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

So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

    This is Part 3 of my Draft Analysis. If you want to revisit the methodology and explanation, follow this link:

    http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...38&postcount=1

    For the third installment, I'm taking a closer look at the history of the 17th pick. As with the previous, I based my analysis on the draft classes 1982 through 2007. Since one of our first round draft picks, Roy Hibbert, was taken with the 17th pick, I thought I'd look a little closer at that draft position.

    The Pacers also have extensive recent history with players taken 17th overall. Besides Roy, there are two other #17's on the current roster: Rasho Nesterovic (1999-MIN) and Danny Granger (2005-IND). Additionally, the Pacers traded away this summer two others drafted at that slot: Jermaine O'Neal (1996-POR) and Shawne Williams (2006-IND).

    First, let's look back at my synopsis on the 12-17 picks grouping:

    Originally posted by count55
    Picks 12 to 17 - (156 picks since 1982, 155 played)

    The Accolades

    Rookie Awards - There have been no Rookies of the Year during this time frame. About 15% of the players taken between 12 and 17 were named to either the 1st or 2nd rookie team.

    All Star Appearances - 16 draftees in this group, or about 10%, have been named to at least one All-Star Game. 10 (6%) have made multiple appearances.

    All NBA Teams - Only about 6% (10) of this group have been named to at least one All NBA Team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). Eight of these (5%) have earned this honor multiple times.

    All Defense Teams - Just seven players in this group (5%) have been named to All Defense team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd), all of them earning multiple mentions.

    Individual Awards - Though this is clearly an incomplete sample, Clyde Drexler is the only player that has already been inducted into the Hall of Fame.

    Surprisingly, three players (Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, and Karl Malone) have been named league MVP. Our beloved Ron-Ron is the lone Defensive Player of the Year. There have been three Sixth Man of the Years (Dell Curry, Aaron McKie, and Corliss Williamson), and five Most Improved Players (Dana Barros, Jalen Rose, Alan Henderson, Jermaine O'Neal, and Hedo Turkoglu). There have been no Finals MVP.

    Production Groups

    Code:
    1. Group 1	1.3%
2. Grp 2	3.2%
3. Grp 3	11.0%
4. Grp 4	27.1%
5. Grp 5	31.6%
6. Grp 6	25.8%
    Pick 17 - (26 picks since 1982, 26 played)

    The Accolades

    Rookie Awards - There have been no Rookies of the Year during this time frame. About 8% of #17's were named to either the 1st or 2nd rookie team, compared to 15% of all players taken between 12 and 17. The two players who earned this honor were Josh Smith and Danny Granger. Both were 2nd Team All-Rookie players.

    All Star Appearances - Two draftees (Shawn Kemp and Jermaine O'Neal) in this group, or about 8%, have been named to at least one All-Star Game. Both have made multiple appearances.

    All NBA Teams - Only about 8% (2, Shawn Kemp & Jermaine O'Neal) of this group have been named to at least one All NBA Team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). Both of these have earned this honor multiple times.

    All Defense Teams - Only one player in this group (4%, Doug Christie) has been named to All Defense team (1st, 2nd, or 3rd), but he earned the honor eight times in his career.

    Individual Awards - Though this is clearly an incomplete sample, no players have been inducted to the Hall of Fame from this group. At present time, none of these players has established a resume worthy of future consideration to the Hall.

    Unsurprisingly, none have been named league MVP. There have been no Defensive Players of the Year, but Aaron McKie earned Sixth Man of the Year, and Jermaine O'Neal (with the Pacers) nabbed a Most Improved Player award. There have been no Finals MVPs.

    Production Groups

    Code:
    1. Group 1	0.0%
2. Grp 2	3.8%
3. Grp 3	11.5%
4. Grp 4	26.9%
5. Grp 5	19.2%
6. Grp 6	38.5%
    There are no Group 1 players(the stars), but here are the Group 2 & 3 players...as well as the Group 6 players (the flops):

    Group 2: Josh Smith

    Group 3: Danny Granger, Shawn Kemp, Jermaine O'Neal

    Group 6: Brook Steppe, Cal Bowdler, Greg Graham, Jerrod Mustaf, Johnny Taylor, Leo Rautins, Michael Bradley, Ronnie Murphy, Uwe Blab, Zarko Cabarkapa
    Conclusion on the #17

    At this pick, the numbers say that while you might realistically hope for a solid rotation player, you should expect a fringe player or outright bust. Four in seven players are Group 5 or Group 6, and another 2 in 7 are Group 4.

    At this pick, there have been a number of solid pros (Aaron McKie, Rasho Nesterovic, Doug Christie, Desmond Mason), and two potential stars whose careers were sidetracked or impaired by either injury (Jermaine O'Neal) or stupidity (Shawn Kemp). Josh Smith and Danny Granger both offer hope for this draft slot, but it remains to be seen whether either can become a bona fide star.

    In terms of value, a pick at 17 (or in this range) might be considered a sweetener, but if you're trading a rotation player or starter, you will probably end up with a lesser player.

    It should be noted that Josh Smith is at the very bottom of the Group 2 range with a 17.0, while Danny Granger is at the very top of the Group 3 range with a 16.5. Both produce at about four times the average for a #17 pick.

    Roy Hibbert, the #17, and Rookie Production

    The other thing I wanted to look at here is to see what kind of production this slot has given during the rookie year. While my overall sample had 26 years of draft class, I only had access to the game logs from the 1986-1987 season forward. Therefore the following analysis only has 23 in the sample.

    It should be noted that the four players that were excluded (Brooke Steppe, Jeff Turner, Leo Rautins, and Uwe Blab) were very unproductive players as rookies. Only Jeff Turner made it as high as Group 5, while the rest were Group 6 players. They were excluded due to the lack of Game Log data, and their inclusion would've likely made the numbers for this draft slot even bleaker.

    So, with a series of Charts, I'm going to show you what the #17 looks like:

    The Top 5 Players: 1. Josh Smith (ATL05); 2. Danny Granger (IND06); 3. Victor Alexander (GSW92); 4. Shawn Kemp (SEA90); 5. Sean Williams (NJN08)



    The Bottom 5 Players (worst first): 1. Rasho Nesterovic (MIN99); 2. Ronnie Murphy (POR88); 3. Johnny Taylor (ORL98); 4. Michael Bradley (TOR02); 5. Cal Bowdler (ATL00)


    The Fizzlers (Players who started strong, but faded): There were no players that really started strong, then faded. Most just had low production all along.

    The Hockey Sticks (Slow starts, but climbing at the end): Harold Pressley (SAC87); Aaron McKie (POR95); Josh Smith (ATL05); Danny Granger (IND06)



    Once again, these are just rookie numbers. Jermaine O'Neal, Doug Christie, and Rasho Nesterovic all went on to have productive careers after less than impressive rookie campaigns. It would be reasonable to speculate that most of these players are projects, and would develop more slowly, but that would need to be proven.

    After compiling this data, I rolled in Roy Hibbert's production through December 23rd (the Nets game). The chart below shows Roy's performance, along with the best and worst (for the season), as well as a couple of players of interest:



    Through that night, Roy had played in 24 of 28 games for the Pacers, producing an AdjPR of 4.71. If he stays at this level for his entire rookie season, he would finish as a Group 5 player, posting the 9th best season for #17's in the sample.

    Though Group 5 is not a desirable, it is normal production out of the #17 slot. It is above the median for the group, and it is slightly above mean for the group as well. Roy has had some big games, but a lot of non-impact games.

    The next two charts also show the erratic nature of Hibbert's performance:





    As always, cold, hard numbers lack the ability to completely distill the qualities of a player. To this point, I've seen enough things about Roy Hibbert to make me satisfied with the pick. However, he will develop much more slowly than our other rookie, Brandon Rush. He has shown the ability to be a good-to-very good low post scorer, an above average passer, and an above average shot blocker. However, he is wildly inconsistent and foul prone.

    However, in looking at our two rookies, I think the most important perception comes not from the numbers but from the viewing. If I were to name one thing that differentiates the two players, I would say it is confidence. Right now, Brandon plays like a player who knows he belongs on the floor in this competition, while Roy often sports the "deer in the headlights" look.

    That is not to say that Brandon never makes rookie mistakes, nor to say that Roy never makes great plays. It is just my observation that Brandon is able to compartmentalize his mistakes and move on to the next play, while Roy often gets rattled and tends to string mistakes together. For this reason, there's a balancing act that must performed with Roy that you don't have to with Brandon.

    Roy needs minutes to get his confidence, however Obie needs to be more careful to put him in positions that where he can succeed than he does with Brandon. Force feeding Roy minutes against a poor matchup will likely cause failures on the court, hurting his confidence, and potentially sidetracking his development. For this reason, I think it was relatively prudent, for example, to not play Hibbert against Golden State.

    Again, that's a fine line. You don't want to wrap Hibbert up in cotton, preventing harm. Also, Roy needs to be able to exploit smaller teams at some point in time. However, I don't think it is necessary in the first year.

    It seems that Roy has grabbed the starting position, at least against most teams that have relatively traditional lineups. He has contributed in each of the last three games, including a very impressive performance against the Clippers last Friday night.

    I am optimistic that my future updates will show an upward curve over the balance of the season, and I'm hopeful that he can become a Group 4 player by year's end.
    Last edited by count55; 12-25-2008, 11:24 PM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

    First - in the prospect thread I was down on Roy. I loved him at the start of the year but after watching his senior year I was convinced he was too slow to keep up in the NBA (that's laterally and general movement, not running up the court which is almost worthless for a true big anyway).

    He has surprised me and been worth the #17.

    Having said that I do see something with him that we saw with Danny - overthinking and some deferential softness. Both are good guys and smart players who actually got something out of their 4 years of school.

    A big part of Danny's growth IMO has been due to overcoming those traits with his own smarts. He's learning the game and that's replacing having the instinct for it. I think Roy is similar, that he's a guy that has to know why before he can do something and until that clicks he'll seem lost.

    But the flip is that he can grow more. Usually I think 4 year guys have learned all they can, but of course who is teaching them and what college system they are in impacts that as well.


    My request here is Rik Smits rookie year. I have no idea how it will track as I haven't looked lately. I just recall him struggling early on but showing promise too.


    One other comment, we have seen Roy showing improved scoring efficiency lately so I think his PR might be in for a bit of a rebound. When you look at Josh and Danny they both dropped off hard early on and then started that steady curve growth to their final, solid numbers.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

      Good analysis, and kind of leads into another point that I touched on in another thread a few weeks ago:

      The Pacers are never below mediocre. Sure, to some folks, anything below .500 is a catastrophic failure, but in reality, we've hovered just below .500 even in our worst years. The teams who go through truly awful seasons are the ones who's records allow them to draft franchise-changers. We rarely draft in the top 15, because we're always competitive to some degree.

      The Dwyane Wades, the Michael Jordans, the Tim Duncans, the Kevin Garnetts, etc... --- the players who come along once every few years and change a franchise are usually only available in the top 1-10 picks, and probly weighted more towards the high-end of that scale. The Pacers just are never in the picture when those picks are called. But you don't even really need to be that high, just getting some 5-10 picks makes your team that much more stronger. Again, we're rarely in that range.

      As much as it would suck, the Pacers almost need to go through a catastrophic season, record-wise, to really get this team on the map. The Pacers, in my mind, have actually performed minor miracles with their low draft picks over the years, staying competitive and finding great talent in the low-end of the round. But that's a tough road to sustain for a long time, and a road that makes it difficult to build a contender. Our best years in the late-90s were built on a team of high draft picks, albeit by other teams. Miller was 11 (and widely considered a terrific pick at that spot), Mullin was drafted 7, Smits was a #2 pick, Byron Scott was a #4, etc... it was a very blue-chip team. Now we're trying to build teams drafting post-15 consistently... it's just very difficult. Unless we work some huge trades or suffer a bad record season, these ~.500 seasons are probly going to continue. The only problem is --- the fan base is already shell-shocked from the past 4 years, and you risk alienating them for good if they went through league-worst season.

      On the Rik Smits point... comparing Roy to him is challenging. Rik was drafted #2, and had a good career, nothing franchise-changing, but in his prime he helped make the Pacers a strong team. Roy was drafted 17 and could've went later, based on some mock drafts. I don't know if he's even in the same class as Smits. Expecting him to be the next Patrick Ewing is a stretch to say the least. He could be a serviceable man in the middle, but he's got a ways to go before he's even that good.
      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-27-2008, 04:30 PM.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

        The pacers are never below mediocre? Were you alive during the 80's?

        How much did that benefit them, sucking year after year?

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)



          Per-36.....

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            First - in the prospect thread I was down on Roy. I loved him at the start of the year but after watching his senior year I was convinced he was too slow to keep up in the NBA (that's laterally and general movement, not running up the court which is almost worthless for a true big anyway).

            He has surprised me and been worth the #17.

            Having said that I do see something with him that we saw with Danny - overthinking and some deferential softness. Both are good guys and smart players who actually got something out of their 4 years of school.

            A big part of Danny's growth IMO has been due to overcoming those traits with his own smarts. He's learning the game and that's replacing having the instinct for it. I think Roy is similar, that he's a guy that has to know why before he can do something and until that clicks he'll seem lost.

            But the flip is that he can grow more. Usually I think 4 year guys have learned all they can, but of course who is teaching them and what college system they are in impacts that as well.


            My request here is Rik Smits rookie year. I have no idea how it will track as I haven't looked lately. I just recall him struggling early on but showing promise too.


            One other comment, we have seen Roy showing improved scoring efficiency lately so I think his PR might be in for a bit of a rebound. When you look at Josh and Danny they both dropped off hard early on and then started that steady curve growth to their final, solid numbers.
            I've never thought of this issue. For the first time I can understand "overthinking" as a roadblock for young intelligent players like Danny and Roy.

            Good post.
            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              The pacers are never below mediocre? Were you alive during the 80's?

              How much did that benefit them, sucking year after year?
              Sigh. Infinite 80's wisdom from the young Piston fan...
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-27-2008, 10:03 PM.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post

                As much as it would suck, the Pacers almost need to go through a catastrophic season, record-wise, to really get this team on the map. The Pacers, in my mind, have actually performed minor miracles with their low draft picks over the years, staying competitive and finding great talent in the low-end of the round.
                A catastrophic season can get you Tim Duncan, but more often than not it gets you a bust like Jay Williams and even much more often than than a decent player who will help but not change your franchise like Rik Smits or a Drew Gooden type player.

                Tanking the season offers no guarentee that you will get the #1 pick, that's been seen time and time again. You have to tank AND get a lot of luck in order to get a great player from the draft. Hell, the Bulls were rather mediocre and almost a fringe playoff team and they ended up with Derrick Rose.

                The draft is a complete crapshoot. Heck the year we got DG at 17, who is a possible future franchise player, teams picking ten picks ahead of us came away with the Ike Diogu, Channing Frye, Martell Webster poo-poo platter.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  My request here is Rik Smits rookie year. I have no idea how it will track as I haven't looked lately. I just recall him struggling early on but showing promise too.
                  This will take a little time. I'll have to pull Rik's rookie season...maybe tomorrow.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

                    Here's the chart with Smits:



                    While I understand the urge to compare Hibbert to Smits, and in fact see many similarities in their games, it is truly difficult to compare their rookie years. While Hibbert has averaged 12 minutes per night and had four DNP-CD's, Rik Smits played in all 82 games, started 71 of them, and averaged almost 25 minutes per game. In fact, Smits only played fewer than 12 minutes six times, and fewer than 20 minutes only 24 times.

                    While I still have to complete the analysis on the #2 pick to see where Rik falls in that group, he is head and shoulders above any rookie #17. (Not surprisingly.)

                    [Edit: Hibbert's numbers above are still through 12/23. His game in Memphis last night was a 16, which would boost his AdjPR from 4.71 shown here to 5.10.)

                    Here's a Look at Rik's Game by Game info all by itself:



                    Interesting in that it appears that Rik's production jumped in Jan & Feb, but then dipped in March before a relatively strong finish. It's difficult to say whether that's a rookie wall or not. Rik was much more productive as a rookie than I recall.
                    Last edited by count55; 12-28-2008, 01:10 AM.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

                      Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                      A catastrophic season can get you Tim Duncan, but more often than not it gets you a bust like Jay Williams and even much more often than than a decent player who will help but not change your franchise like Rik Smits or a Drew Gooden type player.

                      Tanking the season offers no guarentee that you will get the #1 pick, that's been seen time and time again. You have to tank AND get a lot of luck in order to get a great player from the draft. Hell, the Bulls were rather mediocre and almost a fringe playoff team and they ended up with Derrick Rose.

                      The draft is a complete crapshoot. Heck the year we got DG at 17, who is a possible future franchise player, teams picking ten picks ahead of us came away with the Ike Diogu, Channing Frye, Martell Webster poo-poo platter.
                      Who said anything about tanking? I just said they have to go through a truly bad season or stretch of bad seasons to land a string of high-draft picks. A bunch of 35-40 win seasons doesn't qualify. The alternative is to acquire the pieces through trade, which is entirely viable, although recent Pacer trade history would indicate otherwise. It seems every year, though, we hinge our hopes on hitting the draft "jackpot" with a low 1st-round pick "diamond in the rough", and we end up disappointed in the long run.

                      Danny was a great pick for us. He's also really the only "good" pick we've had since Reggie and Smits back in the 80s. Otherwise, we've been drafting low, and very few of those guys have done anything of note for us. I wouldn't form your draft opinion just because a top 5-10 talent like Granger had a minor injury in college and scared 16 teams away from picking him earlier.
                      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-28-2008, 01:28 AM.
                      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

                        The difference between this team and those glory days teams isn't draft spots as much as it is experience. It wasn't that Big Smooth was a former 4th pick as it was his experience. Perkins was a hell of a player in his prime but at 37, 38 & 39 he was a savvy vet with tons of post season play. Those late 90's teams stockpiled the old vets well. Byron Scott, Rickey Pierce, Eddie Johnson, Chris Mullin etc... We also saw guys like Vern Fleming, Tank Thompson and even the major players of the Finals team turn into those seasoned vets. Reggie was 34! that season. 7 of the rotation players were in their 30's.

                        Blah blah....
                        I'm in these bands
                        The Humans
                        Dr. Goldfoot
                        The Bar Brawlers
                        ME

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

                          Yep, they were experienced.... and a lot of them were also drafted higher. Can take from that what you want, but there it is. That team was simply more talented. We drafted only 4 of those guys, Reggie, Smits, and the Davis Bros. That 4-year stretch between '87-'91 was probly our best draft years in recent history, but Miller was 11, Smits was 2, Dale was 13... and then Antonio was practically a walk-on, lol. Anyway, ya, we had some bad years, and they resulted in some higher draft picks and got us 3 cornerstone players (to answer Kstat's "question" earlier). Antonio was just a brilliant late 2nd-round pick.

                          We just had a thread about the low talent level of the Pacers: http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...ad.php?t=43239

                          How do you acquire talent? 1) Trades, 2) Draft. We need to get better draft picks, or Larry needs to acquire 6-7 savvy former high-draft-pick 30-year-old vets like Donnie did back in the 90s.

                          Anyway, Rush could be the "start" of some higher draft-pick years coming up for us. So far our record would indicate that we'll be drafting fairly high this year, lol.

                          Here's our current team draft:

                          Dunleavy: R1, P3
                          Ford: R1, P8
                          Rush: R1, P13
                          Murph: R1, P14
                          Rasho: R1, P17
                          Granger: R1, P17
                          Hibbert: R1, P17
                          Foster: R1, P21
                          Jack: R1, P22
                          McRoberts: R2, P37
                          Diener: R2, P38
                          Baston: Rnd 2, Pick 58
                          Daniels: Undrafted
                          Graham: Undrafted

                          Tinsley: Who gives a crap, but he was R1, P27

                          (Which reminds me, we're playing with a short deck this year, thanks to Tinsley, but that's a whole other thread)

                          Anyway, we have 4 guys drafted before 15... they also are generally our top players, although remains to be seen about Rush, although I believe he'll be a heckuva player down the road. After pick 15, we have 11 guys. Of those, Rasho is serviceable, Granger is a stud (and should've been in the top 10, just fell due to his injury), and Daniels was just a brilliant undrafted find.
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-28-2008, 01:22 PM.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

                            Updated through 12/30...







                            As is often the case with Rookies, particularly rookie bigs, Roy posted two very good games, followed by a complete dud. Roy is a interesting piece of work. There are things that remind me of Smits, but he is nowhere near the player Rik was, even as a rookie. There are times that he moves with a surprising fluidity, and there are times that he is unbelievably mechanic. My gut reaction to this dichotomy is that he is overthinking the game (hence, the mechanical), but he is much, much better when he relaxes and just plays. The optimist in me says that once he gets comfortable at this level, he will become a very good asset with better-than-advertised athleticism. The realist in me says that this problem is probably serious enough that he'll fight it throughout his entire career.

                            He is surprisingly successful offensive player, but sometimes it looks like that his success is...accidental. He is way, way too timid around the rim, but he has a nice post game. However, like all post players, he will be very dependent on his teammates to give him good post passes. Feeding the post is an underrated skill, and I haven't seen a good post-feeder on this team since Reggie retired.

                            In another thread, Seth said that he'd never be a good rebounder, and I agree with this. However, he suggested that we should never expect more that 4 rebounds per game, and I don't agree. I would guess that if he could earn starter's minutes, he would be able to get 6-7 boards a night.

                            I suspect that we will continue to see the two steps forward, one step back modality of this rookie season.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3 - Roy, #17's, and the Rookie Year)

                              Here's the long (un)awaited update on Roy Hibbert and the #17 pick.

                              Since it's been so long, I want to remind you all of the original methodology:

                              http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...38&postcount=1

                              and reiterate some disclaimers.

                              First, this is a measure of production that reasonable approximates contribution of the players included. However, this is not meant to be a definitive ranking of individual players, per se, but a grouping. I admit that I will use this as shorthand to comment on Brandon's performance, but I don't think that is being misleading. That is to say, I don't think the quantification here conflicts with the general perception and judgment of Brandon's performance and production.

                              Again, for better, more specific understanding of the methodology and the caveats, please read the earlier link.

                              Roy's Rookie Year

                              Roy appeared in 70 of the Pacers' 82 games. Eleven of the twelve games he missed were DNP-CD's, and the twelfth was due to a death in the family. As with Brandon, this is both good news and bad news. The bad news (worse to some than others) is that O'Brien chose to sit him for entire games, arguably hurting both his development and the team's chance to win. The good news is that he missed zero games due to injury. This is certainly welcome given the teams checkered past in this regard.

                              For the season, he averaged 7.1 points and 3.5 rebounds in 14 minutes per night. He started in 42 games, averaging just over 9 points and 4 rebounds in 18 minutes a game.

                              On the Player Rater, he posted a full year gross number per game of 7.96, which translates to AdjPR of 6.79. This would classify him as a "Group 5" Player, just barely below the 7.0 cutoff for "Group 4" players. This miss is due to the DNP's.

                              Roy's rookie year numbers were slightly above average for the career numbers you see out of the #17 pick, and it just barely missed the Top 5 for rookie seasons. Looking specifically at his rookie year, here's how it trended against some key benchmark players:

                              Exhibit A - Roy Hibbert with Benchmarks (Trended)



                              He trends well above median, but also well below the top performers like Josh Smith and Danny Granger.

                              Here you can see where his rookie fit among other #17's (since 1986):

                              Exhibit B - # 17 Pick Rookie Production



                              I'm including the following charts for a little cleaner look at his year. The first is just his performance, trended, while the second allows you to see individual game performance along with his YTD performance trended.

                              Exhibit C - Roy's year with trendline



                              Exhibit D - Roy's year with Individual Games



                              Broadly, what kind of careers do the #17 picks have? This chart shows all of them since 1982:

                              Exhibit E - Career Production for #17 picks



                              Proudly, we can see our very own Danny Granger leading the pack as our the only "Group 2" player. Josh Smith took a step back this year, and he will have to see if he can get back on the steep upward curve he had exhibited in his first four years.

                              Other players of note include Shawn Kemp and Jermaine O'Neal, both with Indiana ties. Both players spent a few years at the pinnacle of the league, but were unable to sustain their success. JO fell victim to nagging injuries, and Kemp fell victim to other weaknesses.

                              So, what about Roy's long term prospects? It's difficult to tell. There seems to be reason to believe that Hibbert can be a contributor in this league, but it's important to remember that the 17th pick rarely generates someone special...(and we might have caught our limit with Danny.)

                              My impression on Roy was that he more or less plateaued this season...reaching a certain point then leveling out. If you look at the following two charts, you'll see that Roy's production distribution was only slightly weighted towards the second half.

                              Exhibit F - Roy's Cumulative Production with Median



                              While Brandon's was much more pronounced:

                              Exhibit G - Brandon's Cumulative Production with Median



                              I was also worried, because I thought his shooting performance dropped off in the second half. I took a look, and it was down 2nd half vs. 1st, but he did start to bring it back in April:

                              Exhibit G - Roy Hibbert FG% by Month



                              However, I looked at a number of other stats for reference.

                              Exhibit H - Various Monthly Stats for Hibbert



                              This chart shows Roy's Points per Game, Rebounds per Game, Rebounds per 36 minutes, and Fouls per 36 minutes.

                              I included points per game, because I consider offense Roy's biggest strength. If he becomes a good contributor, it will be primarily as a scorer. It is encouraging to note that March and April were Roy's best scoring months, including almost 12 points a game in April.

                              Rebounding was of interest to me, because I consider it to be a real weakness of Roy's. He will never post big numbers in this category, but I had to wonder if he could at least grab a serviceable amount. Again, I'm pleased to note that March and April were his best two months, including 6.1 boards a night in April.

                              I also needed to make sure that this rebounding was not merely a function of getting more minutes. April was his high water mark at 21 minutes a night. Therefore, I included the Rebounds per 36 minutes figures. I'm sure you'll all be pleased to note that, while March's figures were down, his April numbers per 36 were 25% higher than his second best month. It seems to me that he is capable of getting a serviceable number (6-8) of rebounds per night.

                              While I called rebounding his greatest weakness, the last metric I included is his greatest flaw: Fouls per 36 minutes. The two biggest factors in his limited playing time were his inability to earn Obie's trust and his inability to stay out of foul trouble. It's honestly difficult to tell where one ends and the other starts.

                              Over the course of the season, he averaged a whopping 7.7 fouls per 36 minutes. At that pace, he'd foul out in only 28 minutes. In January and February, his epic foul-proneness (is that a word?) reached 9.25 and 9.64 per 36, respectively. Fortunately, it toned down to 6.33 in April. While that's still pretty hack-happy, it's at least survivable. Without question, this is going to be the biggest threat to Roy having a successful career.

                              All in all, my further research made me feel better. Roy did continue to improve throughout the year. I don't think there's any aspect of his rookie season that we could consider a disappointment, when put in perspective with the other #17 picks.

                              As a final comfort, here's his monthly performance chart:



                              So, what's Roy's future? I don't know. I see a guy who, even if he can defeat his foul problems, will never be a long minute player. Most likely, he'll be a guy who will peak at between 25 and 30 minutes a night, and you'll always want a good backup around.

                              I know it has been pretty common to draw parallels between Roy and Rik Smits. This makes a great deal of sense given their broad similarities in strengths and weaknesses, as well as our familiarity with Big Rik. I also went back and checked tbird's analysis, and his comparison point was Bill Cartwright.

                              However, after watching him for a season and working through this analysis, another former Pacer big man is screaming to me as a better comparison:

                              James Edwards

                              For those who don't know him, James Edwards played almost 1200 games over 19 seasons, spread out among 8 different NBA teams. "Buddha" spent three seasons with the Pacers, but is probably best known for his stint with Detroit's Champion "Bad Boys." He was a somewhat slow-footed 7-footer who was a decent scorer, mediocre rebounder, and had a reputation (at least while here) of being soft.

                              Over the course of his career, he averaged almost 13 points and 5 rebounds. His best season (arguably) was with the Pacers in 1979, averaging 16.7 points and 8.5 rebounds.

                              For those who do remember him, I would ask if you see the similarities as well.

                              I would think that it would be a good accomplishment for Roy to put together a career like Edwards', without being a grossly unrealistic expectation.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X