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

Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
  • #1

    Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

    Sorry if this seems repetitive with the Kareem thread, but I wanted to talk about this in a more general sense as opposed to being focused on Roy's offseason training regimen.

    There seems to be a disconnect with the way Roy is valued around here, I think way, way too much emphasis has been put on the last three months of the season. I'm not trying to deny or excuse Roy's poor play during that stretch, he was bad. What I do think, is that projecting forward that the Roy of the last half of the 13/14 season is the Roy we are going to have going forward, is just short sighted. I believe in regression toward the mean. We have plenty of data to determine who Roy Hibbert is as a player, and how he will produce.

    In statistics, regression toward (or to) the mean is the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurement—and, paradoxically, if it is extreme on its second measurement, it will tend to have been closer to the average on its first.[1][2][3] To avoid making incorrect inferences, regression toward the mean must be considered when designing scientific experiments and interpreting data.
    I've seen some suggest Hibbert has been "figured out" or exposed, I think that is nonsense. Hibbert today has the same weaknesses he had as a rookie, he'll never be an elite rebounder, he will always struggle when matched up with a stretch 5 because he is limited athletically. Other teams did not "suddenly" figure this out halfway through the season, that's ridiculous. Roy Hibbert was an all star three years ago. He had the same limitations then, it is not any sort of news, it did not prevent him having an excellent first half of the season (the defensive anchor to a top seeded team while still being a two way player). At one time he was considered a lock for DPOY. The same concept applies again there, Roy had some extreme ups and down this past season... He's not "first half" Roy anymore than he is "second half" Roy, he is somewhere in between.

    I've averaged Hibbert's stats for the past 4 seasons (I'm leaving out the first two where he was still a developing player) to get a picture of who Roy is as a player. 4 years means a whole lot more to me than 3 months.

    29 MPG - 46% from the floor - 7.8 RPG - 12.2 PPG - 2.15 BPG - 1.6 APG

    Roughly a 12/8 Center with 45% + efficiency. Capable of giving you more than 2 blocks per game and almost 2 assists a game (above average passer for a big). Two way player with ok post game (not dominant), in addition, he is an elite rim protector. There's a lot of positive there, and thats why he got the contract he did. Bigs are valuable... Its why we had the best defense in the NBA.

    As far as intangibles go, he is an extremely hard worker who sometimes lets his emotions effect his play. Can be prone to slumps and mental blocks when things are not going his way. He is also limited athletically, which will create problems in certain match-ups. He will never be a great rebounder.

    There's your Roy Hibbert scouting report, it contains very little information that we didn't already have 3 or 4 seasons ago.

    Roy's slump coincided with some chemistry problems, and its hard to know exactly what went on unless you were in that locker room. If I'm going to speculate, the Lance Stephenson all star snub, coupled with a shift toward the perimeter in regard to offense and a reduced offensive role for Roy, may have contributed heavily to this downward spiral. I think the "selfish dudes" comment was something clearly directed toward Stephenson. There were issues here, and Roy let it get the better of him.

    I'm not excusing it, it is what it is. Roy is a player who lets his emotions get the better of him and he lets it effect his play. Its not an ideal situation, but its part of who he is as a player.

    That being said, this combustible ingredient has been removed for this upcoming season. We are likely to see the offense running through the post again as we did in the 11/12 season. If we are to believe Involved Roy = Happy Roy = Productive Roy. Then this is good news.

    In 2011/12 We had a team that featured a healthy Granger and better floor spacing, and an offense that ran through the post. Stephenson rode the bench, our primary ball handlers were Hill/Collison. This team posted an offensive efficiency rating of 103.5 ...good enough for 9th in the league. That's top ten folks. compared to this past season's rating of 101.5 which was ranked 22nd in the league, respectively.

    This is why I don't believe losing Stephenson hurts the offense so much. We were bad last year because of poor spacing, and we've added a serious floor spacer (Miles). We managed to be top 10 in offensive efficiency with Hill as the primary ball handler once before, I see no reason we can't replicate that if we fix the spacing issue (And I believe we did).

    I don't know if these things will actually happen, I don't know for sure that Roy will get his head on straight, I'm not psychic. I just think the "trade Hibbert and Hill for a bag of chips because we are doomed" crowd should consider taking a deep breath, and letting things play out.
    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

    - ilive4sports
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

    I have said it in two other threads, but I think next season will be the best season of his career, If I had to guess, I would say 13/9 numbers from him on 46-47% shooting.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

      You just compared CJ Miles to pre-injury Danny Granger. I'm sorry but that's the noteworthy part of your post to me, other than the bolded part which assures me that nine is indeed a number between one and ten.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        You just compared CJ Miles to pre-injury Danny Granger. I'm sorry but that's the noteworthy part of your post to me, other than the bolded part which assures me that nine is indeed a number between one and ten.
        Wrong, I said CJ Miles was going to space the floor, something that Danny Granger used to do for us. This is not the same as saying "CJ Miles will replace Danny Grangers impact/production".

        People forget one major difference between the 11/12 team and the current team is how much better Paul George has gotten in this time span. Grangers role on that team has been replaced by Paul George on this team. We have a "better" best player. CJ Miles is simply the 5th starter with a clearly defined role. Big difference.
        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

        - ilive4sports

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          You just compared CJ Miles to pre-injury Danny Granger. I'm sorry but that's the noteworthy part of your post to me, other than the bolded part which assures me that nine is indeed a number between one and ten.
          He compared CJ Miles to 2012 Granger, not All Star Granger. There is a difference. Anyways his point is the right pieces is more important than more talent. Which was proven by the Spurs in the finals. Now, do the Pacers have the right pieces? I am still not so sure unless Paul George can play 48 minutes throughout the playoffs and be consistent. I think Miles is a fine fit with the starting 5. Whose going to lead our 2nd lineup is the question for me.

          I also agree 4 years of Roy is a better sample than 3 months. Great post.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

            Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
            Wrong, I said CJ Miles was going to space the floor, something that Danny Granger used to do for us. This is not the same as saying "CJ Miles will replace Danny Grangers impact/production".
            You're either directly comparing the two, or you're inferring that any decent 3-point shooter can be what Danny Granger was. No real middle ground here.

            Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
            He compared CJ Miles to 2012 Granger, not All Star Granger. There is a difference.
            The difference being Granger was "only" averaging 19 points per game in 2012, by far the best on the team.

            My point isn't that Miles isn't a good fit. My point is the other guys on the team won't magically become better players with Miles and without Stephenson. Yeah he annoyed the rest of the team to the point of exhaustion but that did not give them license to collapse like they did. Hibbert has to play like he gives a damn again. That's on him, nobody else.

            Hibbert could have been far better than he was last season. Don't care who the starting SG was last year or who it will be this year.
            Last edited by Kstat; 07-23-2014, 03:53 PM.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              You're either directly comparing the two, or you're inferring that any decent 3-point shooter can be what Danny Granger was. No real middle ground

              .
              All I'm saying is the team needs a consistent three point threat to maximize it's offensive efficiency.

              If that used to be "Player X" and now it's "Player Y" that in no way shape or form implies a direct player comparison. We simply had a different team dynamic. Instead of our best player being our best floor spacer, we have a role player as our best floor spacer. Regardless of who does it, the team needs someone to do it.

              All the other stuff that Granger did? We don't need Miles to do, that's what we have Paul George for, and he does them better than Granger.

              A lot has changed for Paul George since 2011, he was basically a role player then and the 4th leading scorer behind Danny, Roy, and West. The team dynamic is completely different now.
              Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 07-23-2014, 04:07 PM.
              "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

              - ilive4sports

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                You're either directly comparing the two, or you're inferring that any decent 3-point shooter can be what Danny Granger was. No real middle ground here.
                Not quite. I think the point is that when Lance replaced Danny on the wing (yeah, I know, Lance was at 2 and PG slid to 3) we changed from a team that was successful shooting from the perimeter. All he's saying is that CJ will affect Roy more like Danny than like Lance - i.e. will tend to spread the floor rather than bring the ball into the middle.
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

                  You're over-complicating it. They need Roy Hibbert to not be a mopey slug to maximize its efficiency.

                  It isn't like Hibbert needs floor spacing to take his game to another level. Who in their right mind was going to make him a defensive focus last season, especially over the last 3 months? Nobody was sending multiple defenders at him like he was Patrick Ewing.

                  Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                  All the other stuff that Granger did? We don't need Miles to do, that's what we have Paul George for, and he does them better than Granger.
                  ...thus nullifying your earlier point about Granger being missed....
                  Last edited by Kstat; 07-23-2014, 04:10 PM.

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    You're either directly comparing the two, or you're inferring that any decent 3-point shooter can be what Danny Granger was. No real middle ground here.



                    The difference being Granger was "only" averaging 19 points per game in 2012, by far the best on the team.

                    My point isn't that Miles isn't a good fit. My point is the other guys on the team won't magically become better players with Miles and without Stephenson. Yeah he annoyed the rest of the team to the point of exhaustion but that did not give them license to collapse like they did. Hibbert has to play like he gives a damn again. That's on him, nobody else.

                    Hibbert could have been far better than he was last season. Don't care who the starting SG was last year or who it will be this year.
                    Maybe I can explain the "replacing Danny" thing better or maybe it has been said and I'm missing it and everyone just disagrees...

                    But it seems to me we were a better team with someone on the wing being less aggressive and NOT dominating the ball.

                    3 seasons ago Danny was the best player, and PG kind of took a back seat and let the game come to him. Then 2 seasons ago PG became the star and Lance (or the beginning of the season Green) took a back seat and let the game come to him. Then last season PG was still the star, but Lance took control as a major distributor and it worked well for the team. But then his aggressiveness stopped making plays for others and it was ONE of the things that hurt the team.

                    Point is, what works best for the Pacers is a guy that makes jump shots and passes the ball. Young Lance and Paul had those roles and the Pacers were better for it. I believe an older and better shooting CJ Miles may fill that role better, but who knows.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      Nobody was sending multiple defenders at him like he was Patrick Ewing.
                      Completely false. Teams were throwing tripleteams at him. It was actually brilliant. It wasn't to stop him as much as it was an automatic turnover.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

                        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                        Maybe I can explain the "replacing Danny" thing better or maybe it has been said and I'm missing it and everyone just disagrees...

                        But it seems to me we were a better team with someone on the wing being less aggressive and NOT dominating the ball.

                        3 seasons ago Danny was the best player, and PG kind of took a back seat and let the game come to him. Then 2 seasons ago PG became the star and Lance (or the beginning of the season Green) took a back seat and let the game come to him. Then last season PG was still the star, but Lance took control as a major distributor and it worked well for the team. But then his aggressiveness stopped making plays for others and it was ONE of the things that hurt the team.

                        Point is, what works best for the Pacers is a guy that makes jump shots and passes the ball. Young Lance and Paul had those roles and the Pacers were better for it. I believe an older and better shooting CJ Miles may fill that role better, but who knows.
                        They started out the season 33-7. Nobody was pointing out flaws in the structure of the roster then. Let's not revise history and pretend that the team badly needed a role playing floor spacer instead of the league leader in triple doubles and they would have been fine. A lot of guys quit, for whatever reason. Obviously Lance played a role in the downfall of team chemistry, but how he functioned as a player was not really a factor as much as the other players rolling their eyes and pouting over it.
                        Last edited by Kstat; 07-23-2014, 04:24 PM.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

                          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                          Completely false. Teams were throwing tripleteams at him. It was actually brilliant. It wasn't to stop him as much as it was an automatic turnover.
                          Those were occasional traps, which would not have been helped by better outside shooting, wince roy wasn't passing out of them anyway.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            They started out the season 33-7. Nobody was pointing out flaws in the structure of the roster then. Let's not revise history and pretend that the team badly needed a role playing floor spacer instead of the league leader in triple doubles and they would have been fine. A lot of guys quit, for whatever reason.
                            Like I said, who knows? I'm not saying the theory is 100% correct, just that I get the idea. Is it possible that Lance changed his winning style of play at All Star break? Is it possible the team, including Roy, was worn down? Did these things combine with team turmoil from losing greatly affect Roy's play and best solution is losing Lance and adding floor spacing and better ball movement?

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Lets talk about Roy Hibbert

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              Those were occasional traps, which would not have been helped by better outside shooting, wince roy wasn't passing out of them anyway.
                              It was all playoffs. And when he passed out we weren't making teams pay. West would get shut out to.

                              Spacing was a problem for the starters. I don't know how you could watch the playoffs and not see that.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
                              Working...
                              X