Tweet
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
hibbert at #17 is a MUCH better pick than rush at #13
hibbert at #17 is a MUCH better pick than rush at #13
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.
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
-
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
I was totally guessing there....when I think of comparing Hibbert to a tall lumbering Center that has an offensive game that comes out of Georgetown....I think of EwingOriginally posted by Hicks View Post
Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
Very good read...thanks KennerLeaguer. A Big Man that is an efficient scoring threat? I don't remember when was the last time we had an efficient scoring Big Man.Originally posted by KennerLeaguer View PostAsh from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
Here are three articles that covered Hibbert and the Hoyas after the win against West Virginia in the Big East Tournament back in March. They cover the mystery that is Roy Hibbert. How somehow he can excite the masses and sometimes dumbfound them. Each one covers the frustration over the feeling that Hibbert should dominate even more. I think all give you a balance look. The good with the bad; the possibilities and the possible disappointments.
SportsIllustrated.cnn.com
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_..._tourney/2008/
3/15/2008 12:01:00 AM
Roy In Full
Luke Winn
NEW YORK -- On Thursday at the Big East tournament, we saw Roy Hibbert, Georgetown's 7-foot-2 giant, reduced to a space-eater on the Hoyas' bench -- essentially no more than a set of long legs for his teammates to avoid tripping over while making their way in and out of their 82-63 win over Villanova. Hibbert had more fouls (five) than points (zero) and rebounds (four) combined, and managed to stay on the floor for just 14 minutes. If there was one thing to worry about after that rout, it was that Georgetown's senior star was a non-factor in one of his final games leading up to his last NCAA tournament.
In the 29 hours between that victory and Friday's 72-55 semifinal win over West Virginia, it seems that a tempest of emotion built up inside the normally low-key Hibbert. He said he did not need his coach, John Thompson III, to say a thing about redeeming himself against West Virginia. Hibbert ignored calls coming in to his cell-phone, and said even the Instant Message he received from Jeff Green, the star of last year's Hoya Final Four run, was unnecessary. It had said, merely, "You know what you need to do."
The task at hand was to show the nation Roy Hibbert In Full. Not just the lumbering big man who had led Georgetown in points (13.1) and rebounds (6.3) this season, but the Roy with a shot of adrenaline and a crazy streak mixed in. The Roy who not only outrebounded the Mountaineers' entire front line (he had 13), but also chose to flex -- in an imitation of the new ESPN barbed-wire commercial, he said -- while coming off the court for a second-half timeout. The Roy who not only scored a season-high 25 points, but celebrated his final basket, an and-one bunny at the 5:05 mark, by strutting toward press row and repeatedly yelling, "I'm a monster!"
When Hibbert stepped to the free-throw line shortly afterward, and thumped his right fist against his chest a few times for good measure, one of the referees approached him with a joking admonishment. "He told me," Hibbert said, "that [the gestures] looked tacky."
Perhaps, but everything else Hibbert did contributed to a stunning exhibition of all-around skill for one of the college game's few true centers. Hibbert scored in nearly every way imaginable on Friday. His first bucket -- "one that set the tone for the game," he said -- came on a follow-up dunk of a missed three-pointer by DaJuan Summers at the 17:56 mark. Less than four minutes later, Hibbert knocked down a three-pointer from the top of the key, not looking the least bit awkward in the process. When West Virginia used a smaller defender to front Hibbert, he caught a lob pass and went up for an easy slam.
After going into halftime with 13 points, Hibbert unveiled the rest of his repertoire in the second 20 minutes. That included scoring on a right-handed hook over Joe Alexander; a layup that was goaltended; and a putback in transition that was a reward for trailing a Jessie Sapp fast-break rather than lingering back on the defensive end.
"I knew he was going to come out hungry," Sapp said of Hibbert, "so we wanted to keep feeding him and feeding him. It wasn't just his scoring [that mattered]. It was his rebounds and his energy. We fed off him today -- and we need him in a game like that for us to be successful throughout the rest of the season."
Louisville coach Rick Pitino recently called the Hoyas "lucky" because they won close (and often controversial) games over Villanova, West Virginia, Marquette and Louisville to clinch the conference's regular-season title. ("God bless them," said Pitino. "They're closer to heaven than we are.") And therefore "luck" has become a media buzzword here at the Big East tournament, with every Georgetown player getting peppered with questions about it, and Big John Thompson using "we were lucky" as a refrain in his postgame interactions with the Hoyas.
This mini-controversy has obscured the fact that Georgetown has managed to win two games in New York in two incredibly disparate ways, first beating Villanova on a hailstorm of 17 threes and then beating West Virginia by riding Big Roy.
Senior guard Jonathan Wallace, who had five treys on Thursday and three more on Friday, said it "doesn't matter" whether opposing defenses choose to pack down on Hibbert or attempt to challenge shots on the perimeter. The option he prefers as Georgetown makes its run at a second straight Final Four, though, is to win with Hibbert as the focal point. "It creates a more balanced game," said Wallace. "We didn't shoot as many threes [against WVU] as we did against Villanova, but Roy was really anchored down in the middle, which allowed guys to still get a lot of open looks. [His breakout] came at the right time."
After Hibbert sat at the podium for the postgame press conference and explained what he had yelled -- the "I'm a monster" line -- Thompson III leaned over, with a faux-incredulous look on his face, and used the back of his left hand to act like he was taking Hibbert's temperature. If this is what a fever does to Big Roy, Georgetown best pray it turns into a month-long illness.Last edited by KennerLeaguer; 07-16-2008, 01:15 AM.Comment
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/sports/college...g_game/?page=2
BOB RYAN
Hibbert submits big game
By Bob Ryan, Globe Columnist | March 15, 2008
NEW YORK - Not to oversimplify things, but the story of Georgetown's 72-55 victory over West Virginia last night can be summed up in five words.
The Big Fella showed up.
Roy Hibbert had 25 points and 13 rebounds, but those are just numbers. He owned this game, pure and simple.
The Hoyas got by with no tangible help from Hibbert the night before. But when you knock down 17 3-pointers, it probably doesn't matter too much that your gentlemanly giant (7 feet 2 inches) never once got into the Big East quarterfinal against Villanova, fouling out while pitching a shutout, as in 0-0-0. That's right: He went 0-0-0 and he fouled out.
Someday an enterprising author will make a few million bucks by figuring out the thought process of the big men who play this game, and by big men I'm talking about the 7-footers, who all too often send their coaches to shrink after expensive shrink. The simple truth is that a lot of these big people really don't want to play this game. Nature has played a cruel trick on them, giving them a (supposed) body for basketball while giving them a personal taste for everything from, in one case I knew, scuba diving, to art, to, well, books.
I can't tell you if Hibbert is one of these conflicted souls. He seems to be a polite, thoughtful young man, for whatever that's worth. I don't know if he has the proverbial fire in the belly that will make him a star in the NBA. But I do know he has the talent to excel in this game, and I rather suspect West Virginia coach Bob Huggins does, too, after what Hibbert did to his Mountaineers at Madison Square Garden.
"He's a really good player," Huggins confirmed. "I don't know what I was expecting, but I was expecting us to guard him better than we did. He played a really good game. He played very aggressively."
There is no doubt Hibbert came into last night's game with the intention of asserting himself. "I wanted to establish myself down low," he said. "Not just score."
Georgetown coach John Thompson III did not want to attribute his big man's performance to anything more than circumstance. "Villanova's game plan, and they executed it very well, was to sit three people on him, and that's what they did," said Thompson. "There was no need for any powwow today. He's not going to play that way again."
I'm sure Villanova collapsed on Hibbert, but, c'mon. Was that the first time in his Georgetown career a team has paid an inordinate amount of attention to him? No way. I'm sure he and his teammates react to this attention with varying degrees of efficiency, but 0-0-0? That's incomprehensible.
That's incomprehensible because Hibbert, to borrow Tim Hardaway's old phrase, has skillzz.
Here are some of the things Hibbert did last night to send West Virginia home.
He tip-dunked an offensive rebound to get Geogetown started.
He nailed an early straightaway 3-pointer.
He twice ran the floor to make fast-break dunks.
He made a steal of a Wellington Smith dribble right in front of the Georgetown bench.
He blocked a shot.
He made a running lefthanded hook. That's right; I said hook.
He made a running righthanded hook. That's right; I said hook.
He had 10 offensive rebounds, accounting for 8 points for Hibbert and 8 points for other Hoyas.
He made a nice move to the hoop, drawing a foul and then screaming to the world, "I'm a monster!"
He's not, of course, and that's the issue. Is he planning on playing this way again, and if so, when?
What a colossal tease Hibbert must be for NBA scouts. We are constantly being told that old-fashioned centers are dinosaurs, that the game is going over to quicker, smaller guys and you don't need to have a true center to win. But here comes a 7-2 kid who has nice basketball skills - have I mentioned that in this game he showed off righthanded and lefthanded hooks? - and who has on certain occasions taken over games and bent opponents to his will, as he did last night. Ask Al Skinner. Hibbert sent Boston College home from the NCAA Tournament with one of these stellar performances last year.
However . . .
The however is that either because of his own (apparent) passive personality, or the way he's been coached, he has too many games in which he's no factor. For one thing, the young man only averages a shade over eight field goal attempts a game. That's borderline criminal. He's 7-2. He's quick. He's agile. He has really nice post-up moves. How can he only get eight shots a game?
Granted, he was doing most of his damage last night against people 7 or 8 inches shorter. West Virginia starts a 7-footer named Jamie Smalligan, but he generally gets pulled early, and played a typically ineffective 12 minutes last night during which he attempted no shots and had no rebounds. In the NBA, Hibbert will never be in that blissful circumstance. There will be other very large people to contend with, and the 6-8 and 6-9 guys will all be amazingly athletic.
But in the here and now, Roy Hibbert, based on talent, really ought to dominate most games. But I don't know him well enough to say what's going on inside his head. All I know is that when he plays as he did last night, he's a pleasure to watch and Georgetown is going to win.Comment
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
CBSSports.com
http://www.sportsline.com/columns/story/10716941
Soft? Hard? Roy's story a big Georgetown enigma so far
March 17, 2008By Mike FreemanCBSSports.com National Columnist
Who is Roy Hibbert?
He's an exhilarating beast, an intimidator, a face-breaker, a game changer capable of taking his Georgetown Hoyas on his muscled shoulders and smashing all that is animal or mineral.
"I'm a monster," Hibbert shouted after almost single handedly crushing West Virginia in the Big East tournament semifinals. "Be afraid!"
"He has the talent to be one of the best big men to come along in the last few years," one NBA scout, who asked not to be identified, said in an interview. "He could be better than Yao Ming."
Who is Roy Hibbert?
Some say he is as soft as a freshly fallen twig, too gooey and cuddly to fill the solar-system-sized hole that is the legacy of the Georgetown center. A monster? Yeah, sure, his critics maintain. He's not a monster. He's Shawn Bradley.
"I look at the talent and I drool," said another NBA scout. "But he should dominate a lot more than he does."
So who is Hibbert? It depends on whom you ask because apparently one set of eyes can spot a Ming while another can see a 7-footer who needs to be more merciless.
Is he that self-proclaimed monster or too erudite? Is he dominant or not dominant enough for such a gargantuan talent?
The contrasting views of the NBA scouts demonstrate the contrasting views many have of Hibbert. One said he would take Hibbert, "in his sleep in the top five or three," while the other scout felt Hibbert wasn't consistent enough to merit a top 10 selection.
If there was one player who could be the biggest key to the NCAA tournament, it is Hibbert, yet he is also the biggest enigma.
If Hibbert can channel his inner Willis Reed in the NCAA tournament then you can pencil the Hoyas into the Final Four with the kind of confidence Denzel Washington feels when he walks into a room full of single women.
However, if Hibbert forgets to pack his elbows and is the perimeter Hibbert, the Cottonelle Hibbert who seems to enjoy the panoramic vistas outside of the paint instead of the blood and guts battle within it, then both Hibbert and the Hoyas could be in trouble.
Hibbert clearly isn't the orthodox center-ian. He's not a consistent pounder-and-effort guy, which might account for his schizophrenic game.
The Big East should be perfect for a big like Hibbert. Big East basketball, just like in the time of Pat Ewing and Alonzo Mourning and Dikembe Mutombo, is Ronaldinho ugly. It's a perfect fit for a towering center: lots of pushing and shoving and bad shooting and rebounds to be had.
Only in many instances Hibbert doesn't seem to like, well, being a center. He is often pulled away from the basket like a child's small toy caught in an eddy.
The recent Big East tournament was typical Hibbert. There were times when he looked like Bill Walton and other moments when he played like Bill Murray.
Against Villanova, Hibbert had five fouls, no field goals, no points, no free throws and no blocks in 14 minutes. It seems impossible for a man 7-2 to have that kind of stat line but Hibbert did.
Then, just 24 hours later, Hibbert obliterated West Virginia, scoring 25 points and recording a season-high 13 rebounds along with two blocks, two assists and a steal. It was a brilliant performance as Hibbert stayed close to the basket and intimidated Mountaineer defenders.
Hibbert declared himself a monster after that performance but it remains unknown what kind of monster he'll be once the tournament begins. Will Hibbert be a shot-blocking ogre or a ghost with a flimsy atomic weight?
Just who is Roy Hibbert? We may soon get a definitive answer.Comment
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
thanks for the articles KennerLeaguer..
one thing I want to know, what is his skill level compared to :
Robin Lopez
Marreese Speights
McGee
Alexis Ajinca
KoufusComment
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
I completely agree. It's the first thing that stuck out to me about Georgetown's offense, and Hibbert's skill-level. Hibbert is easily more advance offensively than defensively. But apparently this will come as a surprise to Pacers fans.Originally posted by KennerLeaguer View PostComment
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
What do you mean by skill level?Originally posted by stew View Post
Those are all very different type of players... Maybe you can compare McGee with Ajinca but that's all. For my Pacers I think my list would go like this:
Hibbert (that's a very tough one between Hibbert and Speights, but I am going with the guy with the character)
Speights
Ajinca
Lopez
Koufos
McGee
I like what we did with our #17...Comment
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
I don't think it's fair that we compare him to Smits....Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
...until we know how Hibbert handles a dirt bike...
Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
Question for KennerLeager, and for anyone else who has an opinion.
Considering Hibbert's maturity, tendency for passivity and all the rest, what will be best for him this season:- A back-up role where he gets 12-15 minutes in the 2nd and 3rd quarters?
- A starting role and the pressure of knowing that the Pacers' are committed to him at center?
- Kept on the bench as a 3rd stringer, but lots of attention in practices and lots of mentorship from Foster and Rasho?
It is clear he has more to show than he did at Georgetown, but what is the best way to bring him into the NBA?And I won't be here to see the day
It all dries up and blows away
I'd hang around just to see
But they never had much use for me
In Levelland. (James McMurtry)Comment
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
I wanted to echo this, Kenner, I've found your posts to be very informative about Roy. Frankly, you have me excited about him.Originally posted by docpaul View PostThanks for taking the time to write this. I enjoyed it, and gained some new insight about Roy. Time to revisit his college statistics.
Comment
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
All players drafted have skills.
The thing that separates the 'players' from the 'busts' is how much they are willing to work - to improve the skills they have and address their weaknesses.
Hibbert is saying the right things.
Of course, this is easier said that done. We can look at several Pacers draft picks who said the right things but didn't have the will to do them.You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song
- Jimmy BuffettComment
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy about this either.Originally posted by croz24 View Post
But on the other hand, I wanted Donnie to take Alford at #11 over Reggie back in '87. I was only 17 at the time so that is my excuse.
Comment
-
Re: Roy Hibbert is refreshing.
True. But one can not deny that the adjectives used to describe Hibbert are the same as the ones to describe Smits for most of his career. Just like the adjectives to describe Rush are similar to the ones to describe Reggie. Then again, the adjectives for Kobe Bryant and Bracy Wright were similar too...Originally posted by Bball View PostI don't think it's fair that we compare him to Smits....
...until we know how Hibbert handles a dirt bike...
As I said in the other thread, I finally see the vision for this franchise: "build a team that can compete in the 1990s." In three years or so, Larry Bird will appoint himself to be the coach.Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you
Comment
Comment