Would RIP Hamilton be a good triangle PG

[fareweatherfan]

You guys are missing my point, I agree with everything your saying but you're changing the argument. If you say that we would run less of the tri with Chris Paul then you're changing the argument.

You guys are making a distinction w/out realizing it. Who is the better fit in the TRIANGLE was the question posed. Hinrich is the better fit. CP3 is not a good fit in the tri.

[ahwi_quacoe]

Stackhouse would be perfect for that role

[fareweatherfan]

^ Amen. We run a fastbreak offense half the time and when it does come down to half court sets, its Kobe - Pau P n R for another good portion of it. We run the triangle like 4 plays every quarter?

4 plays per quarter?? We're watching different games. And besides that, when it matters (playoffs), esp. against the C's, we're running the tri the majority of the time.

And further to my post above, I would take CP3 all day over any other point guard in the league. B/c if we got him we would adapt the offense to fit his style (e.g. more uptempo). But thats not the point we are discussing (at least it wasn't until the argument had been changed).

[fareweatherfan]

kirk would have 100% of his skills on display in the triangle offense. he'd be great.

chris paul would have like 75% of his skills on display. the point though is that 75% of chris paul is way better than anything hinrich can do.

Your point is qualitative, and you'll get no argument from me. But qualitatively speaking, given the point guards limited role in the Tri offense (as compared to more conventional offensive schemes), Hinrich wins out. For example, would you agree that catch and shoot 3-pt shooting is one of the most (IMO the most) important skill for the tri PG to have? If so, would you not agree that 100% of Kirk is unquestionably better than 75%, hell I'll even give you 100%, of Paul in this regard? Your point doesn't allow for this (IMO the more relevant) type of analysis.

[tdfoss]

We don't have the pieces to get Rip. Ben Gordon, Billups, Hinrich, etc are not within our reach unless we part ways with Bynum, which we are not willing to do unless we are getting back a high caliber player (LeBron, Wade, etc). I really thought we should of went after a guy like Anthony Parker. Hes big, plays good defense, shoots the 3 at a high clip, and is smart. Perfect PG for us IMO

I respectully disagree. If the Bulls can get expirings for Heinrich then they will have enough cap room to get in the LeBron sweepstakes.

[tkb]

You guys are missing my point, I agree with everything your saying but you're changing the argument. If you say that we would run less of the tri with Chris Paul then you're changing the argument.

You guys are making a distinction w/out realizing it. Who is the better fit in the TRIANGLE was the question posed. Hinrich is the better fit. CP3 is not a good fit in the tri.

I'm not saying we'd run less triangle. I'm saying we don't really run a lot of triangle as is today.

We run a lot of pick and rolls with Kobe and either of Pau or Bynum, and we run and gun a lot. The triangle is much less featured now than before.

[tkb]

kirk would have 100% of his skills on display in the triangle offense. he'd be great.

chris paul would have like 75% of his skills on display. the point though is that 75% of chris paul is way better than anything hinrich can do.

Your point is qualitative, and you'll get no argument from me. But qualitatively speaking, given the point guards limited role in the Tri offense (as compared to more conventional offensive schemes), Hinrich wins out. For example, would you agree that catch and shoot 3-pt shooting is one of the most (IMO the most) important skill for the tri PG to have? If so, would you not agree that 100% of Kirk is unquestionably better than 75%, hell I'll even give you 100%, of Paul in this regard? Your point doesn't allow for this (IMO the more relevant) type of analysis.

The limited role of the point guard in the triangle has a lot more to do with how poor point guards Phil has had on his rosters than anything else. A point guard like Chris Paul would have zero problems being featured a lot and play great.

Moving the ball is at least as important, if not more important to the fluidity of the triangle compared to 3 point shooting, and Paul is unquestionably better than Hinrich there. The gap in 3p shooting isn't really that big either considering Paul gets a lot more defensive attention. This season Hinrich is shooting 25 % from 3 and CP3 is over 60 %. I disagree that Hinrich is clearly a superior shooter.

[fareweatherfan]

kirk would have 100% of his skills on display in the triangle offense. he'd be great.

chris paul would have like 75% of his skills on display. the point though is that 75% of chris paul is way better than anything hinrich can do.

Your point is qualitative, and you'll get no argument from me. But qualitatively speaking, given the point guards limited role in the Tri offense (as compared to more conventional offensive schemes), Hinrich wins out. For example, would you agree that catch and shoot 3-pt shooting is one of the most (IMO the most) important skill for the tri PG to have? If so, would you not agree that 100% of Kirk is unquestionably better than 75%, hell I'll even give you 100%, of Paul in this regard? Your point doesn't allow for this (IMO the more relevant) type of analysis.

The limited role of the point guard in the triangle has a lot more to do with how poor point guards Phil has had on his rosters than anything else. A point guard like Chris Paul would have zero problems being featured a lot and play great.

Moving the ball is at least as important, if not more important to the fluidity of the triangle compared to 3 point shooting, and Paul is unquestionably better than Hinrich there. The gap in 3p shooting isn't really that big either considering Paul gets a lot more defensive attention. This season Hinrich is shooting 25 % from 3 and CP3 is over 60 %. I disagree that Hinrich is clearly a superior shooter.

Regarding the italized portion, the counter argument is contained in your own statement. Phil has had "poor point guards" b/c the tri doesn't need what conventional basketball considers a "good point guard." If the tri was a system to feature PG's, don't think he would have had a great conventionial PG by now?? Look at this way, arguably the "best" PG we have had during Phil's tenure was Gary Payton. Why didn't he work out? B/c, among other reasons, he needed the ball way more than the tri allowed, in order for him to display his full skill set.

Regarding the bolded portion, c'mon tkb...I could "move the ball" as PG in the tri. So I disagree that Paul is better than Hinrich there, the tri is not a system for penetrating dribble hungry guards, its just not. Its predicated on very little dribbling, actually, and swinging the ball from strong to weak side. To this end, taller guards are ALWAYS favored by the tri offense.

Regarding your percentages argument, you got me there (I haven't checked them but I'll take your word for it). I never, ever, look at percentages. I realize some swear by them, but just IMHO they are worthless. If you can honestly tell me you would rather have CP3 than Kirk shooting catch-and-shoot 3 pointers over the extended arms of close-out defenders, then we have to agree to disagree.