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 Nuntius View Post
    You're missing the point, though. It doesn't have to do with how that particular player is doing. Most of them aren't aware and even if they would they probably wouldn't give a damn. It's about how those people think that the player in question is doing. Schandenfreude, after all, is an emotion that makes you feel good about yourself. Therefore, it's about how you define what "doing well" is and not about how the player in question defines it.
    I don't derive any satisfaction from him playing poorly or well. I am not a fan and I am not a hater. I do find it interesting to see how a former Pacer starter and former all-star is playing. When he plays this poorly, I don't gather any joy from it. It's more curiousity and a little wonder. A bit fascinating in terms of the amount of money he's raking in versus his lack of production.

    But I'm being serious that he's doing well. Financially he really hit the lotto in the NBA.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      I don't derive any satisfaction from him playing poorly or well. I am not a fan and I am not a hater. I do find it interesting to see how a former Pacer starter and former all-star is playing. When he plays this poorly, I don't gather any joy from it. It's more curiousity and a little wonder. A bit fascinating in terms of the amount of money he's raking in versus his lack of production.

      But I'm being serious that he's doing well. Financially he really hit the lotto in the NBA.
      You can say it but I'm not buying it. If you didn't celebrate in the times Roy struggles you wouldn't point it out in the manner you do while remaining quite when he does well. You not only point it out but you always do so in an inflammatory manner trolling for a response from anyone who wants to see him do well just as you did in your last post. I know I'm only pointing out the obvious but you got what you wanted, you need to let it go.
      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
        I don't derive any satisfaction from him playing poorly or well. I am not a fan and I am not a hater. I do find it interesting to see how a former Pacer starter and former all-star is playing. When he plays this poorly, I don't gather any joy from it. It's more curiousity and a little wonder. A bit fascinating in terms of the amount of money he's raking in versus his lack of production.

        But I'm being serious that he's doing well. Financially he really hit the lotto in the NBA.
        I didn't mean to say that you derived any satisfaction from him playing poorly, though. I can see how you could think that this was the case, though. I started off by saying "them" and then switched over to "you" after the "yourself" part.

        In any case, my intention wasn't to lump you in that category. We've disagreed about Roy a lot of times but you aren't one for schandenfreude. You mostly mention Roy when one of the posters who have defended Hibbert in the past says something about Lance. It's more of a self-defence mechanism than anything else. It's quite similar to what happened with Danny. You didn't have a particular problem with Danny per se. You had a problem with the posters (myself included) who proposed that Danny should start and Lance should be the 6th man because you interpreted it as a slight against Lance (even though it wasn't).

        Honestly, I don't think that you hate any of the players that you've argued against in the past. You're just trying to defend Lance.
        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 Pacerized View Post
          You not only point it out but you always do so in an inflammatory manner trolling for a response from anyone who wants to see him do well just as you did in your last post.
          To be fair, I think that this is mostly in response to the Lance thread. He feels that people who defended Roy in the past are trolling Lance in that thread so he's trolling them here. In any case, I don't think that he actually has anything against Roy.
          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 Nuntius View Post
            To be fair, I think that this is mostly in response to the Lance thread. He feels that people who defended Roy in the past are trolling Lance in that thread so he's trolling them here. In any case, I don't think that he actually has anything against Roy.
            There is a lot of truth to this post. But while I actually don't care much about how Roy plays now I also will not shy away from stating what I think is the truth about him and his game and it's not complementary. Also, I might get a little satisfaction about Roy's rebounding numbers but that has everything to do with criticism of Lance stealing them. IOW it's really not about Roy. He could play really solid ball otherwise and I wouldn't care much at all.

            Also if Roy started cleaning glass after Lance left I wouldn't be upset. I would probably be happier than if he didn't because he would be a better player and we might have kept him. I literally would have admitted that Lance had stolen his rebounds.
            Last edited by BlueNGold; 12-20-2015, 07:11 AM.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              Also, I might get a little satisfaction about Roy's rebounding numbers but that has everything to do with criticism of Lance stealing them.
              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.
              Last edited by Nuntius; 12-20-2015, 09:19 AM.
              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 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.
                Actually, the numbers tend to not back that up. The nba player tracking is down at the moment, but I'll link to the adjusted rebound rate for the 2013-2014 season. This number is adjusted for not just the rebounds a player gets, but essentially the rebounds team mates get due to blocking out. Roy was one of the worst centers in the league in rebounding / helping rebound. (note, this is only for defensive rebounds I believe.)
                Danger Zone

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                  Actually, the numbers tend to not back that up. The nba player tracking is down at the moment, but I'll link to the adjusted rebound rate for the 2013-2014 season. This number is adjusted for not just the rebounds a player gets, but essentially the rebounds team mates get due to blocking out. Roy was one of the worst centers in the league in rebounding / helping rebound. (note, this is only for defensive rebounds I believe.)
                  I'd like to see that link. As far as I recall, both Roy and Robin Lopez in 13-14 had really high contested rebound rates. In other words, most of the rebounds they grabbed throughout that season were contested ones. Lance, PG, LaMarcus Aldridge and Nicolas Batum, on the other hand, had high uncontested rebound rates. Which again indicates that they benefitted from the fact that their Centers did a great job blocking out.
                  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 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.
                    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.

                    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.

                    Comment


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

                      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.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        I'd like to see that link. As far as I recall, both Roy and Robin Lopez in 13-14 had really high contested rebound rates. In other words, most of the rebounds they grabbed throughout that season were contested ones. Lance, PG, LaMarcus Aldridge and Nicolas Batum, on the other hand, had high uncontested rebound rates. Which again indicates that they benefitted from the fact that their Centers did a great job blocking out.
                        Here it is:
                        http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/pla..._PCT_ADJ&dir=1

                        Roy Hibbert is 51st amongst all centers that played a minimum of 1,000 minutes in adjusted rebound percentage. It's an adjusted percentage because it takes into account deferred rebounds (aka, when you are blocking out and someone else grabs the rebound). Note that he was second in the league in deferred rebounding chances, backing up what you said about the scheme. Roy also struggled with contested rebounds (17th in the league) and I think only 3 people played more minutes and had less contested rebounds than Roy (who played center, according to NBA.com)
                        Danger Zone

                        Comment


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

                          Glad you posted a quote. Frank had said that a few times out of frustration. You could watch the Pacers and see this happening. It was by design. People under estimate how good Vogel is. He really designs around players strengths. Instead of having Roy and West chase down boards, he designed us to be a wing rebounding team.
                          With the slow pace ball we played this made sense. And when you have a wing like Lance that will mad dog for the board (he wants the ball in his hands) this system worked well.
                          Vogel always had Hill go over screens and funnel the ball handler straight into Roy. This help Roy on defense and made him look like a better defender.
                          Vogel played to Hibberts strengths, a sign of a great coach. Hibbert was our last line of defense. All defenders tried to get their man into Roy.

                          Did we need to move on from Hibbert and West? Yea, you betcha. Did Vogel make the most of what he had to work with? Yea you betcha. Frank Vogel is one of the best coaches in the NBA.
                          Roy Hibbert is a perfect example of great coaching. As is Lance. Both of those guys were a product of great coaching and a great system.

                          I wanted Roy to have a good season for the Pacers. No matter how much I wanted him gone, it doesn't make me happy he is not playing well. I think he gave is heart to Indiana. The most talent Roy has is being over 7 foot tall. He really is not that talented. But for a period of time on the Pacers he really looked like he had some talent.

                          The league figured out how to deal with Roy, once that happened, it was over. He was exposed. There was nothing they could do about it. The fans turning on Rou sure didn't help. I looks at Hibberts Instagram one time. The only time. I seen Pacer fans begging him to kill himself. Pacer fans, leaving horrible comments like that.
                          Roy gets way to much heat for his last year with he Pacers. We needed a big, Portland was going to take Roy, and we need him at the time.

                          If Roy would have went to LA and averaged 15 and 15 fans would have complained about how well he was doing. If Roy went to LA and had a awful season fans would complain about how bad Roy is. Either way Roy looses.
                          Folks need to let it go. If I met Roy in person I would shake his hand and thank him for some great times to be a Pacer fan.


                          "Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
                          "Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15

                          Comment


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

                            This thread needs some Slade



                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              See above where I work with it, but you again want to say doing something with a component of a statistic is the same as lumping everything into an aggregate and doing the same thing.

                              I mean, do you REALLY want to put forth the argument that Roy got worse as a rim defender because he is working on being a defender against long-range shots? Or do you not care that we're 3000+ posts into an argument about Roy as a rim defender but your current statistic depends on him improving from elsewhere to cover up the decline in the original position?
                              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.
                              Last edited by Since86; 12-21-2015, 09:20 AM.
                              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.

                                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.
                                Interestingly enough, BnG leaves out the prior quote.

                                Lance steals them all from Roy anyway," Vogel said
                                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.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X