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 BillS View Post
    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.
    The actual defense drop from 13-14 compared to 14-15 is 0.8%. Again, if you look at the context of what the actual drop is, it's not significant at all.

    Not to mention Roy's defFG% in 13-14 was 42.5%. His defFG% in 14-15 was 41.4% So we can look at that trend and say, "Roy's defense actually got better." Are those numbers relevant to the discussion or do we just look at oppoFG%?

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    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.
    I didn't say it would change his role. I'm saying it would logically result in a higher defensive fg%. If you take a good defender, I don't care who you're talking about, and take them away from a good defensive team, and place them on a bad defensive team, you should expect their individual defensive numbers to drop. Nunt and Freddie have, or talked about, a bet about what Roy's end of season numbers would be. They both agreed before the season that those numbers would be lower than last years, the question was how much lower. I don't think pointing out that def numbers drop, when you go to a bad defensive team, should be a contentious idea.
    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....

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      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.
      So an example of 7 year difference is on par with a two month difference. Okay.

      When you're talking about an extended period of time, sure. Over 7 years, it makes perfect sense. But we're talking about a month worth of difference here. You've went from talking about post-ASG, to breaking down those number post-ASG into either monthly or weekly, I don't know because you still haven't actually cited the numbers.

      EDIT: Is there a middle ground here. Can we agree "Roy's defense dropped, over the last two months of the season, while he maintained a similar average level of defensive presence for the season?" I doubt we could, or at least you probably the only one. If we want to give proper context that the drop was over a small period of time, rather than the argument his defense had been dropping for multiple seasons, I could live with that. But like I said yesterday, the problem the over the top arguments. Talking about it progressively declining, when even the numbers you're talking about are over such a short period of time, is over the top.
      Last edited by Since86; 12-18-2015, 03:29 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....

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        I didn't say it would change his role. I'm saying it would logically result in a higher defensive fg%. If you take a good defender, I don't care who you're talking about, and take them away from a good defensive team, and place them on a bad defensive team, you should expect their individual defensive numbers to drop. Nunt and Freddie have, or talked about, a bet about what Roy's end of season numbers would be. They both agreed before the season that those numbers would be lower than last years, the question was how much lower. I don't think pointing out that def numbers drop, when you go to a bad defensive team, should be a contentious idea.
        His individual numbers have dropped dramatically. Nuntius thought Roy would still be top 10 in rim protection, Hibbert was 4th last season. Now he isn't in the top 25, which highlights the decline that was first noticed last season.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          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. I
          Problem is, there aren't many individual defensive stats. I gave Zach Lowe's quote that there ARE stats that show Hibbert was declining and I offered ESPN's Real Defensive Plus Minus stat to show Hibbert has been declining defensively.

          If you can't look at that info and this season, or the sum of all things, to understand Hibbert has and is declining as a player, you're just burying your head in the sand.

          Comment


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

            So his decline was either do to team? Do to his head? Do to his ego? Or he had no real decline but rather just other teams pulled him away from the bucket more ruining the Pacers fundamental approach to the defensive scheme. Maybe its all of the above?

            I am just happy we moved on from him because regardless the guy gave his best for a period of time and it wasn't good enough. Then it looked like he stopped giving his best and he wasn't the only player to do that but obviously Roy now appears more apart of the problem than a part of the solution.

            Pacers are ranked top 10 in offensive and defensive efficiency . Most here predicted way worse than that which is knock on the coaching staff, the players, the management, etc. I honestly can not remember when the Pacers ranked top 10 in both categories so the fact is Roy can be replaced with Ian and Hill. Says a lot more about the system than it does the player to me. Roy probably benefited the most out of it though and good for him.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              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.
              This is a perfect comparison " 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." A player can have great individual offensive stats, and the team can do worse as a whole because of the way the player plays within the team system. I'm pretty sure I've seen you use this exact argument to argue against Lance's offensive contribution to the team in 13-14. Regardless, individual stats don't necessarily reflect the overall effect a player has on a team.

              It's also well documented that Hibbert was a negative force in the locker room. It is entirely possible that his demeanour, actions, and the way he treated his fellow players could have a net negative impact on the team play when he is on the court, but not effect his individual statistics. Possibly in the same way that Lance "chasing" rebounds or assists may have created an atmosphere that was not conducive to on-court team play, while simultaneously boosting his own stats. I've heard plenty of reports about the selfishness of Roy Hibbert.


              Since, I don't think you understand the on/off plus minus. It's not a defrtg, it's the opponents offensive rating, pace adjusted. Obviously there are line-up and match-up issues that effect a players impact, but remember, it's not a total plus minus, it's only a plus minus comparing opponents pace adjust scoring when ONE player is on the floor versus off the floor. The great thing is you can take the stat, and compare it to the other players on the team. For example last year:

              Roy Hibbert = +1.3 (opponents scored 1.3 points more per 100 possessions when Roy was playing than when he was benched)
              Solo = +7.1 (really bad. That's like Hibbert his year bad)
              West = +1.5
              Stuckey = -0.7 (meaning the team gave up less points)
              Miles = -4.9 (maybe we should have realized last year he could play some D)
              Scola = -2.1

              These were the top 6 players in terms of minutes played for the Pacers last year. Another interesting one is Ian = -2.1.
              Last edited by Rogco; 12-18-2015, 03:53 PM.
              Danger Zone

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                The actual defense drop from 13-14 compared to 14-15 is 0.8%. Again, if you look at the context of what the actual drop is, it's not significant at all.

                Not to mention Roy's defFG% in 13-14 was 42.5%. His defFG% in 14-15 was 41.4% So we can look at that trend and say, "Roy's defense actually got better." Are those numbers relevant to the discussion or do we just look at oppoFG%?
                Where are you getting these numbers? From your own link, http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/pla..._FG_PCT&dir=-1, 2014-2015 oppFG% is 42.7, while 2013-2014 oppFG% is 40.9% http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/pla..._FG_PCT&dir=-1 - what site have you switched to?
                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
                  Where are you getting these numbers? From your own link, http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/pla..._FG_PCT&dir=-1, 2014-2015 oppFG% is 42.7, while 2013-2014 oppFG% is 40.9% http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/pla..._FG_PCT&dir=-1 - what site have you switched to?
                  Roy's defensive dashboard on NBA.com

                  http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/20157...gular%20Season
                  http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/20157...gular%20Season
                  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....

                    Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                    This is a perfect comparison " 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." A player can have great individual offensive stats, and the team can do worse as a whole because of the way the player plays within the team system. I'm pretty sure I've seen you use this exact argument to argue against Lance's offensive contribution to the team in 13-14. Regardless, individual stats don't necessarily reflect the overall effect a player has on a team.
                    The Lance comparison doesn't work for you, because it fits exactly with what I just said. Lance's offensive numbers dropped post-ASG in 13-14, right along with the teams. Like I said, if said player is the reason for the team's decline, individual numbers would reflect that somewhere along the line. Lance is the perfect example, to backup my point. His pre-ASG numbers are higher than his post-ASG numbers.

                    EDIT: Just to cite the numbers.
                    All-Star Pre 50 50 1769 283 564 48 142 91 130 68 364 256 38 4 139 124 705 .502 .338 .700 .567 19.6 107 98 +9.3 35.4 14.1 7.3 5.1
                    Post 28 28 983 144 306 38 102 49 67 27 194 103 16 3 71 71 375 .471 .373 .731 .559 19.3 103 107 -1.4 35.1 13.4 6.9 3.7
                    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/splits/2014/
                    Last edited by Since86; 12-18-2015, 04:06 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....

                      Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                      Since, I don't think you understand the on/off plus minus. It's not a defrtg, it's the opponents offensive rating, pace adjusted. Obviously there are line-up and match-up issues that effect a players impact, but remember, it's not a total plus minus, it's only a plus minus comparing opponents pace adjust scoring when ONE player is on the floor versus off the floor. The great thing is you can take the stat, and compare it to the other players on the team. For example last year:

                      Roy Hibbert = +1.3 (opponents scored 1.3 points more per 100 possessions when Roy was playing than when he was benched)
                      Solo = +7.1 (really bad. That's like Hibbert his year bad)
                      West = +1.5
                      Stuckey = -0.7 (meaning the team gave up less points)
                      Miles = -4.9 (maybe we should have realized last year he could play some D)
                      Scola = -2.1

                      These were the top 6 players in terms of minutes played for the Pacers last year. Another interesting one is Ian = -2.1.
                      That is a different argument.

                      The current argument is that Roy's defense got worse. The argument you're making with this is "the Pacers defense got better with Roy off the court." The two, while similar, aren't the same.

                      Roy's defense could stay static, while the Pacers defense got better with Ian in the lineup rather than Roy.
                      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....

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        So an example of 7 year difference is on par with a two month difference. Okay.

                        When you're talking about an extended period of time, sure. Over 7 years, it makes perfect sense. But we're talking about a month worth of difference here. You've went from talking about post-ASG, to breaking down those number post-ASG into either monthly or weekly, I don't know because you still haven't actually cited the numbers.

                        EDIT: Is there a middle ground here. Can we agree "Roy's defense dropped, over the last two months of the season, while he maintained a similar average level of defensive presence for the season?" I doubt we could, or at least you probably the only one. If we want to give proper context that the drop was over a small period of time, rather than the argument his defense had been dropping for multiple seasons, I could live with that. But like I said yesterday, the problem the over the top arguments. Talking about it progressively declining, when even the numbers you're talking about are over such a short period of time, is over the top.
                        I really don't get the idea that a month's worth of games is too small a sample size to draw conclusions, therefore a player's performance from month to month is just so much noise until it is averaged over the year.

                        Let's take Hypothetical S. Player. We'll throw out October and even April because they are not full months in the NBA for non-playoff teams. Even though it takes a bigger fluctuation in shooting percentages to make a difference in the NBA, I'll use shooting for the example.

                        Player's shooting average for the year is 45%. Seems OK, so you'd want to go after him.

                        Say his shooting was actually 47% in November, 46% in December, 45% in January, 44% in February, 43% in March. Now you have a fairly trivial example, where he declined every month but an argument could be made that he declined by such a small amount it is noise - though that 4% decline for the year could be troublesome.

                        Let's amp that up a bit and say he had a great November because he came out of the summer with some new moves. He shot 50% in November, 48% in December, 45% in January, 42% in February, 40% in March. This might be at the other extreme - the 50% for a month was good enough to be noticeably better, but the 40% is a problem and the trend (dropping 10% over the season) is definitely a concern.

                        Now, suppose he shot 48% the year before. Is dropping to 45% this year worrisome or not?

                        If you look at the overall averages, maybe not. If you look at the month-to-month trend, that 43% in scenario 1 could be a concern but the 40% stands out like a sore thumb and one hopes is DUE to a sore thumb.

                        Both scenarios give you the exact same averages for the year. That's why yearly averages alone aren't sufficient to determine if something needs more study.
                        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
                          The Lance comparison doesn't work for you, because it fits exactly with what I just said. Lance's offensive numbers dropped post-ASG in 13-14, right along with the teams. Like I said, if said player is the reason for the team's decline, individual numbers would reflect that somewhere along the line. Lance is the perfect example, to backup my point. His pre-ASG numbers are higher than his post-ASG numbers.

                          EDIT: Just to cite the numbers.

                          http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/splits/2014/
                          But Hibbert's defensive number did decline. Since the 2012 season, all of the following declined year by year:
                          blocks
                          rebounds
                          steals
                          block percentage
                          steal percentage
                          offensive rebound percentage
                          defensive box plus minus

                          About the only thing which didn't get worse was opponents shooting percentage, but since he was getting as many steals, rebounds or block per 36 minutes, he ended doing worse from a total defensive standpoint.
                          Danger Zone

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            Both scenarios give you the exact same averages for the year. That's why yearly averages alone aren't sufficient to determine if something needs more study.
                            I don't disagree with that, at all. The difference is you're telling me that his monthly average dip at the very end IS sufficient to determine the conclusion.

                            A seasonal average is going to tell me more what a player is, and what they did, better than focusing on one month. Especially when talking about a player that is historically inconsistent. Let's pretend Roy's Dec individual numbers this season were fantastic. If I pointed that out, would you say, "you're right?" Or would you say "let's look at previous numbers, and let's look at what he does next month?"

                            I would hope you'd not just say "oh well, one month proves it all." No. I GUARANTEE you, if you were to go through a different season for Roy than last year and look at his defensive number splits you'd find variation. I would bet just about anything you wanted to.

                            It could be the start of the trend, there's no denying that. But it also could be just a fluctuation, with the player going right back to their averages. Roy is the perfect example of this. IF you were to look at his post ASG numbers for 13-14, you'd say, wow he really declined. But then you start looking at his next years numbers and they challenge that conclusion because they went up. You cannot look at one month, or even two, and declare that a trend. It's not enough information, for whatever you're arguing. It's just not. I'd think that whether or not his numbers went up rather than down.
                            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....

                              Interestingly, in a conversation about someone who is a rim protector, the small change in the overall stats from 2013-2014 can be explained by a huge improvement in defense from greater than 15 feet (44.4 -> 36.3) that offsets the decline in defense from less than 6 feet (44.6 -> 47.2) and less than 10 feet (41.9 -> 43.4)
                              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 Rogco View Post
                                But Hibbert's defensive number did decline. Since the 2012 season, all of the following declined year by year:
                                blocks
                                rebounds
                                steals
                                block percentage
                                steal percentage
                                offensive rebound percentage
                                defensive box plus minus

                                About the only thing which didn't get worse was opponents shooting percentage, but since he was getting as many steals, rebounds or block per 36 minutes, he ended doing worse from a total defensive standpoint.
                                Interesting that you picked Roy's best career year. Pick any player, pick their best seasonal outputs, and you can argue that every player declined after.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X