Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 201 to 215 of 215

Thread: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

  1. #201
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,288

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That is why : pushes players to take the extra step out for a 3-pointer, because the %age isn't that much lower but the benefit is higher.

    I slightly disagree, because a made 2-pt shot can prevent a fast break, where those additional missed 3-pointers might lead to an opponent score. I think it needs to be done in the context of an offense that looks for long rebounds.

    But I see the point of it, so to speak.
    Interesting stat. The WSJ must have pulled the article b/c I get a 404 when I click the link.

    I wonder if they consider a layup in those stats? Do they consider whether the person is fouled or not..and gets a free throw? Do they consider that a person looking for a mid range shot is usually going to be in a better rebounding position?

    A big hole in this logic is that I doubt they factor in that poor shooters (I'm thinking Jeff Foster) typically never shoot from the perimeter and great shooters like Danny shoot a ton of threes. Who's to say that Danny wouldn't hit 55% within the arc if that was his game? Seriously, they are comparing an entirely different group of players and making a conclusion from it. Perhaps someone has a link that works and that the article actually dispels my criticism.

  2. #202

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    This thread is the best thing going this off season. Please keep it going, everybody!
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  3. #203

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Interesting stat. The WSJ must have pulled the article b/c I get a 404 when I click the link.
    Try this:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/0...hould-be-lost/

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I wonder if they consider a layup in those stats?
    A lay-up isn't a mid-range shot.


    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Do they consider whether the person is fouled or not..and gets a free throw?
    They simply consider the % of shots that enter the basket, plain and simple. I don't think that people are significantly more fouled on mid-range jump-shots compared to 3pt jump-shots. Defenders generally try to not foul on jump-shots, even mid-range ones.


    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Do they consider that a person looking for a mid range shot is usually going to be in a better rebounding position?
    How do you know this? And why does it matter - the goal is for the team to rebound, not to maximize the chances of the guy taking the shot to rebound his own miss. The mid-range shot produces the less offensive rebounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A big hole in this logic is that I doubt they factor in that poor shooters (I'm thinking Jeff Foster) typically never shoot from the perimeter and great shooters like Danny shoot a ton of threes. Who's to say that Danny wouldn't hit 55% within the arc if that was his game?
    Not sure I understand your point here. If it was his game... well, it was Shaq's game and he'd hit 60% of his shots. But I'm not sure what's the point here. You mean if Granger could hit 55% of his mid-range shots? We already know he can't.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Seriously, they are comparing an entirely different group of players and making a conclusion from it. Perhaps someone has a link that works and that the article actually dispels my criticism.
    Why should they be comparing the same players. That's not the point of the article. It was to explain why teams are using the mid-range game less and less. From a player to player perspective, there are still plenty of guys whose mid-range game is their best asset and their shot-selection reflects that: Garnett, McDyess, Ellis, etc. They'd just be helping their teams more if they could add a couple more ft to their range while not losing more that 2% or so in efficiency - more or less the league average.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cordobes For This Useful Post:


  5. #204
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Age
    26
    Posts
    1,604

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    But the thing to remember is that an open mid range shot is still better than a defended shot of another type, for the most part.

  6. #205
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,288

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes, that link does work. Thanks. Interestingly, the story raised several of my points: "That could reflect the players who take those shots — perhaps the best shooters are skipping the mid-range jumpers in favor of more valuable threes. “There’s a bit more to the argument than just this data,” Pomeroy added. “Interior shots tend to generate more free throws and a better chance for an offensive rebound.”

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A lay-up isn't a mid-range shot.
    I believe everyone here knows that. I just had not read the article until now.


    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They simply consider the % of shots that enter the basket, plain and simple. I don't think that people are significantly more fouled on mid-range jump-shots compared to 3pt jump-shots. Defenders generally try to not foul on jump-shots, even mid-range ones.
    The assertion made in the article about more foul shots matches my own. I think that's open for debate. Generally, people avoid fouling 3 point shooters like it's the plague. I suspect more block attempts are made on shorter shots simply because of the type of players shooting and defending and proximity...but this is JMHO.


    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How do you know this? And why does it matter - the goal is for the team to rebound, not to maximize the chances of the guy taking the shot to rebound his own miss. The mid-range shot produces the less offensive rebounds.
    Ok, maybe I did imply that. However, I believe it's easier for someone to beat someone to the glass and block out their man for an offensive rebound when they're floating within 10-15 feet than it is when they are 25 feet from the basket. The fact is, Troy Murphy's offensive rebounding numbers versus total numbers percentage-wise align logically with that conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Not sure I understand your point here. If it was his game... well, it was Shaq's game and he'd hit 60% of his shots. But I'm not sure what's the point here. You mean if Granger could hit 55% of his mid-range shots? We already know he can't.
    My main point prior to reading the article was that they were comparing apples and oranges. You cannot make conclusions by putting weight on the 40% and 37% because an entirely different set of players with vastly different skillsets are shooting the 3's versus the mid range shots. While Peja may hit 45% from three, we have Ben Wallace shooting 20% from 12 feet out.

    The article does go on to say that Beech's site also ranks players by accuracy on mid range shots. That is what you need to do IMO to have any valuable comparison, so kudo's on that point. The article states: "Most of the best shooters from that range do even better from three, once you adjust for the high value of the shot". I can buy that, btw. However, it's still not that simple even if you look purely at what that means in terms of points per attempt. The offensive system employed by the Pacers, for example, is geared toward shooting threes. It is likely IMO, that if the Pacers practiced midrange more, their three percentages would go down and midrange percentages would rise. As a result, the fact that "most" of the best shooters do better from three may simply be due to offensive systems. Combine this with the other drawbacks to being 25 feet from the rim, it's not at all clear to me what is actually the better plan.
    [/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why should they be comparing the same players. That's not the point of the article. It was to explain why teams are using the mid-range game less and less. From a player to player perspective, there are still plenty of guys whose mid-range game is their best asset and their shot-selection reflects that: Garnett, McDyess, Ellis, etc. They'd just be helping their teams more if they could add a couple more ft to their range while not losing more that 2% or so in efficiency - more or less the league average.
    Actually, part of the article does touch on comparing the same players...which makes the most sense IMO. More than comparing shooting percentages of nearly mutually exclusive groups of players.

    ...now the part in bold, yes, I agree with that.
    Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-29-2010 at 09:28 PM.

  7. #206

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes, that's how its talked about by analysts, commentators, and coaches.

    But statistically, to calculate an effeceincy rating the number of possessions is FGA+turnovers+jump balls+holding the ball at the end of a period. More ORs increases the number of possessions, and both teams do not have the same number of possessions per game because of this.

    As shown in the play-by-play log, this is three possessions:

    08:28 Granger Jump Shot: Missed
    08:26 Hibbert Rebound (Off:1 Def:0)
    08:26 Hibbert Tip Shot: Missed
    08:24 Hibbert Rebound (Off:2 Def:0)
    08:24 Hibbert Layup Shot: Missed
    08:16 Scola Rebound (Off:0 Def:1)

    And that's consistent with how I was taught to calculate those effeciency stats back when I did that. So even though the common vernacular considers ORs to be "extending the possession" the stats are different. And even if the possessions are calculated differently now, you'd have comparability issues with the old effeciency data -- especially if the old play-by-play logs are lost.
    Actually, that's almost always not right - offensive rebounds are definitely NOT counted as new possessions when calculating basketball stats at most websites (e.g. 82games.com). I think what you see being tallied in that play-by-play are player individual rebound totals.

    Op. cit.:
    Basketball on Paper (Dean Oliver) basis for many stats on 82games.com
    In a game, a team alternates possession with its opponent so that, at the end of the game, each team has just about the same number of possessions on which to try to score . . .
    It is convenient (and almost correct) to think that there are only three ways for a possession to end: a field goal attempt that is not rebounded by the offense (either a make or a defensive board of a miss), a turnover, or some free throws.
    KenPom.com
    We can estimate possessions very well from box score stats by using this formula.

    FGA-OR+TO+0.475xFTA

    For each team, possessions are counted for the team and their opponents, and then averaged.
    Kevin Pelton (APBRmetrics)
    Possessions - Here is one place where defining a term becomes tricky, because there are two different definitions of possessions used by various analysts. (Baseball analysts, alas, are lucky enough not to have this problem. An out is an out is an out.) The most commonly-held view is that a possession is all the time a team holds the ball before the other team gets it. The defining characteristic of this definition is that an offensive rebound does not start a new possession. There are also those who view the offensive rebound as starting a new offensive possession. These people define possessions as time before an attempt to score is made or a turnover is recorded. Analysts operating on the first definition call these plays instead of possessions.
    Statistically: .96 * (FGA + 0.44*FTA + TO - OR)
    or
    FGA + 0.4 * FTA - 1.07 * (OReb/(OReb + OppDReb)) + TO Plays: FGA + 0.44*FTA + TO

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to CO_Hoya For This Useful Post:


  9. #207
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Well, then that's different than how I was taught, but that was a long time ago.

    The point of some of those statistics was to show the increase in possessions caused by ORs, which of course negates a lower FG%. Obviously, the point of the statistics you're referencing is to standardize the performance of two teams over the course of a game. I have another stat that I think captures that pretty well, too. The final score.

    Aside, I kept the scorebook once for a team that just could not shoot. And they were losing most games until they encountered a really small team that could not rebound. So they'd just keep shooting and rebounding and missing and rebounding and shooting again until the ball finally went in. Would have made a great SNL skit.

    Oh and by the way, 0.475XFTA and/or 0.44XFTA and/or 0.4XFTA???? So we can change those assumptions and get different results? That sounds like something from the Hollinger school of stupid and worthless stats.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  10. #208

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes, that link does work. Thanks. Interestingly, the story raised several of my points: "That could reflect the players who take those shots — perhaps the best shooters are skipping the mid-range jumpers in favor of more valuable threes. “There’s a bit more to the argument than just this data,” Pomeroy added. “Interior shots tend to generate more free throws and a better chance for an offensive rebound.”
    Interior shots, yes. Mid-range jump-shots, not so much.

    http://www.82games.com/rebounds.htm



    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The assertion made in the article about more foul shots matches my own. I think that's open for debate. Generally, people avoid fouling 3 point shooters like it's the plague. I suspect more block attempts are made on shorter shots simply because of the type of players shooting and defending and proximity...but this is JMHO.
    Perhaps. But that would be at least partially upset by the fact that a foul on a 3pt shooter is worth 3 free-throws vs. 2 for a foul on a 2pt jump-shot. I don't think there's a source with this data, but I strongly believe the difference is pretty residual, basically negligible. Teams tend to foul more on close jump-shots - tear-drops, those leaners inside the paint - but they're equally careful on not fouling mid-range jump-shots (precisely because they're inefficient shots). I'm sure there are lots of games where there isn't a single FT drawn of a jump-shot.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ok, maybe I did imply that. However, I believe it's easier for someone to beat someone to the glass and block out their man for an offensive rebound when they're floating within 10-15 feet than it is when they are 25 feet from the basket. The fact is, Troy Murphy's offensive rebounding numbers versus total numbers percentage-wise align logically with that conclusion.
    Okay, but rebounding is still an argument in favour of 3pt shots vs. midrange shots.

    In 100 missed 3pointers, the team gets 27 offensive rebounds with the shooter getting 3 of them.

    In 100 missed midrange jumpshots, the team gets 19 offensive rebounds with the shooter grabbing 4 of them.

    The fact that the shooter grabs more rebounds himself is meaningless.


    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    My main point prior to reading the article was that they were comparing apples and oranges. You cannot make conclusions by putting weight on the 40% and 37% because an entirely different set of players with vastly different skillsets are shooting the 3's versus the mid range shots. While Peja may hit 45% from three, we have Ben Wallace shooting 20% from 12 feet out.
    This is what I don't get. Ben Wallace rarely takes any shot from 12 feet out. He rarely shoots at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The offensive system employed by the Pacers, for example, is geared toward shooting threes. It is likely IMO, that if the Pacers practiced midrange more, their three percentages would go down and midrange percentages would rise. As a result, the fact that "most" of the best shooters do better from three may simply be due to offensive systems. Combine this with the other drawbacks to being 25 feet from the rim, it's not at all clear to me what is actually the better plan.
    But the numbers are league-wide. You could equally say the difference in efficiency would be even smaller if every team would practice 3 pointers as much as the Pacers.

    Teams try to maximize their shooting efficiency by optimizing their shot-selection. The reason they've been using the midrange game less and less and the 3pt shot more is simply because they want to win and the later is more efficient, not some stylistic preference. I also miss the midrange game, but it is what it is.

  11. #209
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,288

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    This is what I don't get. Ben Wallace rarely takes any shot from 12 feet out. He rarely shoots at all.

    But the numbers are league-wide. You could equally say the difference in efficiency would be even smaller if every team would practice 3 pointers as much as the Pacers.

    Teams try to maximize their shooting efficiency by optimizing their shot-selection. The reason they've been using the midrange game less and less and the 3pt shot more is simply because they want to win and the later is more efficient, not some stylistic preference. I also miss the midrange game, but it is what it is.
    Lots of good points.

    The article is really saying two things. A) They talk about the 40% and 37% and attempt to give it credence. B) They talk about something more credible by comparing the same player's 3PT% versus MidRange%.

    Part A is the one I am criticizing. Ben Wallace is not the best example. The point I'm making is that they are comparing the shooting percentages of two different groups of players with vastly different shooting skills: 1) Those who shoot volume 3's versus 2) Those who shoot volume midrange. Taken to a smaller sample, it's like comparing Danny Granger and Troy Murphy's 3PT% to Roy Hibbert and Tyler Hansborough's 2PT% and attempting to draw some kind of conclusion from it. I simply don't think there is any meaning at all to the comparison.

    Part B has a lot more substance. As a result, I can buy the idea that most teams have decided that moving the offense out is more efficient. However, I still think there are substantial cons to it AND it depends on the set of players on your team. But as you say, the league is moving that way for a reason. In any event, Part B was not my "beef".

    BTW, I do enjoy seeing a mix of midrange and perimeter shots ala Pacers pre-2000. That style is beautiful and I think that team would contend for the championship with it...even today.

  12. #210
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,288

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Quote Originally Posted by cordobes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Okay, but rebounding is still an argument in favour of 3pt shots vs. midrange shots.

    In 100 missed 3pointers, the team gets 27 offensive rebounds with the shooter getting 3 of them.

    In 100 missed midrange jumpshots, the team gets 19 offensive rebounds with the shooter grabbing 4 of them.

    The fact that the shooter grabs more rebounds himself is meaningless.
    I have to comment on this. The fact the shooter grabs more rebounds for midrange shots is actually quite important. The shooter is often more aware of where the ball is going than anyone and is in a far better spot to follow their shot, sometimes to the rim for a layup. If they are lucky, they will get an And-One. Neither of these situations are captured by looking simply at midrange percentages.

  13. #211
    Member pianoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Muncie Indiana
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,349
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    I wanted to dig this old thread up since we have Collison now.

    Now that we have a starting caliber pg on the team, Roy will only get better. Now though, I think he's our second most important player. Thoughts?
    Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

  14. #212
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,288

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Quote Originally Posted by pianoman View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I wanted to dig this old thread up since we have Collison now.

    Now that we have a starting caliber pg on the team, Roy will only get better. Now though, I think he's our second most important player. Thoughts?
    I do think Hibbert will get better for more than one reason. I agree the PG will help him, but the PF will probably help more. By default, we will see better defense at the 4 with Murphy gone....but I hope we make one more move and land a really good PF to pair up with him.

    BTW, Roy needs help on defense more than offense. He remains a foul magnet although he has improved some. With a better defender, it may allow him to operate longer on the floor which will be huge. As for offense, I don't think we need to worry about losing Murphy. With Collison, Rush and Granger on the perimeter launching 3's constantly, that will be enough spacing. Combine this with Granger playing spot minutes at the 4, McBob moving very well for a 4 and Hans shooting the mid range, we should have excellent spacing most of the time.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to BlueNGold For This Useful Post:


  16. #213
    Member pacergod2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    2,886
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    I don't think the necessary philosophy of how we use Roy should change. I think we need to make him a focal point of the offense. I see Collison as a facilitator, but I think his ability to drive the lane and make smart decisions will only help open things up for him. Collison will use his quickness to hopefully draw Hibbert's man for a dump pass or an uncontested offensive rebound. I think Hibbert moves around the post much like Peyton Manning moves around the pocket. Both are slow footed. Both use their intelligence to make effective movements. I think Collison will cause chaos in the defense where we will see a lot more recovery opportunity than we have in the past. I think with Collison out there, we will need to see Hibbert knock down the ten to twelve foot jumper consistently. (This is NOT a suggestion to shoot threes). This range keeps his man honest with Collison getting the rim. I think Hibbert will do more for Collison than Collison will do for Hibbert. The coaches need to focus more on feeding Hibbert and working the offense on him when we aren't getting a pick and roll from Collison and Hansborough.

    We need our wings to be better at feeding the post, although Brandon, DJones, and Dunleavy are fairly solid post entry passers. Ahem... Danny. Another reason I want to see Danny with some back to the basket post moves so he does a better job of feeding the post by knowing where the ball needs to be received. I think getting rid of Murphy will have a much bigger impact on Hibbert. It will actually free up some of the perimeter spacing that we lacked last year. This will allow for Hibbert to be more effective in his kick outs. I think one thing we need to focus a little more on is keeping the big fella in the lower block moreso than the high post, which will create more space in the middle of the floor instead of toward the baselines.

    Collison- I think he will have a much bigger impact with scoring for us. He will incorporate a great pick and roll hopefully. He will give our wings better perimeter passes that will lead to better shots earlier in the shot clock. He will create the necessary defensive movement that initiates better shots for everybody. His man also must stay at home when Hibbert gets the ball.

    Rush- Hibbert and Rush have great chemistry. Rush looks to feed the post even when it isn't in the "flow" of our offense. I think that is a good thing, but I am not JOB. Rush is probably our best post passer IMO. He knocks down the three at a solid clip. He feeds the post and moves through the defense taking his man away from the strong side and Hibbert. I think he will be a higher focal point in the offense now that Murphy is gone. Collison will need to get in a rhythm with Brandon's cuts. Brandon will need to cut more with the knowledge that he will actually get the ball off of his cut.

    Granger- Does wonders for him to have another player who is offensively gifted enough to force the defense away from him. I think with Brandon's hopeful improvement, a greater focus on Hibbert, and Collison breaking down the defense, it will be a lot harder for teams to double Danny. I think this will make Danny a much more efficient player than he has been in the past. He will get looks that will be less forced.

    Hansborough- I am going to assume Hansborough is our starter at PF. He is clearly the most talented player we have at the position. McRoberts and Rolle can be interchangeable with these thoughts though. Foster not so much. All three guys will need to build a rapport with Collison in the pick and roll. There is going to be a lot more screens toward the top of the key than we have seen over the last couple of years. A lot of our offense will be centered around that. If Hans et al. are going to be effective, they must be capable of hitting that fifteen footer. It will be an open shot much of the time. They also need to roll to the rim, which I think is imperative for the success of our PF position. If none of these guys can score off the roll, then we are in trouble. Collison will probably not be as effective. David West is very good as the big in a pick and roll and especially off the pop. This is our biggest question mark position now, but I like the future of the PF position with Collison more than the past couple of years without.

    Hibbert- Again, I think more of what we will need for Hibbert comes from the coaching staff, but the players need to make it a habit of getting him the ball. Everybody will be better because of it. Collison helps break down the defense for everybody and gives the big fella more spacing. I wouldn't mind seeing Hibbert in the pick and roll with Collison just to see the immense difference in size and speed. Humorous at least.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pacergod2 For This Useful Post:


  18. #214

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Quote Originally Posted by pacergod2 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't think the necessary philosophy of how we use Roy should change....
    Great stuff. Thanks for posting.

    Quote Originally Posted by BNG
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    BTW, Roy needs help on defense more than offense. He remains a foul magnet although he has improved some. With a better defender, it may allow him to operate longer on the floor which will be huge.
    It will be very interesting to see how Collison impacts our defense.

    A lot of Roy's fouls are caused by trying to stop penetration. Collison is much better at staying in front of his man than any PG we've had since Heywood Workman (not counting Orien Greene) with one caveat: the pick and roll.

    Collison gets hung up pretty easily on picks and it's not because of his size. He needs to do a better job of anticipating picks and not reacting late. He also goes over the top of picks too often, which isn't necessary against a bad jump shooter like Rondo. I think he can be coached up pretty easily because he has the quickness, but someone has to point it out to him.

    The problem I see is that well-coached teams try to get Hibbert caught in pick and roll situations, which could be a bigger problem with Collison on the floor. Then again, we've heard reports that Hibbert has improved his movement considerably this offseason. We'll see what happens.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to imawhat For This Useful Post:


  20. #215

    Default Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Quote Originally Posted by pianoman View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Now that we have a starting caliber pg on the team, Roy will only get better. Now though, I think he's our second most important player. Thoughts?
    He was our second most important player last season (and also the most misused). If he improves he'll be approaching most important (not best).

Similar Threads

  1. Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert
    By thunderbird1245 in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 01-12-2012, 03:34 PM
  2. Nice article found on Roy Hibbert
    By Hibbert in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-04-2010, 01:28 AM
  3. Hungry Hungry Hibbert + Psycho T= summer league studs
    By spazzxb in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-11-2009, 08:45 PM
  4. Pacers Talk: Is Roy Hibbert Ready?
    By rocksballer58 in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-21-2009, 04:52 AM
  5. Star: Hibbert fouls too much
    By Putnam in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-10-2008, 03:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •