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

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

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    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.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
      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.
      Last edited by Rogco; 12-18-2015, 12:34 PM.
      Danger Zone

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
        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.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          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.
          BillS

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

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            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.


            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            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.

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            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.


            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            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.
            Last edited by Since86; 12-18-2015, 01:38 PM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • 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

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

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                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.
                BillS

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

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  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.
                  Last edited by Since86; 12-18-2015, 01:49 PM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • 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/co...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?

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      This is the first time you've mentioned 14th. What are the actual FG% numbers?
                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      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?).
                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      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.
                      BillS

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

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        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...)
                        Danger Zone

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                          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.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • 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.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Since86
                              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.
                              BillS

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

                              Comment


                              • 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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X