. Bibby is a lot better. Assist numbers aren't that important with the offensive the Kings run.

Bibby's coming back from injury to his wrists so he's not shooting well, yet you don't bring up how pathetic Hinrich's shooting?

I thought it was a thumb injury -- not a wrist problem. Besides, Bibby's injury didn't occur 5 years ago, now did it? -- so his shooting % had started to drop off well BEFORE he injured it.

I've never been impressed with his playmaking skills. He was probably the 3rd best passer on the team behind Chris Webber and Brad Miller when the Kings had al those good teams. There's no way he's a WAY better playmaker than Hinrich. I don't know if he's better at all, actually. You say assist totals don't matter in the Kings' offense, fine. Then I can argue that Hinrich's assist totals have been hurt by the fact that none of the Bulls' big men can make a simple layup (Wallace, Thomas and Noah are all shooting below 45% from the field this season -- Wallace & Thomas below 40%!!!). What about turnovers and A/TO ratio? Because Bibby's A/TO ratio for each of the last 3 seasons has been BELOW 2.25:1. His career A/TO ratio is 2.48 -- well below Hinrich's (2.65:1). Oh, and Hinrich's career APG are better than Bibby, too (Hinrich 6.4, Bibby 6.2)

On the one point, you are correct -- Hinrich's shooting has dropped off this year as well, although he has picked it up lately (44% since January 1st). And his career FG% is lower than Bibby's -- although until this year Hinrich's FG% had gone UP every season he's been in the league.

[risktaker91]

I think Hinrich > Bibby.

He started off slow but is starting to pick it up.

[SactownHrtBrks8]

-= original quote snipped =-






I thought it was a thumb injury -- not a wrist problem. Besides, Bibby's injury didn't occur 5 years ago, now did it? -- so his shooting % had started to drop off well BEFORE he injured it.

I've never been impressed with his playmaking skills. He was probably the 3rd best passer on the team behind Chris Webber and Brad Miller when the Kings had al those good teams. There's no way he's a WAY better playmaker than Hinrich. I don't know if he's better at all, actually. You say assist totals don't matter in the Kings' offense, fine. Then I can argue that Hinrich's assist totals have been hurt by the fact that none of the Bulls' big men can make a simple layup (Wallace, Thomas and Noah are all shooting below 45% from the field this season -- Wallace & Thomas below 40%!!!). What about turnovers and A/TO ratio? Because Bibby's A/TO ratio for each of the last 3 seasons has been BELOW 2.25:1. His career A/TO ratio is 2.48 -- well below Hinrich's (2.65:1). Oh, and Hinrich's career APG are better than Bibby, too (Hinrich 6.4, Bibby 6.2)

On the one point, you are correct -- Hinrich's shooting has dropped off this year as well, although he has picked it up lately (44% since January 1st). And his career FG% is lower than Bibby's -- although until this year Hinrich's FG% had gone UP every season he's been in the league.

Shooting 44% in January makes up for the fact he's shooting 40 percent on the season.

His thumb / wrist injury has been a problem for season and half now. The year he shot was 47% was his career year. 45 and 44 is still better than Hinrich's highest.

He shot 40% last year, you think he is going to stay at 39% for this year. You're not talking about 45 games like Hinrich, you're talking about 10 games so far.


Hinrich's best years in passing doesn't hold a candle to Bibby's best. The Kings offense goes through Miller so naturally Bibby's assist number are down and they have been. He still is averaging 5apg and setting people nicely although his shot isn't falling.

As for you thought Webber and Miller were better, in 04/05 Bibby averaged the same number assist as Hinrich career high (6. with them on the team. His assist numbers for his career would be up if he hadn't played with such great playmakers such Vlade, Miller and Webber, hell even Christie in his day.

You're using Career stats when Bibby played twice as longs.

Bibby is the better shooter and scorer. And he is the better playmaker wither you think he's overrated, dislike him, whatever you wanted to say.

As for Assist to Turnover Ratio. You're talking about long career compared to a short career. so he takes care of the ball a little better? That doesn't make him a better playmaker. That doesn't make him more clutch. That doesn't make him a better shooter.

The only Hinrich has on Bibby is Defense.

[kandiking]

kings. slamson kicks ass.

[xAIRNESSx]

-= original quote snipped =-



Wrong . Bibby has never been on a all star team .

Thanks, the guy two posts below my original one already pointed it out.

[yunggunz]

-= original quote snipped =-


Which they HAVE done since they got healthy...I'm not saying they're going to keep up a .700 pace, but I certainly do think they could play .600-.650 ball the rest of the way and squeeze into the playoffs a la 2005-2006 season when they traded for Artest. They played at that level for the final 25-30 games that season, and this team is better than that team.

.600 wont get you into the playoffs. Hell, playing .600 ball all season wouldnt get you into the playoffs. West is just too stacked.

[JordansBulls]

The Kings trio with ease. People had been overrating the bulls trio.

[hermes]

the kings

[Cruel_Ruin]

Last year, people would have taken the Bulls trio with ease because 2/3 of the Kings trio were having an off year; now, people are taking the Kings trio because the Bulls trio is having a bad year. RealGM is apparently all about the "What have you done for me lately" vibe.

[Young_Star11]

Easily the Kings!

[pillwenney]

Something to consider about Mike's declining FG% (at least in general) is that in the past couple years, he has take a lot more 3's than he used to.

[ponder276]

Fully healthy:
Bibby > Hinrich
Martin > Gordon
Artest < Deng (Deng is having a bad year, but is still an excellent player. Artest is solid, especially on D, but is still a head case/cancer)

I give it to the Kings by a small margin.

[Cliff Levingston]

The only Hinrich has on Bibby is Defense.

Cliff Levingston LOVES this comment, as if defense is some fringe part of the game that isn't important.

In which case, you'd probably agree that Deng > Artest because:

- Deng moves off the ball much better than Artest.
- Deng has the more reliable mid-range jump shot.
- Deng shoots a much higher FG% from the floor.
- Deng can finish at the rim better.
- Deng is a better free throw shooter.

All Artest has on Deng is defense.

[_SRV_]

- Artest can actually beat his defender in one on one, both facing up and posting up, regardless of who this defender is.
- Artest has a 3 pt range.
- Deng may have a higher field goal, but last year (Deng's bes best) they both had 14.9 FGAs, and guess what, they both scored 18.8 a game.

Artest has a lot more than just defense on Deng.

[sackings916]

-= original quote snipped =-


Cliff Levingston LOVES this comment, as if defense is some fringe part of the game that isn't important.

In which case, you'd probably agree that Deng > Artest because:

- Deng moves off the ball much better than Artest.
- Deng has the more reliable mid-range jump shot.
- Deng shoots a much higher FG% from the floor.
- Deng can finish at the rim better.
- Deng is a better free throw shooter.

All Artest has on Deng is defense.

Artest is a superior 1 on 1 player to Deng off the dribble or in the post, and a better 3 pt shooter.

[RIPskaterdude]

And of course, the only 2 people to vote for the Bulls "big three" were Bulls fans

[WhiteLarryBird]

Kevin Martin is the best player of the 6, he has a pretty big advantage over Gordon, while Deng/Hinrich and Artest/Bibby are pretty close. I got to go with the King's trio here.

Shooting 44% in January makes up for the fact he's shooting 40 percent on the season.

His thumb / wrist injury has been a problem for season and half now. The year he shot was 47% was his career year. 45 and 44 is still better than Hinrich's highest.

He shot 40% last year, you think he is going to stay at 39% for this year. You're not talking about 45 games like Hinrich, you're talking about 10 games so far.


Hinrich's best years in passing doesn't hold a candle to Bibby's best. The Kings offense goes through Miller so naturally Bibby's assist number are down and they have been. He still is averaging 5apg and setting people nicely although his shot isn't falling.

As for you thought Webber and Miller were better, in 04/05 Bibby averaged the same number assist as Hinrich career high (6. with them on the team. His assist numbers for his career would be up if he hadn't played with such great playmakers such Vlade, Miller and Webber, hell even Christie in his day.

You're using Career stats when Bibby played twice as longs.

Bibby is the better shooter and scorer. And he is the better playmaker wither you think he's overrated, dislike him, whatever you wanted to say.

As for Assist to Turnover Ratio. You're talking about long career compared to a short career. so he takes care of the ball a little better? That doesn't make him a better playmaker. That doesn't make him more clutch. That doesn't make him a better shooter.

The only Hinrich has on Bibby is Defense.

Bibby's scoring efficiency is barely above Kirk's. Bibby's only a career 44/37/80% scorer, while Kirk's 41/37/82. Kirk shot under 40% during his first two years, although he hasn't since. Hinrich was clearly more efficient than Bibby last year, although I'm not sure about Bibby's injuries, so I'll excuse that for now.

You mention that Bibby's assist totals are minimized, but you don't mention anything about Hinrich's lowered assist totals. With Skiles, the Bulls offense relied mainly on ballscreens, greatly limiting the purpose for a playmaker. The fact that he was able to average over 6 assists multiple times in the Bull's horrid excuse for an offense is pretty remarkable. His assist totals would surely rise if he was on a team where he was given more freedom on offense. He's a great playmaker, he just never got a chance to show it in the Skiles/Bull's predictable offense.

Look at how Kirk has been carrying the load for the Bulls since Gordon/Deng went down. He's their first option, and he's putting up terrific offensive numbers. 20/6 on 46/38/88 shooting in his last 10. Pretty comparable to Bibby's best offensive years. Of course, I don't believe Kirk is a superior scorer to Bibby, but it's a lot closer than you make it out to be.

Kirk's edge over Bibby on defense is a lot larger than Bibby's advantages in scoring(possibly playmaking). Kirk's arguably the best defensive point guard in the league. He's held Kobe to <19 points in their last 4 meetings, while he and the Bulls give Wade more trouble than any other player in the league. On the other hand, Bibby's a mediocre defender. He's nothing more than slightly above average, and that's being generous.

If I had to choose between the two, I'd take Hinrich in most scenarios. There are a few teams where I'd take Bibby's shooting over Kirk's overall game, but in general, I'd take Kirk.