All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

[freddielewis14]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

Roy didn't "progressively decline." He does the things he does at a high level. But big men are being asked to do more, and Roy cannot do that. That doesn't mean Roy "declined" that means Roy couldn't meet the new expectations. Once again, using that word.

What does Roy do at high level? He doesn't guard his man any better than Jordan Hill. He's 25th in rim protection. He has no offense. He doesn't rebound well for a big. He shoots free throws at high level, that's it.

To say Roy hasn't declined is just being stubborn and not admitting being wrong at this point.

[Rogco]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

What does Roy do at high level? .

At this point Roy does 4 things at a very high level:
1.) Shoot free throws
2.) Stay healthy and play almost every night
3.) Fall over
4.) Pass (blame)

Edit: I do find it really interesting going back and re-reading PD threads. Hibbert played his best ball from 2011-2012, and probably second best from 2012-2013, yet most of the articles on here are pretty damning of him even then. Mostly because he would periodically become awful and have a serious negative impact on the team for 2-4 weeks before turning it back around, but also because, even after his best season in the league, no one on here really considered him elite or thought him worthy of a max contract. Now, with three more seasons as a Pacer under his belt, each worse than the year before, there is an argument over Hibbert's value and his "elite"status. I think a myth of Hibbert was created long after the best days of Hibbert.

[BenR1990]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

At this point Roy does 4 things at a very high level:
1.) Shoot free throws
2.) Stay healthy and play almost every night
3.) Fall over
4.) Pass (blame)

5) Has the ability to make former fans obsess over him in a season where he's playing in a different conference on one of the least competitive teams in the NBA.

[BillS]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

Roy didn't "progressively decline." He does the things he does at a high level. But big men are being asked to do more, and Roy cannot do that. That doesn't mean Roy "declined" that means Roy couldn't meet the new expectations. Once again, using that word.

So if you accept his numbers on rim protection and other strengths from previous years, do you mean he 'suddenly declined' over the summer rather than 'progressively declined' over last year?

The problem I have is that you act that in order for his rim protection at the end of the year to have shown a decline in a 30-day analysis then his rim protection at the beginning of the season in a 30-day analysis would have had to have been super spectacular. I disagree with this.

Roy's 2014-2015 oppFG% was 42.7%, while his oppFG% in 2013-2014 was 40.9%. All we have to assume is that he started 2014-2015 at the same level he averaged in 2013-2014 and assume a steady decline and it means he could have finished the year with an oppFG% of 44.5% - dropping him (compared to everyone's averages, which is a bit flawed but the data we have) from 4th to 14th (average among starters?). This year he is 12th among players with the exact same number of games (lower if you count those with a couple games fewer) with a sharper decline to 49.3%.

Now, this doesn't postulate that he crashed and burned during the year last year, but it does support a valid theory that he got steadily worse - at least until we can find month-by-month non-cumulative numbers to disprove it.

EDIT TO ADD: This is somewhat supported on ther NBA stats page by filtering 2014-2015 by Pre All Star and then Post All Star. Roy's oppFG% pre-ASG was 42.2%, his oppFG% post ASG was 43.6%, his rank pre ASG was around 2nd (depending on the number of games you count for valid stat) and post ASG was 7th (same caveat). I think that supports a steady decline through the year.

[Since86]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

So if you accept his numbers on rim protection and other strengths from previous years, do you mean he 'suddenly declined' over the summer rather than 'progressively declined' over last year?

It's a possibility. Or he could be on a horrible defensive team and one guy has a hard time making such a large defensive impact when he's surrounded by 3-4 other turnstyles on defense.

You'll never get even an acknowledgement of possibility that Roy's defense didn't decline from the other side of the conversation though.

The problem I have is that you act that in order for his rim protection at the end of the year to have shown a decline in a 30-day analysis then his rim protection at the beginning of the season in a 30-day analysis would have had to have been super spectacular. I disagree with this.

If his defense is as bad as construed, and his overall numbers were still so low, the only explanation is that his earlier numbers had to be reversely that good in order to end up with the elite average.

The problem isn't with my beginning very of really really really good, but rather the end with him being so bad.

And again, the people talking about Roy's decline were talking about his decline starting in 13-14 season. At no point in time during last season did they ever reverse their position. IF Roy was that good at the beginning of last year, shouldn't here at least have been a pause in talking about how bad Roy was defensively? There wasn't. They've talked continually from Dec. of 13 to today talking about Roy's defensive issues. Not one single time have they ever acknowledge Roy's elite level of defense last season. Not one single minute, let alone a long enough stretch to counter balance the supposed decline as the year went on.

Roy's 2014-2015 oppFG% was 42.7%, while his oppFG% in 2013-2014 was 40.9%. All we have to assume is that he started 2014-2015 at the same level he averaged in 2013-2014 and assume a steady decline and it means he could have finished the year with an oppFG% of 44.5% - dropping him (compared to everyone's averages, which is a bit flawed but the data we have) from 4th to 14th (average among starters?). This year he is 12th among players with the exact same number of games (lower if you count those with a couple games fewer) with a sharper decline to 49.3%.

Now, this doesn't postulate that he crashed and burned during the year last year, but it does support a valid theory that he got steadily worse - at least until we can find month-by-month non-cumulative numbers to disprove it.

Here's the problem with this though. Roy ended up 4th in DefFG%, all while the same posters have been arguing that he was so bad defensively he had to be replaced. IF that was true, shouldn't we see a bigger decline than going from top 3 to top 4?

I can be on board with Roy getting "worse" as long as it's framed in proper context. Going from the best rim protector to 4th is technically getting "worse." That undeniable as 4 is worse than 1. But when you look at what "worse" actually means in the context of their argument, it doesn't make much sense. If the position is that 4th isn't good enough to warrant him PT, then there's only 3, at the most in the entire NBA, big men defenders who's play defensively warrant significant PT.

That is an extreme position. It is an unrealistic expectation.

The fact that Roy's defensive numbers stayed elite, when the Pacers two next best perimeter defenders who played with Roy a majority of the time didn't play for 95% of the season and almost 50% of the season, say's Roy's decline couldn't have been that bad, and certainly not anywhere near the level of it being argued.

EDIT TO ADD: This is somewhat supported on ther NBA stats page by filtering 2014-2015 by Pre All Star and then Post All Star. Roy's oppFG% pre-ASG was 42.2%, his oppFG% post ASG was 43.6%, his rank pre ASG was around 2nd (depending on the number of games you count for valid stat) and post ASG was 7th (same caveat). I think that supports a steady decline through the year.

I don't know if your numbers are true, but for the sake of argument I'll agree.

So the position is, 7th best interior defender in the NBA isn't good enough on defense to warrant normal level of PT? When you add in the offensive issues, it's starts making a bit more sense. The only way you can point to defensive issues, is to say 7th isn't good enough and I think that is crazy. When there's only 6 players better than you in a league with 400 some odd total players, and 150ish big men players, that's being in the top 95% of the league. If being top 5% isn't good enough defensively, then I have to question the standards being applied.

"A top 5% defender doesn't play very much any more, because of defensive reasons." That is a crazy, over-the-top position. And that's been the position, not only when talking about being top 7, but top 4!

EDIT: And that's just focusing on where he ranks comparative to the rest of the league. That's not even addressing that "progressively declining" is now being defined as a 1.4% change in oppFG%. If PG starts shooting 1.4% less than what he has been, who here is going to argue he's getting "progressively worse?"

I bet no one, and no one should. It would be absurd. The difference is 1.4 made FG out of 100. Unless the expectation is that he has to stay 100% consistent, it still continues to make zero sense regardless of the way you look at it.

[BillS]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

I did use oppFG% numbers instead of rim protection numbers there because your link in your earlier argument was to his oppFG%. But I think the argument that a steady decline is possible without having to have started the year spectacularly still holds.

[BillS]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

Going from the best rim protector to 4th is technically getting "worse."

But by the end of the season his per-game production was (possibly) 14th, not 4th. You really can't decide if a player is changing based on just his average over 82 games. You have to look at the game-to-game trend, and if he is declining steadily from one game to the next - even if on average he was fine - you can't just say he is what his average shows, unless you think that trend was due to some kind of extenuating circumstances.

Again, I am extrapolating from available data, and my rankings with pre- and post-ASG are VERY rough because I'm only counting players who played within 2 games of the number of games Roy played in that timeframe.

For some of these things you also can't plan based on how other players are doing - you are looking at how a player is doing compared to himself. If every starting center in the league but one played injured then the one healthy guy could end up #1 in the league with a pretty crappy set of statistics - that doesn't suddenly make him worth a maximum salary as the best center in the league. This isn't as drastic but it is the same idea.

[Since86]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

But by the end of the season his per-game production was (possibly) 14th, not 4th. You really can't decide if a player is changing based on just his average over 82 games. You have to look at the game-to-game trend, and if he is declining steadily from one game to the next - even if on average he was fine - you can't just say he is what his average shows, unless you think that trend was due to some kind of extenuating circumstances.

This is the first time you've mentioned 14th. What are the actual FG% numbers?

Theoretically, someone could go from #1 to #5 and their numbers stay the exact same. The drop would be to other players getting better. I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm just saying what are the actual numbers because telling me the ranks, minus the cold hard statistics, could be misleading.

You've mentioned post-ASG being 7th, so his level of 14th must be that one month? There are going to be fluctuations. No one, regardless of what is being argued should expect static production. (when talking about sport performances) Only machines could be that consistent.

But anyone who thinks a defender has gotten so bad at defense they don't warrant their normal level of PT, over a drop of 1.4% in oppFG% is someone with unreal, unrealistic, absolutely crazy *** expectations.

[freddielewis14]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

Posted before, but I think Lowe's article in the off season describes why it's so difficult to prove this argument with stats...

Opponents shot just 42.6 percent on close shots when Hibbert was nearby, one of the best marks in the league for a frontline defender, per NBA.com. Team officials with access to secret-sauce stats tell me that number masks some slippage, but even so, Hibbert’s strength remains strong.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/continuity-errors-why-the-blazers-and-pacers-may-have-to-start-over/

Anybody can find stats to agree with their opinion if they look hard enough, but we now know that Hibbert was in fact declining. We know Hibbert has not been a difference maker on defense this season, so if someone is looking at stats that say Hibbert wasn't on the decline, perhaps they're just looking at the wrong stats?

[BillS]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

This is the first time you've mentioned 14th. What are the actual FG% numbers?

Roy's 2014-2015 oppFG% was 42.7%, while his oppFG% in 2013-2014 was 40.9%. All we have to assume is that he started 2014-2015 at the same level he averaged in 2013-2014 and assume a steady decline and it means he could have finished the year with an oppFG% of 44.5% - dropping him (compared to everyone's averages, which is a bit flawed but the data we have) from 4th to 14th (average among starters?).

But anyone who thinks a defender has gotten so bad at defense they don't warrant their normal level of PT, over a drop of 1.4% in oppFG% is someone with unreal, unrealistic, absolutely crazy *** expectations.

But that's only over the course of one year. From the previous year it would total a drop of almost 4%. It's also not factoring in the idea that he wasn't able to keep up that level of performance the entire time on the floor in an individual game - if his minutes were dropping so he could maintain a level that was also dropping, at some point you have to figure things are going downhill.

I think a gradual slide over a couple of years leading to the drop this season is much more logical than that Roy was playing at an unchanged level but going to another team suddenly dropped his individual stat by 8% or more. It's not like another team funneling players to him because they can't play defense is going to change his role from being on a team that funneled players to him on purpose.

[Rogco]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

This is the first time you've mentioned 14th. What are the actual FG% numbers?

Theoretically, someone could go from #1 to #5 and their numbers stay the exact same. The drop would be to other players getting better. I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm just saying what are the actual numbers because telling me the ranks, minus the cold hard statistics, could be misleading.

You've mentioned post-ASG being 7th, so his level of 14th must be that one month? There are going to be fluctuations. No one, regardless of what is being argued should expect static production. (when talking about sport performances) Only machines could be that consistent.

But anyone who thinks a defender has gotten so bad at defense they don't warrant their normal level of PT, over a drop of 1.4% in oppFG% is someone with unreal, unrealistic, absolutely crazy *** expectations.

Since, I think (IMO here, and I don't want to put words in people's mouths) that Hibbert maintained a high level of individual defense, especially from a statistical view (blocks, opponent shooting percentage, etc) however, what really fell off was his ability to play defense as a team. This is harder to quantify. I've struggled getting the NBA player tracking to look at lineups for last season (aka, I couldn't do it and I've got limited time). However, last year the Pacers gave up more points per 100 possessions when Roy was on the court than when he was off the court, and this year the Lakers give up a ton more points per 100 possessions when Roy is playing (6.3 points per 100 possessions!) Compare that to 13-14 (Pacers were better by 2 pts) and 12-13 (Pacers were better by 2.6 points) and there has been a steady leading to precipitous decline in how the team's he are on play team defense.

There are many reasons why he may be a team defensive liability while having good individual defensive numbers, and I think a lot boil down to what people would consider "effort" plays. Opponents against Roy routinely get more offensive rebounds when he's playing then when he's off the court, and he's slow getting back on defense, so there are plenty of points allowed where he is not even involved in the play. Lakers are 5th worst in the league in transition points (unfortunately there is no transition player tracking on defense for individuals...)

[Since86]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

Since, I think (IMO here, and I don't want to put words in people's mouths) that Hibbert maintained a high level of individual defense, especially from a statistical view (blocks, opponent shooting percentage, etc) however, what really fell off was his ability to play defense as a team. This is harder to quantify. I've struggled getting the NBA player tracking to look at lineups for last season (aka, I couldn't do it and I've got limited time). However, last year the Pacers gave up more points per 100 possessions when Roy was on the court than when he was off the court, and this year the Lakers give up a ton more points per 100 possessions when Roy is playing (6.3 points per 100 possessions!) Compare that to 13-14 (Pacers were better by 2 pts) and 12-13 (Pacers were better by 2.6 points) and there has been a steady leading to precipitous decline in how the team's he are on play team defense.

Again defrtg is a team stat. Saying Roy kept his level individually, and then pointing out the dip in a team number, tells me that the rest of the squad was the issue, not Roy.

If Roy's individual defense started dropping, there would be individual numbers somewhere that would reflect that. Some type of number(s) as an individual would drop. It's like PG staying at his crazy offensive output, the Pacers as a whole scoring less, and then saying Paul's offensive problems are the reason why the overall numbers are down.

It completely ignores the other 4 players, their impacts, and puts all the focus of a 5 man stat on one player. The one player that fits the given narrative.

[presto123]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

Twp players I always thought were over-rated when they were here. Hibbert and Stephenson. The fact that they are looking like they are these days doesn't surprise me in the least.

[BillS]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

Which is easily a normal fluctuation level. FG%, whether we're talking offensive or defensive, fluctuating between 4% isn't that big of a change when we're talking about a small sample size.

You're placing more emphasis on a downward fluctuation that you are over the total body of work. If you want to pick and choose the low numbers with a small sample size over the average number of a large sample size, just about any argument can be made because there is always going to be a fluctuation. Unless it's a robot.

Say PG starts out shooting at 45%, goes into a slump and shoots 41%, and it averages out to 43% is he a 41% shooter, a 45% shooter, or a 43% shooter? 43% that is the running average. You're trying to place emphasis not on the average, not on the high point, but on the low point.

In order to have this belief, you have to narrow the window you're looking at. We should be trying to increase sample size, showing a greater trend than narrowing it down.

Can you give me another example where you're in favor of limiting the sample size to something smaller in order to get a more definitive picture?

The difference between the top elite defender and someone buried in the pack is about 7%-8% oppFG%. That means a 4% change is half of what it would take to drop from elite to below average. So, yes, that's significant. That's not the case in shooting percentages. Classic comparing apples to oranges - focusing on the numbers and not what they are measuring.

And, yes, if the trend is downward you don't excuse it by saying it was high at the beginning so hey, it'll go back up. "Regress to the mean" is a nice phrase but it is ultimately meaningless as a predictor of what will happen next. I'll stick to trends.

Increasing the sample size is meaningless if you are trying to understand what is happening under a specific set of circumstances. A sample size can be too large just as it can be too small. How many players are the same as their career average at the age of 35? But if you increase the sample size you'd say their expectations must be the same at 35 as they were when they were probably playing to that average, say at about 28, because including every game they ever played must be a good predictor of how they'll play next game.

[Gamble1]

Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

I see we have a semantic argument... glad we pushed this thread to 146th. You two will never know the true reason he was dropped like a bad habit.