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

Another Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

    Originally posted by able View Post
    Sorry you lost me, claiming tyler being better than Foster is insane, go over that stat row, and you will see WHY Jeff was at least twice the player hansboroough is. Oh wait, I get it, you only look at the points avg, I seeeeee, lol well that explains ALL. In fact the entire thread is explained in one go, shall I lock it now ?
    That gets my vote, it is absurd...... ... Besides, I am preparing a good gloat for when Ohio State clobbers IU.....

    Comment


    • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

      Originally posted by able View Post
      Sorry you lost me, claiming tyler being better than Foster is insane, go over that stat row, and you will see WHY Jeff was at least twice the player hansboroough is. Oh wait, I get it, you only look at the points avg, I seeeeee, lol well that explains ALL. In fact the entire thread is explained in one go, shall I lock it now ?
      I actually agree with you on the comparison. It's inaccurate to try to gauge a player with a 13 year career vs. one 4 years in the league. For a more accurate comparison, here's Jeff's 4th year averages vs. Tyler's 4th year:

      Season Age Tm Lg Pos G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
      foster 2002-03 26 IND NBA C 77 2 10 1 2.3 0.36 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.54 1.5 2.1 3.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 1 2.1
      hans 2012-13 27 IND NBA PF 51 0 16 2 4.6 0.43 0 0 0 3 3.5 0.73 1.6 2.5 4.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.8 2 6.4
      So in each players' fourth year as a pro, one player has seen more floor time, got to the stripe more and converted, gotten more rebounds and averaged 3x more points. And the other one is Jeff Foster.

      And I also agree that the sooner this thread is taken out back and shot, the better the internet in general will be.

      Comment


      • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

        Originally posted by Brinocerous View Post
        I loved me some Jeff Foster, but lets get real here. Hans is already a better overall player than Jeff. To say otherwise is willful ignorance of the facts.

        G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
        Foster 764 345 21 2 3.9 0.5 0 0.1 0.13 1 1.7 0.62 2.8 4.1 6.9 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.8 3 4.9
        Hans 216 30 20 3 7.2 0.43 0 0 0 3 3.8 0.77 1.9 2.8 4.6 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.9 2 9.1
        what am i looking at here that proves Tyler > Foster? The 4ppg more at a lower shooting percentage? You can't be serious. The only thing Tyler does better than Jeff and will only do better than Jeff is score. Foster dominated on the glass, especially offensively, was a superior defender and a better passer.

        Comment


        • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

          Originally posted by 5_7_Clash View Post
          This needs to be done...

          Jeff Foster (Career Avg)-

          G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS

          764 345 20.6 1.9 3.9 .497 0.0 0.1 .130 1.0 1.7 .615 2.8 4.1 6.9 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.8 2.5 4.9

          http://www.basketball-reference.com/...fosteje01.html

          Mel Daniels (Career Avg)-

          G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS

          639 35.2 7.3 15.6 .468 0.0 0.1 .088 3.8 5.8 .657 4.5 10.4 14.9 1.8 0.6 1.5 3.0 3.6 18.4

          http://www.basketball-reference.com/...danieme01.html
          I ablsolutely do not disagree. I meant in my time as Pacers fan which is back Vern Fleming, Greg Drieling, Person so forth. Cannot disagree with you when his # hangs from the rafters.

          Comment


          • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

            [QUOTE]
            Originally posted by Brinocerous View Post
            I loved me some Jeff Foster, but lets get real here. Hans is already a better overall player than Jeff. To say otherwise is willful ignorance of the facts.
            HA. im a big Hans supporter and he is no where near the player Fiesty Foster was in his prime. Foster was 6'10 easy and could gaurd most teams Centers. Even did a decent job against Shaq.

            Foster better passer, rebounder, defender, leader, and played just as hard. Foster was a better version of Dennis Rodman. Foster dominated games with his offensive rebounding.

            The only reason he no longer started for this team was due to back problems. If i had a healthy Foster in his prime or HIbbs right now i would take Foster. if Hibbert hits his prime with some offensive game then i would reconsider. I would take Foster over Smits as well for the long haul, other than a 3 year career run under Bird Smits had durability issues.

            Hans better than Foster right now. C'mon Man.

            Comment


            • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

              Originally posted by Brinocerous View Post
              And we would get killed even worse with Foster starting.
              you must not remember the series Foster played in Reggie Millers last season. one game during that series Foster ended up with a record in rebounds, i think it was 21. he also had like 12 offensive rebounds and won us that game easily. in fact, Detroit was gameplanning on Foster the next game. Foster was a big reason that series went 6 games.

              you obviously do not realize how good Jeff Foster was in his prime.

              Comment


              • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

                Obviously some people aren't watching the games carefully and are just basing performance by the stats. Roy's defense is a big reason why we're at the level we're at. His offense is starting to pick up, but I guess some people would rather go with the negatives rather than the positives to try and on PD.

                I have a really hard time taking threads like these ones seriously. Just reading the title made me :shakehead.

                Comment


                • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

                  Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                  what am i looking at here that proves Tyler > Foster? The 4ppg more at a lower shooting percentage? You can't be serious. The only thing Tyler does better than Jeff and will only do better than Jeff is score. Foster dominated on the glass, especially offensively, was a superior defender and a better passer.
                  if Hansbrough were 6'10 and could gaurd opposing teams centers, he would have a chance to reach Fosters level. i like Hansbrough as much as the next pacer fan and prob more, but Feisty Foster was more valuable in many respects over Hans.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

                    [QUOTE=PacersPride;1584294]

                    HA. im a big Hans supporter and he is no where near the player Fiesty Foster was in his prime. Foster was 6'10 easy and could gaurd most teams Centers. Even did a decent job against Shaq.

                    Foster better passer, rebounder, defender, leader, and played just as hard. Foster was a better version of Dennis Rodman. Foster dominated games with his offensive rebounding.

                    The only reason he no longer started for this team was due to back problems. If i had a healthy Foster in his prime or HIbbs right now i would take Foster. if Hibbert hits his prime with some offensive game then i would reconsider. I would take Foster over Smits as well for the long haul, other than a 3 year career run under Bird Smits had durability issues.

                    Hans better than Foster right now. C'mon Man.
                    Probably can just rename this the "say crazy **** thread"...not to single this post out, but I am reading along nodding, good point, good point, OK I agree, and all of a sudden here comes "Foster was a better version of Dennis Rodman"

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

                      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                      Yeah, that is one year..... How about the others? How about being hurt all of the time? Foster was a run-of-the-mill post player for almost all of his career.... ...
                      Foster had no offensive game for most of his career. except for the offensive rebounding which made up for a ton of it.

                      bottom line:

                      Foster would be starting on over half the nba teams, and probably closer to two thirds in his prime. Therefore, he was not a career backup as your original post suggeted.

                      I know Foster would start on the Heat, Celtics (could move KG to PF like we did JO), Hawks, Philly, Spurs (Pop would get Foster on court in his prime), Lakers (Kobe would love Foster tracking down 10 offensive rebounds or more some games).

                      These are playoff caliber teams and Foster would start on over half of them would be my guess. easily he would start on the rest of the bottom feeders.

                      Your estimation of solid role players must be completely skewed in regard to mine. The Heat would be very very dangerous with a healthy Jeff Foster circa 2001-2008

                      * I bet Coach Vogel would agree as well. After Fosters retirement the FO asked Coach Vogel waht he wanted most from the draft.. Coach Frank asked if there was another Foster out there and if so go get him. I dont think Plumee is that guy but thats not point.
                      Last edited by PacersPride; 02-10-2013, 03:06 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        Hibbert is shooting 47.1% for his career. A player does not normally decline at 26 (unless he is Andris Biedrins that just stopped caring for whatever reason). So, it's not far-fetched to believe that he is more likely to return to his career averages than keep shooting at his career low.

                        It's just a matter of numbers. You cannot disprove numbers. It's that simple!
                        I would suggest the "whatever reason" that Biedrins stopped caring was "got a huge contract." Could that be relevant to Roy's struggles?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

                          [QUOTE=PacersPride;1584294]

                          HA. im a big Hans supporter and he is no where near the player Fiesty Foster was in his prime. Foster was 6'10 easy and could gaurd most teams Centers. Even did a decent job against Shaq.

                          Foster better passer, rebounder, defender, leader, and played just as hard. Foster was a better version of Dennis Rodman. Foster dominated games with his offensive rebounding.

                          The only reason he no longer started for this team was due to back problems. If i had a healthy Foster in his prime or HIbbs right now i would take Foster. if Hibbert hits his prime with some offensive game then i would reconsider. I would take Foster over Smits as well for the long haul, other than a 3 year career run under Bird Smits had durability issues.

                          Hans better than Foster right now. C'mon Man.

                          And how exactly is this true?
                          Last edited by 5_7_Clash; 02-10-2013, 03:13 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

                            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            Want a logical answer?

                            Here you are:

                            http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2012/ (11-12 season)

                            http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2011/ (10-11 season)

                            http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2010/ (09-10 season)

                            http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2009/ (08-09 season)

                            http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2013/ (12-13 season)

                            Those are Roy Hibbert's shot charts for every single year of his NBA career.

                            Problem #1: He is shooting below 50% at rim for the first time in his career.

                            Let's see how he shot at rim in his previous seasons:

                            08-09: 51.2% (104-203)

                            09-10: 60.9% (181-297)

                            10-11: 65.1% (181-278)

                            11-12: 57.5% (161-280)

                            He is shooting 47% (94-200) from this area this season. That's a career low by 4.2%. That's 10.5% lower than what he shot last year from that same area.

                            Problem #2: He is shooting below 40% from 3 to 10 feet for the second time in his career. It's a career low as well.

                            Let's see how he shot from 3 to 10 feet in his previous seasons:

                            08-09: 44.6% (66-148)

                            09-10: 45.1% (124-275)

                            10-11: 39.7% (158-398)

                            11-12: 50.3% (173-344)

                            He is shooting 37.7% (81-225) from this area this season. That's a career low by 2%. That's also 12.6% lower than what he shot last year from that same area.

                            Problem #3: He is shooting a career low in lay-ups as well.

                            Hibbert's FG% in lay-ups over the previous seasons:

                            08-09: 41% (59-144) [36 of those, that is 61%, were assisted]

                            09-10: 53.3% (114-214) [69 of those, that is 60.5%, were assisted]

                            10-11: 54.4% (87-160) [51 of those, that is 58.6%, were assisted]

                            11-12: 56.2% (95-169) [45 of those, that is 47.4%, were assisted]

                            He is shooting 40.4% (40-99) this season. That's a career low by 0.6%. That's 15.8% lower than what he shot last year. Also, only 15 of his lay-ups are assisted. That means that only 37.5% of his lay-ups were assisted. That's 9.9% lower than his career low and 21.1% lower than his previous career low.

                            Should we expect from Hibbert to get by his man and create a lay-up for himself? No, we shouldn't. We should expect him to create a hook shot for himself. A hook shot that he still shoots on a 54.3% (75-138) clip. A hook shot that is assisted on a higher rate (43 of his 75 makes are assisted, that is 57.3%) than his lay-ups for some reason.

                            Bonus observation: Roy is rebounding more this season on the offensive end. That results in more tip-ins. Let's check his offensive rebounding numbers first and his tip-ins second.

                            Roy's offensive rebounding totals:

                            08-09: 115 (70 games) [42 games as a starter but rookie season so not a whole lot of minutes]

                            09-10: 177 (81 games) [69 games as a starter]

                            10-11: 182 (81 games) [started all but 1 game]

                            11-12: 213 (65 games) [lock-out season]

                            12-13: 192 (51 games)

                            So, in 51 games he has already grabbed more offensive boards than the 10-11 and 09-10 seasons in which he played 81 games. Want to do a comparison in minutes? He played 2.244 minutes in 10-11 and 2.035 minutes in 09-10. He has played 1.461 minutes so far and he has already grabbed more offensive boards than 10-11 and 09-10 (he has also blocked 12 more shots than 11-12, 5 more shots than 09-10 and 6 less than 10-11).

                            [If he is to keep up this pace, he will grab more offensive rebounds than the 11-12 season in 5.5 games (needs 21 more and he is grabbing 3.8 per game) and block more shots than the 10-11 season in 2.2 games (needs 6 more and he is blocking 2.7 shots per game). But that's irrelevant with his shooting so it's just a parenthesis.]

                            Along with his offensive rebounds, his tip-in attempts have increased as well. Let's start with checking his attempts in every season so far:

                            08-09: 25

                            09-10: 30

                            10-11: 42

                            11-12: 59

                            12-13: 73

                            I already posted the games and minutes above. So, in only 51 games and 1.461 minutes Roy has surpassed his career high in tip-ins by 14.

                            He has attempted 73 tip-ins out of 192 offensive rebounds. That means that 38% of his offensive rebounds result into tip-ins.

                            In fact, Hibbert's 73 tip-in attempts are more than those of Marc Gasol (24) and Tyson Chandler (43) combined!

                            And Tyson Chandler has grabbed more offensive rebounds than Hibbert (215, to be precise).

                            Now, let's see his shooting percentage in those tip-ins over the years:

                            08-09: 52% (13-25)

                            09-10: 50% (15-30)

                            10-11: 40.5% (17-42)

                            11-12: 40.7% (24-59)

                            12-13: 37% (27-73)

                            So, he is shooting a career low in tip-ins as well. But Hibbert gets his tip-ins exploiting his length and those shot attempts are usually wild due to being heavily contested and mostly off-balance.

                            Should we fault him for the mised tip-ins? Not so much. Why? Because we wouldn't get those shots if it wasn't for Hibbert rebounding the initial miss in the first place. But a coach could instruct him to reduce the amout of tip-ins and either kick the ball out or gather first and then attempt to finish (possibly earning a foul) because it is hurting his FG%. We all know that FG% is what matters in a Center, right?

                            What would happen if we were to exclude those tip-in attempts from his overall shooting in each season?

                            Let's take a look:

                            08-09: He was 47.1% with 198-420. If we were to exclude his tip-ins (13-25), he would be 185-395. So, he would shoot 46.8%.

                            09-10: He was 49.5% (49.48% to be precise) with 387-782. If we were to exclude his tip-ins (15-30), he would be 372-752. So, he would shoot 49.5% (49.46 to be precise).

                            10-11: He was 46.1% with 410-890. If we were to exclude his tip-ins (17-42), he would be 393-848. So, he would shoot 46.3%.

                            11-12: He was 49.7% with 332-668 (note that he went 52-104 for 50% in the playoffs last year). If we were to exclude his tip-ins (24-59), he would be 308-609. So, he would shoot 50.5%.

                            12-13: He is 41.6% with 215-517. If we were to exclude his tip-ins (27-73), he would be 188-444. So, he would shoot 42.3%.

                            He would still shoot horrible but one cannot dispute that his tip-ins negatively influence his FG%. But that's just my observation.

                            The point of this very long post is simple. You are free to skip to this part if you don't want to read the whole post.

                            Roy Hibbert has proved in all 4 of his previous seasons that he is a better offensive player than he has shown so far this season. That's why we can tell that it will get better, 3rdStrike. That's our logic, Justin. 4 seasons overpower a single season. If Roy Hibbert shot 60% this season, we would have no reason to conclude that he would shoot 60% for the rest of his career. We could say that he could shoot 50% and see it as a sign of improvement, of course. But saying that he would shoot 60% would be illogical. It's similarly illogical to conclude that he will keep shooting 41.5% like he is now.

                            Hibbert is shooting 47.1% for his career. A player does not normally decline at 26 (unless he is Andris Biedrins that just stopped caring for whatever reason). So, it's not far-fetched to believe that he is more likely to return to his career averages than keep shooting at his career low.

                            It's just a matter of numbers. You cannot disprove numbers. It's that simple!

                            I commend you on the time you put forth on your post. The law of averages is on Hibbert's side that his game will improve sooner or later. The point some have made is Hibbert isn't living up to his contract. It's frustrating to watch a player get paid for the play that made them an Allstar and then not produce like one.

                            We can cuss and discuss whether Hibbert deserves his contract until the cows come home, but the fact is by his own play and production he doesn't. Hibbert isn't playing well, and he even admitted as such in an interview with Brooke on tv last week.

                            Some have mentioned Tyson Chandler as a comparison to Hibbert. I did some research on Chandler last night. I looked at his production. People in the past have mentioned how much he meant to Dallas and now NY. That he's a "D" player 1st and not a scorer per se. IIRC, someone compared Chandler's salary to Hibbert's salary. I didn't realize they were both making 13.6 mil this year until I looked it up at Shamsports.

                            Here is what Chandler is giving for his 13. 6 mil.

                            11.5 PPG... 11.2 RPG... 67% FG... 66.7% FT

                            3-20 reb games in a row last week. 4-18 reb games this year... 27-10 reb or more games this year.


                            This is what Hibbert is giving for his 13.6 mil this year.

                            9.9 PPG... 8.3 RPG... 41.6% FG... 70% FT

                            The most rebs Hibbert has garnered in a game this year is 15. 15 games of 10 rebs or more in a game this season

                            Hibbert isn't producing for the salary he's being paid as Chandler is. Both Hibbert and Chandler are good "D" players, and contribute mightly to their teams "D".

                            IMO, this thread was a thread of frustration from Hibbert's play this season, and more to the loss to Toronto when the bigs of Toronto went 20 of 32 shooting for 62%. It is frustrating to watch AMIR JOHNSON get 14 and 14 and 20 year old ROOKIE Valanciunas get 14 and 13. Thus, I personally can understand the thread originator and others frustration. To me, they have a right to express their displeasure with Hibbert's play. Trading Hibbert might be an over re-action at the present, but if things haven't changed this time next year it might have some validity.

                            I knew after reading the thread title this was going to be a controversial thread. I was prepared, but unfortunately some took the thread to another level to the point of asking for the thread to be deleted. That bothered me more than any other comments in this thread. I want to thank ADMIN for ignoring the request. JMOAA

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

                              [QUOTE=5_7_Clash;1584319]
                              Originally posted by PacersPride View Post

                              And how exactly is this true?
                              how is not true. its just my opinion. i could give a detailed analysis but would you read it. i doubt it. so i will just say i believe overall Foster was a better rebounder. not a better defender. but Rodman was limited with his size whereas Foster was more of a combo backup big who could gaurd PF/C. ive always believed that to important when it comes to the front court rotation. plus Rodman was nukkin futts and Foster a leader. its a shame Foster did not have 2-3 seasons left.

                              he coulda made a huge difference in last seasons miami series just like he did vs the bulls and thats n limited minutes. foster was as solid as it gets from a guy who did not need to score to impact a game.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official Trade Roy Hibbert Thread

                                Originally posted by dal9 View Post

                                I would suggest the "whatever reason" that Biedrins stopped caring was "got a huge contract." Could that be relevant to Roy's struggles?

                                Speaking of Biedrins he got "8" rebs last game!!! I had to take a double take at the box score as I thought my eyes had deceived me.

                                Lets ALL hope Hibbert doesn't come close to what Biedrins has become after signing his last contract. Talk about a disappearing act.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X