Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
    Do you have any proof of this "instruction" per our coaches or is this as you stated only "opinion." So basically your saying the coaches instructed Hibbert not to rebound the basketball and only block out. Thats just absurd.

    Blocking out and rebounding are essentially the same action all in one. you dont just block out with no intent of rebounding. thats so far fetched as to the reason why roys rebounding #s were low i dont even want to bother explaining the variety of flaws presented in that argument.

    Again, i would like to know if there is any support to the claim hibbert was instructed to only block out from our coaches. not saying you dont have direct evidence, simply requesting the source.
    My only proof is the hours that I have spent rewatching this season's games, my friend. I'm not from the US so it would be quite impossible for me to have any kind of source inside the Pacers locker room. But I can watch the games as many times as I like and I can notice several patterns.

    When you see that some things happen consistently then you can guess that they are in fact coaching instructions.

    I'll give you an example. Lance Stephenson averaged only 3.9 RPG in the 12-13 RS. When the playoffs came around Vogel instructed Lance to go after rebounds aggressively (and that's something that Lance himself has confirmed). What was the result of this? Lance's rebounding numbers skyrocketed. He went from averaging 3.9 RPG in the RS to average 7.6 RPG in the Playoffs. What was the reason for this sudden change? It was a coaching instruction.

    No, I don't have any inside information. I never claimed that I did have inside information. What I do claim is simple. I noticed some patterns that happened consistently. Roy Hibbert would always block out. Come hell or high water, he would always try to find the opposition's best offensive rebounder and block him out. I spent several hours re-watching our games and looking at Roy's reaction after a shot went up and that's exactly what he did the vast majority of the time. He found the opposition's best offensive rebounder and blocked him out.

    If something is happening so consistently throughout a whole season then one of the two is happening.

    1) It's a coaching instruction and that's why it will keep happening without changing.

    2) The individual player is ignoring the coach for a whole freakin' season and refuses to follow his orders.

    What is more likely to be the case? Don't you think that if Hibbert was ignoring Frank's orders for a whole season then Frank would bench him? It didn't happen. Frank chose to stick with Hibbert even when he was playing awful and defended him from outside criticism. I really don't believe that he would do that for a player that ignored his instructions for a whole season.

    That's why I believe that it was a coaching instruction, my friend. Yes, it's only my opinion since I don't have any tangible evidence in order to prove it but it's also the only thing that makes sense.

    PS: I also think that you have misunderstood what I said. I never said that Hibbert is instructed to block out with no intent of rebounding. I simply said that he is instructed to block out instead of attacking the ball. There is a pretty big difference between blocking out and attacking the ball.

    Hibbert, Ian and West blocked out with the intent of rebounding. Lance, Paul and Scola attacked the ball. You are free to re-watch the games and notice that this was the general pattern.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

      Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
      People who "hate stats" often rely on bad stats the most.
      This x1000000000000000. AMEN!
      Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
      Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

      Panopticon

      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

        Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
        I like to boil things down to a simple thought.

        People who "hate stats" often rely on bad stats the most.

        Rebounds per game is a ****** stat, that doesn't account for a myriad of circumstances, in regards to the actual effect or relevance it has toward winning a basketball game.

        Case in point:



        Yet players get destroyed for not reaching certain bad stat benchmarks, Roy will never be good enough for many unless he reaches the irrelevant benchmark of 10 rebounds per game, you know, because he's tall.

        Any time someone tries to introduce an advanced metric into the discussion, that tries to account for the bigger picture of what's actually going on, inevitably some push back in the form of "I just watch the games" comes into play. I think that's crap.

        If you think RPG is so otherworldly important, than stop talking about how you "watch the games". That's a stat. Assists per game? (How often are good winning passes not credited with the assist?) They are all stats, some better than others. In fact, the most simplistic ones usually aren't the best ones.
        The people you think "hate stats" don't really see a difference between what you consider to be "bad stats" and other stats that are considered "advanced stats"...which I assume you think are "good stats". Why they are "good stats" I really don't know, because they suffer from the same thing. They do not account for nearly enough things for most people to draw valid conclusions from them.

        That's really the issue. I respect stats and value the information they yield. The issue is the number of times I have seen them used to make invalid conclusion on this site. Time after time I have seen those conclusions shot down because the person using the stat had not been nearly thorough enough about other aspects of the game that might explain why the numbers look the way they do.

        So, my advice is just be careful about drawing conclusions. The fact Roy is a bad rebounder is not a myth. At 7'2" and with his length, he should be owning the boards. His issue is that he isn't quick or athletic enough and the man cannot stay on his feet. He cannot own the paint and to understand that does not take a single statistic.
        Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          My only proof is the hours that I have spent rewatching this season's games, my friend. I'm not from the US so it would be quite impossible for me to have any kind of source inside the Pacers locker room. But I can watch the games as many times as I like and I can notice several patterns.
          I'm reasonably certain that Vogel or someone from the team expressed this at some point.
          "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

            Originally posted by cgg View Post
            I'm reasonably certain that Vogel or someone from the team expressed this at some point.
            They did during or right after the 12-13 playoff series with the Heat.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

              Originally posted by cgg View Post
              I'm reasonably certain that Vogel or someone from the team expressed this at some point.
              I would not at all be surprised. If so, I agree with the way he is being used. If Andrew Bynum had been our C, the instructions (IMO) would have been different and Lance would not have had to lead the team on the glass.
              Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                If I am looking forward to nothing else this season, which I pretty much am not, I am just looking forward to the hopeful end of Roy Hibbert excuses or bad play. One way or the other this season he should either be able to put it all together and at least have a consistent season or his defenders should be able to see that anything short of his own injury is pretty much just excuse making if he has another off kilter season.

                Wait, nevermind I just now thought that this isn't really true. If he does falter will they then use the excuse that he has to much pressure put on him because Paul & Lance are no longer here?

                For the record Roy IMO isn't a bad rebounder, however he is not a good rebounder either.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  If I am looking forward to nothing else this season, which I pretty much am not, I am just looking forward to the hopeful end of Roy Hibbert excuses or bad play. One way or the other this season he should either be able to put it all together and at least have a consistent season or his defenders should be able to see that anything short of his own injury is pretty much just excuse making if he has another off kilter season.

                  Wait, nevermind I just now thought that this isn't really true. If he does falter will they then use the excuse that he has to much pressure put on him because Paul & Lance are no longer here?

                  For the record Roy IMO isn't a bad rebounder, however he is not a good rebounder either.
                  You make some very good points. As a 7'2" C who protects the rim incredibly well and has very long arms, I would expect more rebounds than 6.6...less than 3 other starters. But if he can actually get back to his 2011-12 production, you have to grade him at about a B or at worst a C. I do think he came close to flunking last year though.
                  Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    You make some very good points. As a 7'2" C who protects the rim incredibly well and has very long arms, I would expect more rebounds than 6.6...
                    And you did get more than 6.6 RPG in the rest of his Vogel-led career. Let's not act like the last season is what we should expect from him in the future. It's pretty clearly an anomaly.
                    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
                    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

                    Panopticon

                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                      Interesting...I always thought it was by design given the high number of rebounds that George and Stephenson got per game. Stephenson was our best player we had at putting pressure on the defense during a fastbreak situation, and Paul George wasn't that far behind him. We didn't have the best half-court offense in the league, so (to me) it only made sense to take advantage of Stephenson and George's skills in the open court when possible. Hibbert was a better offensive rebounder than he was a defensive rebounder, because of how close he played to the rim. We wasn't the traditional PF/C grabs the rebound then waits for the PG to come get it team...if that was case, then this forum would be in an uproar about how we "never run the ball". I don't care about Roy's overall RPG as long as he's hitting the offensive glass. The ATL series was particularly frustrating, because they basically nullified Hibbert in every way. The one thing he COULD have done (offensive rebounding), he was horrible which was why I was so anger with his game during the playoffs. He was "alright" against Washington and Miami. However, I thought the team as a whole fell apart.
                      Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 08-25-2014, 05:03 AM.


                      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Dikembe didn't seem to have a problem rebounding and he wasn't that terribly athletic. He was tough enough to control the paint and long enough to grab rebounds while at the same time defending the rim. They are not skills that have to be mutually exclusive.
                        MJ didn't have Lance's problems. So let's start *****ing at Lance for not peforming like Jordan. Logical consistency FTW.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                          Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                          Do you have any proof of this "instruction" per our coaches or is this as you stated only "opinion." So basically your saying the coaches instructed Hibbert not to rebound the basketball and only block out. Thats just absurd.

                          Blocking out and rebounding are essentially the same action all in one. you dont just block out with no intent of rebounding. thats so far fetched as to the reason why roys rebounding #s were low i dont even want to bother explaining the variety of flaws presented in that argument.

                          Again, i would like to know if there is any support to the claim hibbert was instructed to only block out from our coaches. not saying you dont have direct evidence, simply requesting the source.
                          This is indicative of the sacrifice of this team," Vogel said. "A lot of times, (the bigs), they're sacrificing themselves to wipe out the best rebounders on the other team while the guards come back and get the numbers.
                          "It's a sacrifice," Vogel continued, "more than anything."
                          http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...ounds/4988905/

                          Next.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                            Most here are not surprised that was the strategy. In fact, Frank had a good strategy and it showed last year as we often won the battle on the boards. But it was the strategy because Roy couldn't defend and rebound at the same time because he was being pulled out of the paint. Gone are the days when many teams allow Roy Hibbert to clog the lane. He's just too good at defending the rim and drawing charges.

                            There are a couple related questions. How many teams can draw him away from the bucket resulting in his rebounds going down? Also, how much will Roy gamble by staying near the paint? These are going to be huge questions this coming year. I bet he stays home a bit more because teams will be getting by our porous perimeter defense and his presence will be more important than ever. That means some teams are going to be lighting him up from 3.
                            Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

                            Comment


                            • Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Most here are not surprised that was the strategy. In fact, Frank had a good strategy and it showed last year as we often won the battle on the boards. But it was the strategy because Roy couldn't defend and rebound at the same time because he was being pulled out of the paint. Gone are the days when many teams allow Roy Hibbert to clog the lane. He's just too good at defending the rim and drawing charges.

                              There are a couple related questions. How many teams can draw him away from the bucket resulting in his rebounds going down? Also, how much will Roy gamble by staying near the paint? These are going to be huge questions this coming year. I bet he stays home a bit more because teams will be getting by our porous perimeter defense and his presence will be more important than ever. That means some teams are going to be lighting him up from 3.
                              I'm okay with letting Roy/Mahinmi defend the paint and stay within 5 feet of the basket while letting Teams light Hibbert/Mahinmi ( a Center ) from the 3pt line.

                              Does it mean that there will be some Teams ( like the Hawks with Antic and the Cavs with KLove ) that will try to pull Hibbert away from the paint and succeed?

                              Yeah. But dems da breaks. The Pacers with Hibbert/Mahinmi and the rest of the NBA with Centers that aren't exactly great at defending the perimeter will have the same problem.

                              If you want to look at it as a weakness in Hibbert's game, that is fine and a part of his game that Teams can exploit. The good thing that the majority of the NBA doesn't have Centers that have a decent to solid Mid-Range to 3pt game.

                              I will live with Hibbert's limited perimeter and mid-range defense if it means that he stays near the paint and anchors the defense. The Pacers were ranked 1st in not allowing points for the last 2 seasons....mainly because of the way the defense is designed and ( dare I say ) because of the defensive anchor that both Hibbert and Mahinmi provide along with the way that the rest of the lineup is setup to collapse to the paint.

                              In the end, it's a trade off that the Pacers and pretty much any Team with slow footed Centers will have to make.

                              Also.....I'm not sure if it's a gamble ( or specifically a choice by Hibbert to make ) where he decides to actively chase the guy he's defending out to the perimeter. Shouldn't the Player ( whether it is Hibbert, PG24 or West ) be doing what the Coach tells him to do when it comes to how he is supposed to defend on the Team level? I've always thought that the defense is predicated on Players being responsible for doing "A, B and C". I'm guessing that Hibbert/Mahinmi's job is to not venture too far away from the paint but to try and contest mid-range / perimeter shots to the best of their ability when the situation presents itself.

                              Something to also consider is that we have to rely more on GH, Solo, Miles, West , Watson ( ) and Stuckey ( ) to help prevent and limit dribble penetration. Hopefully, they all continue to show signs of providing good Team Defense.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 08-26-2014, 03:39 AM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?


                                Coaches and players say all sorts of hype to the media. you cant be bleeping serious to put all the stock of that strategy into one snipet from the indystar. go ahead and buy into that nonsense all you want.



                                all this topic is a damn pissing contest. anyone who believes roy is an adequate rebounder @ 15 MILLION is living in fantasy land.



                                i expect were going to delve back into this topic in great detail once the season rolls around. again, the only STAT that really matters is 15 MILLION.

                                And roy sucks at rebouding for that rate. once the season rolls fully expect to see this topic revisited per each game.


                                i watch roys performance with an eagle eye and thats all i really need. again, this topic will be revisited this season in greater detail.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X