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
    Interestingly enough, BnG leaves out the prior quote.


    http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...ounds/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.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      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.
      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        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/27518545/2...nce-stephenson
        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
          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.
          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
            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/2015/4/2...ibberts-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.
            Last edited by Since86; 12-21-2015, 12:14 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
              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?

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              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".

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              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.

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Roy was, once again, Top 4 last year in at the rim defense.

              http://www.indycornrows.com/2015/4/2...ibberts-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?
              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
                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.
                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
                  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.
                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  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.
                  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 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."
                    Last edited by Since86; 12-21-2015, 01:07 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 Nuntius View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        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?
                        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....

                          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.
                          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....

                            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.
                            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 BlueNGold View Post
                              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...ounds/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.

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              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%.

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              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
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                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.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X