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

  • Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

    http://hardwoodparoxysm.com/2014/08/...medium=twitter


    The numbers have always indicated that the Indiana Pacers’ Roy Hibbert is a bad rebounder. For one, he has never averaged more than 8.8 rebounds over the course of an entire season. For a 7-foot-2, defensive-minded center — and one of the premier defensive bigs in the NBA, at that – that’s not a statistic to be proud of. To add more fuel to the fire, in the 2013-2014 season, 20 centers — ranging from Samuel Dalembert and Enes Kanter to Joakim Noah and DeAndre Jordan — averaged more rebounds per game than he did. And finally, out of players who appeared in at least 10 games during that very season, Hibbert ranked 127th in rebounds per 36 minutes.
    To a large extent, though, those numbers are skewed and Hibbert’s seemingly inept ability to grab a rebound is not only overblown but can be understood. Quite simply: the Indiana Pacers don’t rely solely on Hibbert to hit the glass, and that is by design. The way they rebound as a unit and play defense — funnelling players into Hibbert, giving up long twos instead of open threes and looks at the rim — plays a big role in explaining why his rebounding numbers, especially last season, were low.
    Team Rebounding

    The Pacers’ second-half collapse last season is well documented, as is Roy Hibbert’s. Heading into February, he was on pace to walk away with the Defensive Player of the Year award; however, following the All-Star Break, his numbers fell off a cliff. He went from averaging 11.8 points, 7.7 rebounds and 2.5 blocks per game to 8.9 points, 4.7 rebounds and 1.8 blocks, which greatly impacted the Pacers’ hopes of competing with the Miami Heat in the Eastern Conference, as Hibbert was at the centerpiece of whatever advantage they held.
    A lot of the criticism Hibbert got in those final 30 games — whether or not it was just a result of verticality taking a toll on his body — was deserved. For someone who was the anchor of the defense and a much needed presence inside offensively, Hibbert’s absence left a gaping hole in the Pacers’ attack. His defensive rating plummeted as the months wore on, which was the most concerning factor of it all.
    However, the Pacers’ rebounding numbers during that time remained the same, which, given his drastic fall in his numbers, is surprising on the surface. And although 4.7 rebounds per game for a starting center is incredibly low and disappointing, the fact that it didn’t impact the team in any negative way — as the chart below indicates — says a lot about their overall approach.
    Indiana Pacers’ Rebounding Numbers vs. Roy Hibbert’s in 2013-2014 | Basketball Reference

    Rebounding wasn’t a problem at all for the Pacers in 2013-2014. In fact, they were one of the best rebounding teams in the league all season long, even amidst their post-All-Star break collapse. Their 44.7 rebounds per game ranked eighth in the NBA; the 41.2 rebounds per game they gave up to their opponents ranked fifth; their +3.5 rebounding differential ranked third; their rebound rate (percentage of missed shots a team rebounds) of 52.0 percent ranked third; and their defensive rebounding rate of 76.8 ranked second, trailing only the Charlotte Bobcats.
    If Hibbert’s low rebounding numbers were a problem, the team would’ve suffered. Yet, instead, the team rebounded at a higher rate with Hibbert on the court (they grabbed 52.5 percent of all available rebounds), as apposed to when he was off (51.2 percent).
    Even with his numbers free falling, the Pacers didn’t miss a step, which indicates that the concerns were slightly overblown.
    The Scheme

    The reason the Pacers were so successful defensively last season was because of their scheme. In a nutshell, they looked to force teams into taking contested mid-range shots — the least valuable shot in basketball. In pick-and-rolls, the Pacers would drop Hibbert back in an attempt to entice guards from settling for long twos, and while it pulled Hibbert out of the paint, it wasn’t so far to where his presence was negated. In other situations, Hibbert was the intimidator, protecting the basket and forcing guards to kick the ball out to the perimeter instead of going up for layup.
    In terms of rebounding, Hibbert didn’t look to simply attack the glass when a shot went up; instead, he used his big frame to box out the opposing big. While that was going on, the rest of the team — Paul George, Lance Stephenson, David West and George Hill — packed the paint and went after the rebound.The result was that the team’s opposing big (be it Dwight Howard or DeAndre Jordan) was taken out of the play. It was a big reason why the Pacers ranked in the top tier in opponents offensive rebounds per game (that is, they didn’t allow many offensive boards) and it’s why Hibbert was valuable even when he wasn’t pulling down rebounds.
    No team in the NBA sends all their players into the paint to get an offensive rebound because it makes it easy for the opposition to fastbreak off of it. For that reason, neutralising a team’s big man, who is closest to the rim on the majority of shots that go up in a game, is half the job in securing defensive rebounds. Even when Hibbert doesn’t jump for a board, simply putting an arm on a big is enough to inhibit their ability to crash the glass. Hibbert is, after all, a big body — 7-foot-2, 290-pounds — and having him lean against a player makes it hard to jump straight up to grab a board. It’s also a nuisance, which will deter some players from continuously chasing rebounds as the game wears on.
    The Numbers

    Hibbert did have his moments last season where he was a force on the glass — statistically — but very little changed in his approach during those games. For example, on December 4th, 2013, he pulled down 14 rebounds against the Portland Trail Blazers. The difference in that game, as apposed to the ones in which he struggled to secure even five, was simple: the ball just went in his direction.
    As you’ll see in the video below, Hibbert did the exact same things — get in help position, contest the shot (if needed), run to his man and box him out. That much remained the same, yet the ball simple bounced in his direction rather than in George’s or Stephenson’s.
    On all of those rebounds, Hibbert didn’t try and out-jump anyone to grab them. When a shot went up, he turned his body, faced his man, and then cut off their lane to the basket by bumping into them. It took them out of the play, and had he not been the one to grab them, someone else on the team would’ve been able to.
    That does hurt the team from time-to-time, though. Because of his tendency to box out his man and not go directly for the rebound, it can result in players being left open underneath the basket if there is a breakdown defensively. Take this play as an example:

    Touch image
    Share image...

    There was a miscommunication between George Hill and David West, which left Zach Randolph wide open underneath the basket. When the shot went up from Mike Miller, Hibbert found himself in-between his man, Marc Gasol, and Randolph. However, instead of going into the restricted area and fighting Randolph for position, he boxed out Gasol. The result: Randolph got two offensive rebounds and found Gasol wide open for a dunk. Had Hibbert helped out, George would’ve been able to take Gasol (who wasn’t really a threat from that far out, anyway) and the Pacers could’ve secured the rebound.
    Conclusion

    Hibbert isn’t a great rebounder, that much we know. Anyone who averages 6.6 rebounds in 29.7 minutes isn’t good at that facet of the game. (Also, for comparison’s sake, Hibbert ranked 41st amongst centers last season in offensive rebounding rate. That’s not good). However, that doesn’t mean he’s incapable of making plays that benefit the team.
    If anything, Hibbert is a smart rebounder. Trying to get around a 7-foot-2 behemoth is no easy task, and jumping over one is even harder. He knows that. Simply using his body to box out the opposing team’s best offensive rebounder does more than enough in helping the Pacers secure boards. With the center battling for position with Hibbert and four other Pacers in the paint, it doesn’t leave a lot of room for anyone else to get involved, and that’s why their scheme worked.
    We chastise players for padding their stats in the NBA, but don’t praise ones who focus on the fundamentals at the expense of their numbers. In the case of Roy Hibbert, he doesn’t jump after every rebound that comes his way. He could easily, but that wouldn’t necessarily have the same effect. Instead, his focus on boxing out his man — the opposing team’s center — clears the paint and creates space for the rest of his teammates to grab an uncontested rebound and push the ball.
    It doesn’t show up on the stat sheet but it’s just as important.
    All statistics gathered from ESPN, Basketball Reference and NBA. Video footage courtesy of Synergy Sports.
    Last edited by ThA HoyA; 08-20-2014, 12:48 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

    That's a lot of effort put in to contradicting what anyone with two eyes can prove.

    Still, I can relate to playing the contrarian, so a tip of the cap to this article.

    He sort of waffles at the end, though:

    Conclusion

    Hibbert isn’t a great rebounder, that much we know. Anyone who averages 6.6 rebounds in 29.7 minutes isn’t good at that facet of the game. (Also, for comparison’s sake, Hibbert ranked 41st amongst centers last season in offensive rebounding rate. That’s not good). However, that doesn’t mean he’s incapable of making plays that benefit the team.
    Way to straddle that fence.....8 paragraphs, 3 scouting clips and a bar chart just to return to where we started. I retract my cap. Good day, sir.
    Last edited by Kstat; 08-20-2014, 12:28 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


    • #3
      Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

      Oyyyyy...I haven't clicked the link yet.....but I can see that this discussion is going to end well.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

        IMO, she's not that good of a rebounder.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

          Individual rebounding numbers, or lack of individual rebounds whatever, only matter if the team is a bad rebounding team. The Pacers are not a bad rebounding team. The Pacers were tied for 6th in total rebounding, and 3rd in rebounding margin last year,#1 in both categories in the year before, 4th and 9th in 11-12. So, yeah, Roy's individual numbers really don't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.
          Last edited by Since86; 08-20-2014, 01:47 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            That's a lot of effort put in to contradicting what anyone with two eyes can prove.

            Still, I can relate to playing the contrarian, so a tip of the cap to this article.

            He sort of waffles at the end, though:



            Way to straddle that fence.....8 paragraphs, 3 scouting clips and a bar chart just to return to where we started. I retract my cap. Good day, sir.
            Pretty much this. He doesn't put effort into rebounding, this is obvious from watching the games. The writer states as much in this article, seemingly contradicting himself. It would appear that his actual message is "Roy Hibbert is a bad rebounder, but it's okay."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

              (Also, for comparison’s sake, Hibbert ranked 41st amongst centers last season in offensive rebounding rate. That’s not good)
              And the year before that, he was second in the league in offensive rebound rate. Bet no one here knows that.

              This article is doomed to failure if it's relying on just last season. Roy was really subpar in all facets except for defense last year. But he was actually pretty solid in rebounding the 2 seasons before, and arguably could even be called an elite rebounder in 2012-13. Consider:

              2nd in the league in offensive rebound rate and ORB/36 (behind Reggie Evans)
              2nd in the league in ORB/game (behind Zach Randolph)
              3rd in the league in total ORBs for the season (behind Randolph and Tristan Thompson - Thompson played more games)

              Of course, Kevin Love was injured that year, but that's still pretty striking statistics for a "bad" rebounder.

              EDIT: Just for fun, Roy was 10th in the league in ORB/game in 2011-12. So it's not a one year fluke thing. Last season he ranked 25th, just above Miles Plumlee. That looks a lot more like a fluke to me. But we'll see.
              Last edited by wintermute; 08-20-2014, 01:06 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                Pretty much this. He doesn't put effort into rebounding, this is obvious from watching the games. The writer states as much in this article, seemingly contradicting himself. It would appear that his actual message is "Roy Hibbert is a bad rebounder, but it's okay."
                Wait Roy doesn't put effort into rebounding? I think it's the opposite Roy puts effort in keeping his guy off the glass which creates rebounding opportunities for the team that's his main focus and a big reason for the team rebounding. Troy Murphy got a lot of rebounds and I'd say he put less of an effort into rebounding that Roy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                  There are also all kinds of sophisticated explanations for point guards regularly blocking Roy's shot. In fact, he's a beast at the basket.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                    Roy has to box out instead of go for the rebound because his man will generally beat him to the ball or tip it in. Compare that to how Andrew Bynum or Dwight Howard play in the paint. They own that territory. I suppose Bynum is done but...as illustration. So, yes, the Pacers are left with someone else cleaning the glass. That is why Lance Stephenson led the Indiana Pacers in rebounds last year.

                    None of the Pacers have a knack for rebounding except the guards. David West simply isn't athletic enough and while you don't need to have great jumping ability it helps if you have a good motor. Neither Roy nor David have great motors. Ian lacks technique and does not have good hands so he's not going to help. These are the issues. We simply don't have the personnel and it just got worse with Lance Stephenson and Paul George being unavailable.

                    Edit: So, this isn't a myth. This is a situation where a person is trying to challenge cold hard facts.
                    Last edited by BlueNGold; 08-20-2014, 02:22 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                      Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?
                      Can we just say he's not a GOOD rebounder ??

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                        I guess, I would like to see him getting rebounds, not just because it looks good for his numbers, but I think it could be a confidence booster for a guy who seems to be really down as far as his play goes.
                        Why so SERIOUS

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          None of the Pacers have a knack for rebounding except the guards. David West simply isn't athletic enough and while you don't need to have great jumping ability it helps if you have a good motor. Neither Roy nor David have great motors. Ian lacks technique and does not have good hands so he's not going to help. These are the issues. We simply don't have the personnel and it just got worse with Lance Stephenson and Paul George being unavailable.
                          Lavoy Allen is a pretty good rebounder.

                          As far as Roy, blocking out your man is a fundamental of basketball. He should still be a decent rebounder, which up until the last part of last year he was...decent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                            Originally posted by ThA HoyA View Post
                            Wait Roy doesn't put effort into rebounding? I think it's the opposite Roy puts effort in keeping his guy off the glass which creates rebounding opportunities for the team that's his main focus and a big reason for the team rebounding. Troy Murphy got a lot of rebounds and I'd say he put less of an effort into rebounding that Roy.
                            Right, he doesn't go for rebounds. Whether he's boxing out, falling down or thinking about what he's going to say post game is supplementary to the point that he, himself, is not a good rebounder and doesn't put effort into rebounding, which is to say that he is not good at grabbing missed shots with two hands, thereby granting possession to his team.

                            George Hill can bring the ball to the right spot and go execute a perfect off the ball curl but that doesn't make him a good passer, even if it facilitated an easy pass for whoever actually dished a dime.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Myth Buster: Is Roy Hibbert A Bad Rebounder?

                              Roy must actually be a pretty damn good rebounder, if he can average 8 rebounds without even trying. If he puts forth some effort, he might start challenging Wilt.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X