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

[BlueNGold]

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

Interestingly enough, BnG leaves out the prior quote.

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nba/pacers/2014/01/28/pacers-compete-with-each-other-for-rebounds/4988905/

The guy who relies on "Well Boyle and Monteith said......" is now openly arguing against what the actual coach said.

Montieth? I don't think so. Bird, Vogel, Boyle, Brunner and Buckner? You bet. Frank wasn't using the term in the way some posters here are using it. It was "by design" that Lance rebounded and West/Roy blocked out. Stealing was probably used in jest. But here on PD it's used to paint Lance as a selfish player and make Roy out to be the victim. Fact is, Roy cannot clean glass which is why the wings were doing it.

[Pacerized]

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

Montieth? I don't think so. Bird, Vogel, Boyle, Brunner and Buckner? You bet. Frank wasn't using the term in the way some posters here are using it. It was "by design" that Lance rebounded and West/Roy blocked out. Stealing was probably used in jest. But here on PD it's used to paint Lance as a selfish player and make Roy out to be the victim. Fact is, Roy cannot clean glass which is why the wings were doing it.

Still, I'd think you'd want to put that quote in there so it was taken in it's proper context.

[Since86]

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

Montieth? I don't think so. Bird, Vogel, Boyle, Brunner and Buckner? You bet. Frank wasn't using the term in the way some posters here are using it. It was "by design" that Lance rebounded and West/Roy blocked out. Stealing was probably used in jest. But here on PD it's used to paint Lance as a selfish player and make Roy out to be the victim. Fact is, Roy cannot clean glass which is why the wings were doing it.

Were the Hornets players/coaches in on the jest too, and that's why the "jest" continued with another team?

Zach Lowe of Grantland wrote the following about Stephenson, whose Hornets are 4-14:

“His body language has been horrible, and that degrades morale. He pouts when he doesn't get the ball on the weak side, flapping his wings and looking skyward as if his teammates have wronged him. He steals rebounds, and he hot dogs with the ball at times.''

http://www.wthr.com/story/27518545/2014/12/01/kravitz-blog-dont-pursue-lance-stephenson

[BillS]

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

To be honest Bill, I don't know what his monthly numbers were. "If he that last month's DefFG% was better than the rest of the season, then he was trending as getting better."

I just think it's awfully coincidental that you offered up the "it's complicated" line right after your oppoFG% became useless. You thought the argument was pretty straight forward when one month of data backed up your point.

Except it had nothing to do with "oh, the whole other number doesn't back me up so I will issue a vague statement and not try to analyze it at all". The overall number was counterintuitive. I looked at the components of that number and the reason for the improvement was in an area Roy was not considered strong in. That makes THAT SPECIFIC COMPONENT complicated because it was not going to succumb to a simple analysis. I then did a deeper analysis and tried to explain why I thought the numbers said what they said.

If you want to just brush that off and chalk me up to not matching your mad statistical skillz because you think I threw away a stat without paying any attention to it, I can't stop you.

If you think the numbers back you up so strongly, please explain why improving from 10-15 feet but getting worse from inside 10 feet and inside 6 feet means Roy is as good a rim protector as he was previously.

[Since86]

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

Except it had nothing to do with "oh, the whole other number doesn't back me up so I will issue a vague statement and not try to analyze it at all". The overall number was counterintuitive. I looked at the components of that number and the reason for the improvement was in an area Roy was not considered strong in. That makes THAT SPECIFIC COMPONENT complicated because it was not going to succumb to a simple analysis. I then did a deeper analysis and tried to explain why I thought the numbers said what they said.

If you want to just brush that off and chalk me up to not matching your mad statistical skillz because you think I threw away a stat without paying any attention to it, I can't stop you.

If you think the numbers back you up so strongly, please explain why improving from 10-15 feet but getting worse from inside 10 feet and inside 6 feet means Roy is as good a rim protector as he was previously.

Because he was on a team that was weaker overall on defense? If we ALL can agree, before the season started, that Roy's interior defensive numbers were going to go down simply because he was on a Lakers squad that is horrible on defense, it's common sense that Roy's numbers with PG/GHill/etc are going to be better than what they would be without PG/half a season of GHill.

Flip the argument a bit, in a conversation where we're talking about Roy not being able to step out and defend opponents away from the rim we see that Roy's numbers against jumpshots continue to get better.

Where is your call to those that argue Roy can't step out and defend against jumpshots as being wrong? It's no where to be found.

You were all about monthly trends, saying it paints the picture. Can you even acknowledge that your argument would be wrong if we found monthly numbers showing the end of last season was better than the prior?

It is perfectly within reason that Roy's beginning of season numbers less than 6ft were higher than at the end of the season. IF that is true, I can use your "well the trend is going downwards......" argument. But we don't have those numbers, so we're left to haggle about the true impact without the splits.

Roy was, once again, Top 4 last year in at the rim defense.

On the whole, Hibbert was still an elite rim protector this season. Per SportVU defensive impact data, Hibbert allowed just 42.6% of opponent field goals at the rim, good for fourth-best in the league minimum 7.0 opponent field goal attempts. The maverick of verticality also saved 2.62 points per 36 minutes, via the rim protection stats provided by Nylon Calculus.

http://www.indycornrows.com/2015/4/21/8461409/fact-checking-claims-about-roy-hibberts-season

"At the rim" is usually defined within 3ft. So Roy's "at the rim" defense continued at a very high clip last year. 3-6ft is the difference for the above mentioned 0-6ft stats going upwards.

So again, we throw out these numbers and say "Well, they're going up." Sure, that's true. But when you look at it in context with what the rest of the league is doing, Roy is still ELITE.

So the basis of your argument is, Roy's defense is "progressively declining by going from top 3, to top 4, and his decline from top 3 to top 4 is the reason why Vogel reduced his minutes."

It's absolutely flat out crazy to think a defensive oriented player is losing minutes, because they went from top 3 defensively at their position, to top 4.

Again, look at the argument you're defending in context of the argument. Roy's defense is why he got less minutes, when he continued to be an elite interior defender. It makes zero sense.

There's a reason why Freddie can't find a single stat to backup his claim and continues to rely on a vague comment by Zach Lowe about stats no one is privy to. And it's because they aren't there.

[BillS]

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

Because he was on a team that was weaker overall on defense? If we ALL can agree, before the season started, that Roy's interior defensive numbers were going to go down simply because he was on a Lakers squad that is horrible on defense, it's common sense that Roy's numbers with PG/GHill/etc are going to be better than what they would be without PG/half a season of GHill.

Except I don't completely agree with that. If the defensive scheme is to funnel everyone in to you at the basket, why do your numbers go down when people come into you at the basket without being funneled?

Flip the argument a bit, in a conversation where we're talking about Roy not being able to step out and defend opponents away from the rim we see that Roy's numbers against jumpshots continue to get better.

Where is your call to those that argue Roy can't step out and defend against jumpshots as being wrong? It's no where to be found.

Sorry, but the numbers seem to show that "better" is more like "no longer completely sucks". He went from actually giving points to opponents from 10-15 feet out to dropping their averages by 2. That's better like "hey, we fixed some of your potholes" is better than "we dug more potholes for you".

You were all about monthly trends, saying it paints the picture. Can you even acknowledge that your argument would be wrong if we found monthly numbers showing the end of last season was better than the prior?

It is perfectly within reason that Roy's beginning of season numbers less than 6ft were higher than at the end of the season. IF that is true, I can use your "well the trend is going downwards......" argument. But we don't have those numbers, so we're left to haggle about the true impact without the splits.

Sure, if you find monthly numbers showing Roy continued to improve all his defense through the season then I'd be wrong. I've said that I'd love to have those numbers but without them we have to extrapolate from what we have, which includes observation.

Roy was, once again, Top 4 last year in at the rim defense.

http://www.indycornrows.com/2015/4/21/8461409/fact-checking-claims-about-roy-hibberts-season

So again, we throw out these numbers and say "Well, they're going up." Sure, that's true. But when you look at it in context with what the rest of the league is doing, Roy is still ELITE.

So the basis of your argument is, Roy's defense is "progressively declining by going from top 3, to top 4, and his decline from top 3 to top 4 is the reason why Vogel reduced his minutes."

It's absolutely flat out crazy to think a defensive oriented player is losing minutes, because they went from top 3 defensively at their position, to top 4.

Again, look at the argument you're defending in context of the argument. Roy's defense is why he got less minutes, when he continued to be an elite interior defender. It makes zero sense.

There's a reason why Freddie can't find a single stat to backup his claim and continues to rely on a vague comment by Zach Lowe about stats no one is privy to. And it's because they aren't there.

I have already said that I really don't care what his numbers were compared to other players. I care about his numbers compared to himself. And where it counted - at the rim - he declined.

Please be aware that I personally feel that he lost his minutes not because his defense was bad but because it was no longer good enough to make up for his complete lack of offense. That is an entirely different standard and does not require that he declined to some level of incompetence, just that he declined to the point where he could be replaced by a better offensive player without giving up a significant amount of defense.

The big question is just like the other questions of players who were supposedly underrated by the Pacers coaching staff and FO and people on PD and so they go to other teams - why have they not lived up to even a fraction of that supposed potential when they moved to other teams? An elite player should at least be adequate on a horrendous team - in fact, isn't the argument that putting up great numbers on a bad team is meaningless because the team is so bad you are the only one doing anything?

[Since86]

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

I have already said that I really don't care what his numbers were compared to other players. I care about his numbers compared to himself. And where it counted - at the rim - he declined.

Okay Bill, you win.

You're right. Roy's defense going from top 3 to top 4 is the reason why Roy's minutes were reduced. End of story. Have a good one.

[BillS]

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

Okay Bill, you win.

You're right. Roy's defense going from top 3 to top 4 is the reason why Roy's minutes were reduced. End of story. Have a good one.

Please be aware that I personally feel that he lost his minutes not because his defense was bad but because it was no longer good enough to make up for his complete lack of offense. That is an entirely different standard and does not require that he declined to some level of incompetence, just that he declined to the point where he could be replaced by a better offensive player without giving up a significant amount of defense.

Whatever.

[Since86]

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

I stopped reading right after you tried saying that Roy's defense against jumpshooters wasn't "getting better" but rather "not sucking as bad." Quite the stance to take, right after you spent multiple posts haggling over an increase of just over 1%.

Increase of 1%? Getting worse.
Decrease of 1+%? Well, we can't bring ourselves to say utter the word "better."

I can't keep up with the fluid arbitrary of what increase is significant and what decrease isn't, when it's wholly dependent on whether it backs up your point or not.

There's no point in discussing it further when monthly trends and 1% increases are the trump cards.

EDIT: I know you don't care about context of stats, but that "no longer completely sucks" defense beyond ten ft went from +5% above average to -2.5% below average.

So "not completely sucks" actually means "above average."

And that's why you look at stats in context of the league, because "not completely sucks" which is an implication that it does suck, just not as much, is a completely wrong way to narrate what the % actually represented, above average. You're arguing over +1% "getting worse" but can't bring yourself to call +8% "better."

[Gamble1]

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

This is another issue that you misunderstood, by the way. You thought that we were saying that Lance was stealing those rebounds because he is selfish. You thought that we meant that this was a bad thing. This isn't the case, though. Yes, Lance was absolutely stealing Roy's, David's, Ian's, Scola's (insert any Pacer big of that time). No, he didn't do it because of selfish reasons. He did it because it was our rebounding scheme. Our rebounding scheme instructed both of our bigs to block out their opponent (especially our Centers since they usually matched up with the opposition's best offensive rebounder) and both of our wings to crash the defensive boards instead of leaking out. And you know what? That rebounding scheme absolutely worked. We were an amazing rebounding team. People should have focused on the fact that our team was getting most of the rebounds instead of focusing on which one of our players got them.

The last two seasons have proved that all of this was due to our rebounding scheme, by the way. Lance averaged 7.2 RPG that season and he never came close to those numbers again. He averaged 4.5 RPG in Charlotte and he's averaging 2.7 RPG in LA with a team that has never been a particularly strong rebounding team because their starting C rarely blocks out. Lance is a great rebounder for his position and size but that doesn't change the fact that all of this was the result of an extremely good rebounding scheme that helped us win a crapload of games.

Adding to that last point, the 14-15 Pacers were #2 in rebounding despite their injuries. This year's team is #22 in rebounding despite being significantly healthier than last year's team. We don't have the same rebounding scheme anymore and it's hurting us.

Just wanted to correct the bolded point. Lance's rebounds per game fell off while with the Hornets but that was more due to minutes than anything else. His overall rebounding rate actually barely dropped at all from his average here in Indiana and the most notable drop was his offensive rebounds not the defensive rebounds that everyone accuses him of stealing from Hibbert.

To your last point is that if we were to try to quantify how much the rebounding is hurting the Pacers currently than I think its a tough sell given the offensive and defensive efficiency. I am going to keep hammering on this point because many posters thought the defense was going to take a big dip with Ian starting and we heard many reasons why. It looks like those opinions are wrong and whatever magic defensive juice Hibbert had in his cup I think we all can just say that Vogel was the guy pouring that juice into Hibberts cup and not some talent that Hibbert cornered the market on. The defensive anchor was indeed replaceable and not much of a notable drop off has happened.

Some of the stats that stand out to me is the the transition points the Pacers are gaining from running a quicker line up and the the transition efficiency. This was a obvious area where Hibbert hurt the Pacers but transition points have jumped to 5.5 points per game. Also the offensive rebound rate has improved from last year. Both stats probably are the reason why the points in the paint have gone up from the previous two years when compared to the league.

It will be interesting where everything shakes out at the end of the season but for a rebuilding year the Pacers are handling the transition in scheme and new player personnel much better than I expected.

[BillS]

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

EDIT: I know you don't care about context of stats, but that "no longer completely sucks" defense beyond ten ft went from +5% above average to -.25% below average.

So "not completely sucks" actually means "above average."

Umm - yeah, because remember that's only the %age he holds guys to on shots that get defended. Think about this - he used to give up points to players when defending them - they were better than their shooting average playing against him. So he improved to actually defending them instead of giving up points.

I can't find a league average for FG% differential from 15 ft, much less narrowed down to centers, but using ranking (which I still don't like but I have nothing else), Roy's improved defense from 10-15 feet ranked him 15th of centers who played more than half the games in the season. That's not particularly elite.

But, again, if his strength is rim protection, but his rim protection went down, are we saying that being at least an impediment from >15 feet makes up for it?

[Since86]

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

No reason to continue a fruitless conversation with someone who defines -1.4% change as "getting worse" who is either uncapable or unwilling to define a +8% as "getting better."

The simple fact that you cannot do so, for whatever reason, sheds a massive light that you're going to have your opinion regardless. You're welcome to it.

[Since86]

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

Here's the middle ground.

"Roy Hibbert's defense got worse. He went from Top 3 in rim protection to top 4, a difference of 1.4% overall." There ya go. Both points squarely in the statement.

[Nuntius]

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

No, I actually agree with most of your post. Vogel is on record that the bigs sacrificed for the wings:

"A lot of times, (the bigs), they're sacrificing themselves to wipe out the best rebounders on the other team while the guards come back and get the numbers. "It's a sacrifice," Vogel continued, "more than anything."

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nba/pacers/2014/01/28/pacers-compete-with-each-other-for-rebounds/4988905/

But let's be clear about this. You say "Lance was absolutely stealing Roy's, David's, etc." rebounds and I completely disagree. You don't steal something from a player who is trying to give it to you. As you say, that's part of the scheme. There wasn't any stealing going on.

To be honest, I only used the term "steal" back then because that's how most people called it. I clarified that it was part of the scheme and that it was never actually as big of a problem as some people thought.

ALSO, Roy Hibbert has never proven he can clean glass. That may or may not be the reason Vogel had the bigs block out instead of hammer the glass. Personally I think Roy is too slow to do it, so they had Paul and especially Lance move in there and grab the boards.

So, I am saying that a) Lance did was he was told. He did NOT steal rebounds. b) Roy Hibbert has never proven that he can be a good rebounder. He's a big guy who can block out like a bench scrub, but he's not proven he has the athleticism and nose for the ball to clean glass.

Again, not hating on Roy. Just calling it as I see it.

Roy has proved that he can help the Pacers be a great rebounding team and that's all I care about. I couldn't care less about any player's individual RPG. I just want the team to have a high TRB%.

BTW, when someone says a player is stealing another player's rebounds, especially a guard, it implies a number of things. It implies he's a bad team mate. It implies he's not coachable because certainly the coach has told the player to do something else on the floor (e.g. guard the perimeter). It implies he's selfish and looking for stats instead of being a team player. Yet this lie continues to be told when even in the same breath people will say it was part of the scheme for him to grab the rebounds. I guess I just don't get it. This fuels both of these threads btw.

It really doesn't imply any of these things for me. If the term "steal" is what bothers you then I'll gladly change it. Lance and Paul grabbed the rebounds that our bigs created by blocking the heck out of their opponents. I believe that this satisfies both sides

[BillS]

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

unwilling to define a +8% as "getting better."

I never said he didn't get better. I said that getting better in this way

1) wasn't much more than going from horrible to adequate
2) was entirely irrelevant to his ability as a rim protector.

Again, whatever. You are so absolutely convinced that Roy was treated unfairly that you yourself refuse to look at what his stats actually mean.