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

Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #61
    Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

    I came across this forum while looking up who's the big man coach for the Pacers. First off, while I do follow the NBA a small bit (mostly to see how specific college players do), I'm foremost a Carolina faithful and a voracious college basketball fan.

    Now my opinion might be slightly influenced by my love for all things Carolina blue, but I have watched every second of Tyler's North Carolina career and have criticized, in great detail, every mistake he's done; so I have a general idea of his game.

    Regarding his upside because of age, Tyler's improved every year in his game and arguably his two biggest improvements came mid-way through his junior season and two-thirds through his senior season. The first being, a consistent jump shot out of no where once Tywon went down with his first injury. I mean, he basically never shot that, Tywon goes down, then Tyler is hitting those on a regular basis - it caught everyone by surprise. Second one came this past season, it was more of an overall game change. Because of the quality post depth, Tyler took a more aggressive defensive approach in the post and thus, became more effective as a defender. Previously before that, he had to take the "Blake Griffin approach", as in, just don't foul because we NEED you all game. In addition to his improved defense, he also became a much, much, better passer. One of the biggest shots at his game from even the Tar Heels fan base is that he usually was a black hole. No one really cared too much because he was on his way to becoming the all-time ACC leading scorer and did it pretty efficiently, while also fouling out the opposing frontline... But most of us wanted to see him pass out rather than force over the defense. It was extraordinary to see Tyler pass out of double and triple-teams and he also had something special going with Ed Davis to where he constantly was looking to feed the post from the perimeter for the big guy. Which he did and made some impressive passes. Tyler didn't even have that kind of relationship with Brandan Wright, who imo, was clearly a better offensive player as as frosh in comparison to Ed. Now I'm not saying he has Anthony Randolph-type potential. But to assume he's almost maxed out as a player because of his age is damnation. He said he's working on his left hand and perimeter shot, you have to believe he will be very good at both because he's accomplished everything else he has set out to do thus far.

    I re-read the original post and it's mostly accurate. There's two parts of his game which I think goes unsaid. Yes, he's obviously not a very quick player so you would think he gets destroyed by more agile offensive players with decent ball-handling skills. One thing Tyler is great at is taking a charge from those type of players and the other is uncanny ability to pick the pockets of wings/guards before they make their move. Tyler's ranked 10th in North Carolina history in steals, just below his teammate, Tywon Lawson, and some Carolina players known for the their defense, O'Koren and Bradley, and above the likes of Jordan, Lebo, and Ford. I'd guess it's 70-30, steals from perimeter players. Not sure how he does it, but he always seems to to get his hand on the ball and if the ball gets loose, he will be the one getting the ball. Perfect example is steal from Potter in the Clemson game - This Play - As for his ability to take a charge, he's not great at shuffling his feet, but he usually somehow seems to stay in front of the offensive player. When he had to guard James Johnson, Al-Farouq Aminu, Kyle Singler, Brandon Costner, Austin Daye... the more mobile big guys he played this season, I rarely saw him get beaten of the dribble. In fact, the only two players who consistently beat him off the dribble the whole game were Blake Griffin and Luke Babbitt (ugh). Straight up post defense, he definitely needs to work on. He's improved, however, he tends to bite on fakes and like the op said, he will body up his guy.

    Onto his offensive game, Tyler always goes to that awkward shoulder-jump-hook-ish shot and that's the shot which should cause the most concern against the bigger defenders. He doesn't fully extend on that shot and he was blocked often, even by the smaller defenders, when he used the shot. He also heavily relied on his right hand. He's not Gerald Henderson: I must always go right, but he would normally go right, even when he shouldn't have. His patent move is probably a small dribble from around the free throw line, a quick spin to the right, then use the shoulder shot. He needs really learn to use his left hand and then you will see an large growth in his offensive game. He also tends to do an extra power dribble after getting a pass into the post. It would drive me nuts because instead of getting an open dunk, he would power dribble into a foul. He shot like what? Close to 85% from the line so it was usually two points and a foul on the player. Just don't think that it will work out the same way in the pros. His mid-ranged game is solid and he really like this turnaround, fadeaway, mid-ranged shot which is nearly unguardable because of how quickly it progresses. Problem is, it's a very difficult shot, he tends to fade not only backwards, but to the left, and he probably only makes about 35% of those. The good part is that the most room to improve in his game is his offensive game.

    Couple more things I wanted to point out. I had to do something in the middle of my typing this and lost any rhythm I had so the rest of this will be a little unorganized. Tyler played into Roy Williams system and while most saw him as getting whatever he wanted, in the 9 games Tywon was injured in 08, Tyler averaged 27/11 in those games. We also went 8-1 (one loss to dook which Tyler went 28/18) and probably should have lost 3 or 4 more games if it weren't solely for Tyler and in some part, Danny's clutch three point shooting. The two games Tywon missed this past season, 25/10/4 steals. He obviously could have been doing more on offense if he wanted to. Secondly, while I agree Tyler got calls in that junior season, he had no calls go his way until the ACC Tournament his senior season. This isn't a UNC fan complaining either. It became so glaringly obvious that announcers started pointing it out and newspapers in North Carolina (the state) had a couple articles about it. There were multiple times when Tyler was bleeding and a foul wasn't even called. Most impressive part, Tyler never once complained to the refs, although Roy Williams got in their face.

    So I really lost my train of thought somewhere in the middle of talking about his offensive game. I'll end it here and with this note. Just because he's known for his hustle and energy, it doesn't mean that is the reason why he's the most decorated player in the history of the most prestigious basketball conference (proclaimed conference of the decade for like the 10th year in the role) in the country. He's a winner, his work ethic is contagious, a great teammate, and most importantly, a Heel.

    Comment

    • #62
      Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

      Wow, awesome contribution, Chance! You are adding nicely to my/our quick warming to Mr. T.

      If North Carolina (and RTP in particular) can be thought of as the bicep of basketball, then Indiana should qualify as the womb. In turn, if Hansbrough demonstrates continuous improvement (along with his hustle) as you've indicated, he will be richly honored here, rest assured.


      "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

      - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

      Comment

      • #63
        Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

        According to the Draft Express pre-draft measurements, Carlos Boozer weighed in at 258 lb. prior to the 2002 draft.

        http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-...=0&pos=0&sort=

        Comment

        • #64
          Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

          Originally posted by DrFife View Post
          If North Carolina (and RTP in particular) can be thought of as the bicep of basketball, then Indiana should qualify as the womb.
          Must ... not ... post ... classless ... response ...
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment

          • #65
            Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

            Um, in fairness of "keeping Singler in check", I have the 101,87 game on tape and Singler had no problems on offense. He ended up 9-15 for 22 and 6 boards. Hans also had 6 rebounds. Singler is a SF all the way, but due to Duke's utter lack of a frontline he often was at PF or even C.

            Singler had more points, more assists and equal rebounds, and I think Singler has a long way to go to be an NBA guy even though I do like his potential Detlef like game.



            TYLER AND FT SCORING BALANCE
            Also in the area of friendly whistles, Hans shot less than 6 FTs in only 4 games

            FSU - 0 FTA, 8 points
            Miami - 2 FTA, 8 points
            Maryland - 4 FTA, 11 points
            OK - 4 FTA, 8 points

            It's easy to score 22 points on 5-12 shooting when you get 14 FTAs. Tyler had 13 games of 10+ FTAs last year. To put it in some perspective, Boozer had 2 10+ FTA nights in 37 games last year (10, 11). But for example vs Orlando he only got 2 FTAs and still had 23 points.

            This is one of my biggest concerns, that his bruising style with friendly calls led to a ton of his actual scoring and that in the NBA all that goes bye-bye, if for no other reason then Tyler would have to be better than Kobe or Wade to see 50% of his games in the 10+ FTA range.

            You think I'm just being negative to say that a guy who LITERALLY got 35% of his offense at the line last year and 34% of it from the stripe in his Naismith year might be in trouble in the NBA when a realistic FTA expectation might run in the 4 range at best...unless you think he's actually Amare or Dwight. Duncan only got 6.4 himself last year.

            Howard led the league in FTAs and despite poor FT% still scored 6.4 times per game from the line. That accounted for only 31% of his offense. The league leader. Dwight freaking Howard.

            Duncan at Wake scored only 26.5% of his points from the FT line and didn't even get to the FT line as often as Hans despite his poor FT%.


            Scorers score. A lot. The FT line helps, but even big FT magnets like Wade, Kobe or Kevin Martin have big time scoring that carries the bulk of the load.

            If Hans is getting 35% of his NBA scoring from the FT line and is only going to the line 3-4 times per game then you are starting to look at the 6-8 PPG range. Bear in mind that Hans top claim to fame was his scoring.

            This is why you can't just cut and paste NCAA stats and assume some level of translation. This is why some of us say "sure, but...". I love the Pacers, so its in my interest that Hands Bro kicks butt. My reservation is that there are a ton of warning signs that suggest he's not going to translate like guys with traditional go-to scoring moves do.

            If he really can maintain the high PnR jumper and has/will improve his passing, then maybe. My issue is that at least statistically, and from what I watched, his game didn't really change a lot while in school. Go look up Tim Duncan's Wake stats. He climbs all 4 years. Tyler actually took a dip in his senior year.

            So it's not "he can't improve", it's that he already stopped improving when most guys don't.


            IMPROVED PASSING???
            I mean it's fine for someone to say "I was at NC and I saw his passing improve", but I still get to point out that his assists per game were as follows:
            1.3, 1.2, 0.9, 1.0
            His TO's stayed the same, his minutes stayed the same, his A/TO ratio stayed in the .5-.6 range.

            Where is all this improved passing? How is it showing up because it's clearly not leading to more passes for scores or in a reduction of his TOs? If you are doing something better shouldn't that be at least a little measurable?

            Tyler is the epitome of consistancy across all 4 years, which is itself nice but worrisome if you are now expecting a jump start in his progression. Most guys don't flatten out for years and then suddenly take back off again.
            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-30-2009, 11:13 PM.

            Comment

            • #66
              Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
              Second, an aside about "working hard is a skill". In NBA TV's post-draft shows, they had a big debate about this in regards to our pick. Eric Snow was absolutely adament that working hard was not a skill, everyone in the NBA works hard, or else they wouldn't be in the league. DA and Ronny Thompson disargeed, but I've never seen Snow so worked up. Granted, I don't have NBA TV so this is the first I've seen him on there, but I've followed him since his freshman year at State. He was not budging an inch, he was insulted by the notion.
              On the trying hard thing...

              Obviously, there are two ways of working hard: One way is the way Tyler, Joakim, Rodman and Varejao do it, which is a frantic, constant movement-based approach to the game. The other is the way guys like Tim Duncan, Kendrick Perkins, Charles Oakley, Dale Davis and Udonis Haslem do it, which is a precise, single location-based approach to the game.

              Charles Oakley worked just as bit as hard on the court as Tyler does, he just didn't run around constantly. He stood in a spot (which obviously changed slightly in accordance with what the other nine players on the court were doing) where he understood that the spacing and positioning he was adhering to was part of the team philosophy. Then, when a time in the play occurred where he could positively impact what was occuring, he would bust his *** to be where he needed to be and do whatever he could do when he got there -- whether that be pushing, jumping, floppin, whatever. It is a moderated concentration of effort that is used with maximum efficiency. If he was at the block and needed to be at the opposite elbow to set a screen, he would sprint eight feet and then, calmly, precisely, set a pick while standing perfectly still for a full one Mississippi until the screen was finished before turning to either make a hard roll to the hoop or make a quick two-step cut to the wing for a "pop" option. It's a sprint-stop-sprint-stop type of approach to working hard.

              Meanwhile, a guy like Varejao is in constant motion. He seemingly has ADHD out there. His approach to a screen would be wandering around on the block before looping his way to the opposite elbow and then setting a big screen while still moving and then rolling to the hoop all in one motion. It's a sprint-sprint-sprint-sprint type of approach to working hard.

              Both can be effective. But both represent the same level of working hard. I don't think you could find many people that would say Anderson is better than Oakley, but I'm actually a big Varejao fan (still wish we woulda taken the Varejao/cap room deal for JO instead of TJ/Hibbert if it was actually ever on the table). But regardless of the "better" aspect, the point is that playing this style is the only way Anderson can be effective in the League -- he doesn't have the precision gene, nor the refined skills to pull it off.

              My concern about Tyler is that he had to play frantically to be effective in the NCAA. You would think that an high-level NBA player would be able to rely more so on more proficient technical skills against the lesser talent of the NBA. Look at Matt Harpring. He was incredibly precise in college. He was great in the post and decimated ACC defenses with silky drop-steps, fadeways and refined counter moves like spins and up-and-unders. Ryan Gomes was the same way. His post game was dominant. He drew doubles constantly because he was a guy you could just toss the ball to and let him go to work.

              Tyler, from what I saw, was always more of a scorer in motion or a guy whose philosophy on a catch and face from 14 feet was "I'm just gonna rumble into the paint with a few dribbles and figure something out when I get there." To his credit, he would almost always figure it out with an off-balance leaner or crafty little awkward two-step lay in. But if Tyler's offensive moves were really going to translate to the NBA, I would have liked to see him catch the ball at the elbow, rip the ball through in front of him, take two hard dribbles left and get to the cup. Sure, that freelance rumbling, bumbling, stumbling approach worked in the ACC, but I don't think it will in the Central Division. There is little precision in his game. It's all constant-motion and fratic energy.

              Whether or not playing frantically is skill or not is not something I really care to debate, but I would have to say that being able to play with precision is a more unique skill and, thus, something that is always more valued than someone who plays "hard" all the time.

              And, FWIW, Eric Snow was never a guy who playing frantically. He certainly worked his balls off, but did that by perfecting positioning, angles and a deliberate style of "mirroring" ballhandlers by matching them step for step. I can't ever remember him diving into the stands or hardly even leaping on a loose ball, but he worked as hard as anyone by playing a precision-based, hard-nosed brand of defense.
              Last edited by JayRedd; 06-30-2009, 11:40 PM.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:
              @8pts9secs

              Comment

              • #67
                Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                The same is true of TWill, Nap.
                Not true.

                TWill started the year in the 26 range, up to 30 at the start of FEB, and then DURING GAMES and BECAUSE OF IN GAME PLAY he shot up to 16th, 14th, 13th, 14th. Then as workouts went on he fell back to 18th, and then right before the draft he went back to 11th.

                Tyler NEVER moved all year or all last year, just go look at his Draft Express mock history. Tyler stayed dead steady from 23-20 EVEN AT DRAFT DAY. He played in FEB, still at 20th or so, played for the title, still over 20th, went through workouts, still at 20th.

                Then the Pacers made him 11th.

                TWill got better and improved his stock during games. Tyler did not. Tyler impressed people by not being as short, slow or weak vertically as they had thought. Now where do you think they got those impressions of him? Maybe during game play?


                Look, TWill might not pan out. I like his passing and defense, I like his mental game and he just became a personal fave. But I won't predict a sure thing.

                My issue is the kool-aid on Hans. If the Pacers took Johnson and the Bulls took Tyler you wouldn't see a bunch of threads saying "oh no, Larry needed to get Hans, he really blew it". Some people thought "meh, okay" but few thought "this guy can really help".

                But simply by the fact that he was the choice he suddenly became a much better player and prospect around here than he ever was. Go dig the prospect thread and find the long list of gushing reports on his game, or last year's thread for that matter when the dude was winning the Naismith.

                This year's Naismith winner was the unanimous #1 pick without a doubt. Last year Tyler was rated around the 20th pick before returning to school.



                One final thing about draft picks. The reason more bad players go early than good picks fall late is because when a good player is passed on it means many teams are making the same mistake. But when a guy gets taken too soon it only takes one foolish team.

                The Bulls took Johnson, the other PF. They were willing to trade up for Henderson, but not willing to trade up for Hansbrough. The Bulls are trying to tell you guys something about their opinion of Hans.
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-30-2009, 11:39 PM.

                Comment

                • #68
                  Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                  Jay's comments put a reasoning behind the stats part of his scoring I just posted. It's that bull-in-a-china-shop offense that concerns me, despite it being created by his level of effort. Like Jay and I think most scouts, I wanted to see a few of those "NBA moves", things that when you see a guy do it it reminds you of exactly something you see regularly in NBA games.

                  I don't regularly see bigs rumbling into people and then scoring with an off-balance shot. I see them get fouls called against them, especially as rookies, but otherwise no.

                  BTW, it's Harandgoody's awful flailing offense that has me (and scouts) down on his NBA chances, despite his own nice stats. When you see him it just doesn't strike you as a set of moves from an NBA game.



                  Also welcome ByChance. Don't take my debate points personally, it was going on long before you got here. Personally I like anyone that has posts as long as mine just as a distraction for the angry reading-challenged mob.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-30-2009, 11:37 PM.

                  Comment

                  • #69
                    Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                    .
                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    Um, in fairness of "keeping Singler in check", I have the 101,87 game on tape and Singler had no problems on offense. He ended up 9-15 for 22 and 6 boards. Hans also had 6 rebounds. Singler is a SF all the way, but due to Duke's utter lack of a frontline he often was at PF or even C.

                    Not really Carolina's problem that the 05 class completely and utterly busted, while pushing back their program 4, or so, years. Also I agree, if you are referring to the game in Cameron (too lazy to check), which I think you are, Singler lit up in the first half and had an awful second half - at least to my recollection. Not saying that was Tyler's doing because I'm pretty sure Danny guarded Singler most of the game; just simply wanted to point out that Tyler doesn't get beaten off the dribble as often as one would expect, just by general perceptions.

                    Singler had more points, more assists and equal rebounds, and I think Singler has a long way to go to be an NBA guy even though I do like his potential Detlef like game.

                    Yeah, no idea what you are talking about. Just that game or for the season? Can't be the season, for points and probably rebounds, and it's too early to be opening new tabs Never denied Singler is an intriguing NBA prospect. He has a grittiness, which some may call dirty, and he's a very versatile player. Nice range in his shot, shows pro moves, good rebounder for his size... pretty much a European player at dook.

                    TYLER AND FT SCORING BALANCE
                    Also in the area of friendly whistles, Hans shot less than 6 FTs in only 4 games

                    FSU - 0 FTA, 8 points
                    Miami - 2 FTA, 8 points
                    Maryland - 4 FTA, 11 points
                    OK - 4 FTA, 8 points

                    It's easy to score 22 points on 5-12 shooting when you get 14 FTAs. Tyler had 13 games of 10+ FTAs last year. To put it in some perspective, Boozer had 2 10+ FTA nights in 37 games last year (10, 11). But for example vs Orlando he only got 2 FTAs and still had 23 points.

                    This is one of my biggest concerns, that his bruising style with friendly calls led to a ton of his actual scoring and that in the NBA all that goes bye-bye, if for no other reason then Tyler would have to be better than Kobe or Wade to see 50% of his games in the 10+ FTA range.

                    You think I'm just being negative to say that a guy who LITERALLY got 35% of his offense at the line last year and 34% of it from the stripe in his Naismith year might be in trouble in the NBA when a realistic FTA expectation might run in the 4 range at best...unless you think he's actually Amare or Dwight. Duncan only got 6.4 himself last year.

                    Howard led the league in FTAs and despite poor FT% still scored 6.4 times per game from the line. That accounted for only 31% of his offense. The league leader. Dwight freaking Howard.

                    Duncan at Wake scored only 26.5% of his points from the FT line and didn't even get to the FT line as often as Hans despite his poor FT%.


                    Scorers score. A lot. The FT line helps, but even big FT magnets like Wade, Kobe or Kevin Martin have big time scoring that carries the bulk of the load.

                    If Hans is getting 35% of his NBA scoring from the FT line and is only going to the line 3-4 times per game then you are starting to look at the 6-8 PPG range. Bear in mind that Hans top claim to fame was his scoring.

                    This is why you can't just cut and paste NCAA stats and assume some level of translation. This is why some of us say "sure, but...". I love the Pacers, so its in my interest that Hands Bro kicks butt. My reservation is that there are a ton of warning signs that suggest he's not going to translate like guys with traditional go-to scoring moves do.

                    If he really can maintain the high PnR jumper and has/will improve his passing, then maybe. My issue is that at least statistically, and from what I watched, his game didn't really change a lot while in school. Go look up Tim Duncan's Wake stats. He climbs all 4 years. Tyler actually took a dip in his senior year.

                    So it's not "he can't improve", it's that he already stopped improving when most guys don't.

                    I stated above that I thought Tyler got all the calls his junior season. Sure he got to the line a lot throughout his career (as did Pistol Pete who shot like 4 more free throws a game, not comparing them, though), but to put a label that he got the "friendly" calls is wrong. Tyler initiates the contact, so depending on how you want to look at it, he's fouled a bunch more times than it's actually called. Will that work in the NBA? Well that really depends. Shaq initiated most of the contact in his prime and he went to the free throw line more than anyone. Part of me knows that he earned those calls and he was fouled more than that what was actually called anyway. Will Tyler get that treatment? Probably not. Still doesn't change the fact that when you are slapped in the arm while in your shooting motion, it's a foul. Those were rarely called this past season. Like previously stated, I remember specific plays where Tyler had his eye-gauged, bleeding in the arms and legs, clearly forearmed acrossed the face, and no fouls were called. If those aren't ever called in the NBA then I will admit I'm wrong in this area.

                    IMPROVED PASSING???[
                    I mean it's fine for someone to say "I was at NC and I saw his passing improve", but I still get to point out that his assists per game were as follows:
                    1.3, 1.2, 0.9, 1.0
                    His TO's stayed the same, his minutes stayed the same, his A/TO ratio stayed in the .5-.6 range.

                    Where is all this improved passing? How is it showing up because it's clearly not leading to more passes for scores or in a reduction of his TOs? If you are doing something better shouldn't that be at least a little measurable?

                    Just because you pass the ball, it doesn't mean it's an assist. This isn't like NBA rebounding and the tip-out is counted towards your stats. If you pass out of a double team, the ball gets rotated twice, the player in the corner drains the open three, the last guy who passed the ball gets the assist. But where did the play really start? It started when the defense collapsed with the double team and the post player was smart enough to kick it out. Watch Tyler in his first three seasons and watch film towards the end of this season. North Carolina's ball movement improved greatly because he was no longer trying to shoot through the triple-teams. There's really no other way for me to put it.

                    Tyler is the epitome of consistancy across all 4 years, which is itself nice but worrisome if you are now expecting a jump start in his progression. Most guys don't flatten out for years and then suddenly take back off again.

                    You really have to watch his game to see how much he has improved. Granted, it's not some huge growth and I don't see Tyler all of a sudden, five years down the line, become Sheed. Just saying that he hasn't stayed in the same talent area all his Carolina career and he won't be the same player he is now, further down in his NBA career.

                    Comment

                    • #70
                      Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      My issue is the kool-aid on Hans. If the Pacers took Johnson and the Bulls took Tyler you wouldn't see a bunch of threads saying "oh no, Larry needed to get Hans, he really blew it". Some people thought "meh, okay" but few thought "this guy can really help".

                      But simply by the fact that he was the choice he suddenly became a much better player and prospect around here than he ever was. Go dig the prospect thread and find the long list of gushing reports on his game, or last year's thread for that matter when the dude was winning the Naismith.

                      This year's Naismith winner was the unanimous #1 pick without a doubt. Last year Tyler was rated around the 20th pick before returning to school.
                      Here's my issue: I think you've made it your personal vendetta to crusade against the kool-aid. In doing so, you're making some odd arguments and really, really stretching your point. Also, you're being extraordinarily picky with some things that no one really cares about. Are you seriously telling us that it's not possible that Tyler Hansbrough improved while his numbers did not astronomically improve? Really, Seth?

                      Look, while none of us were really excited about Hansbrough, I think we all kind of felt the same way: if we couldn't trade back, it's a solid pick at 13 in such a weak draft (see the who would you have drafted at 13 thread). Who would you have taken in his place? Johnson? Holiday? Ok, sure. So you're going on this anti-Hansbrough crusade because of two players? Really? How much better than Hansbrough do you really think Johnson and Holiday will be? Point is, this was pretty much as good as it gets.

                      Are you really that hellbent on proving that the 13th pick in a weak draft won't be that great? Wow. Look at the big brain on Ed! What a prophet! We'll be happy with Tyler as a the first big guy off the bench. Are there that many people on this board that are saying he'll be Tim Duncan-esque? For Christ's sakes, most of us are saying Luis Scola as his ceiling. Luis Scola! That's the rampant optmism that you've made it your personal crusade to stamp out.

                      Personally, at first I was upset. Then I asked myself, who would I have preferred? Not really sold on Holiday and slightly concerned about Clark and Johnson's extracurriculars, I was happy with Hansbrough. Maybe we reached. Probably. However, if we hadn't, we might not have gotten Hansbrough at all - I don't think he would have slipped to 20 at all.

                      Bill Simmons said it best, in a way that I think summarizes the general consensus here.
                      I liked the Hansbrough pick. Good seventh man. Like a much better Luke Walton. As Jackson says, he'll "make every Pacers practice better." Is that what you want from the 13th pick? Of course not. But this isn't a normal draft. I keep telling you.)

                      Comment

                      • #71
                        Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                        Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                        Here's my issue: I think you've made it your personal vendetta to crusade against the kool-aid. In doing so, you're making some odd arguments and really, really stretching your point. Also, you're being extraordinarily picky with some things that no one really cares about.
                        This.

                        I'm not responding to the rest of your post, Nap, because you didn't respond to the rest of mine. Including the part where Hans' floor was 16, so he went at worst maybe 3 spots early. Not a big deal.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment

                        • #72
                          Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                          [quote=rexnom;904543]Here's my issue: I think you've made it your personal vendetta to crusade against the kool-aid. In doing so, you're making some odd arguments and really, really stretching your point. Also, you're being extraordinarily picky with some things that no one really cares about. Are you seriously telling us that it's not possible that Tyler Hansbrough improved while his numbers did not astronomically improve? Really, Seth?

                          \quote]

                          100% agreed.The thing is I don't recall anybody saying he's going to be a allstar player or somebody who is going to put up 20pts and 12bds a game.Nobody here can predict that far out in the future. Most of us are saying he has the physical skills to be somebody who can challange for a starting position and maybe average 12-13pts and 8 bds a game down the line.I think those numbers are within reach for Tyler eventually.

                          People keep saying Will Tyler get to the the line like he does in college? Probably not since he doesn't project to be a number 1 or 2 in this league.Will that effect his scoring? It would if you drafted him in the top 5 and expected him to be a 20pt and 11bd player like he was in his junior season.? How will the guy score in this league?Well I figure right away he'll help us around the basket scoring points off his energy on put backs and battling for Offensive rebounds.He will also score in transition as he is one of the best bigmen running the floor I have ever seen in college and that should translate to the NBA.Obviously I think the faster the pace the better it is for him but if we get stuck in a halfcourt style he still has to be guarded because he can hit the 15footer and and has some descent array of post moves he can utilize near the basket.

                          Of course there are question marks about his game just like everybody else picked before and after Tyler.I really liked Holiday and if I was the GM I probably would have rolled the dice but you can't tell me that Holiday has less question marks then Tyler does about his game. Tyler is a going to be a solid contributer for this team and I think thats what most of us who are drinking the cool aid are saying.

                          Comment

                          • #73
                            Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                            I

                            He's also become an answer to what I consider one of the most worthless arguments about drafts: "In 2002 (name your GM) could have drafted Carlos Boozer and instead he (insert player actually drafted or player(s) received in a trade for a pick) ..."
                            Its wierd but i remember alot of talk about that on the old board.
                            Last edited by mike_D; 07-01-2009, 09:14 AM.

                            Comment

                            • #74
                              Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                              Second, an aside about "working hard is a skill". In NBA TV's post-draft shows, they had a big debate about this in regards to our pick. Eric Snow was absolutely adament that working hard was not a skill, everyone in the NBA works hard, or else they wouldn't be in the league. DA and Ronny Thompson disargeed, but I've never seen Snow so worked up. Granted, I don't have NBA TV so this is the first I've seen him on there, but I've followed him since his freshman year at State. He was not budging an inch, he was insulted by the notion.

                              I actually recorded this and watched it a couple of times and although he was adament, no one else on the panel, David Aldridge, Rick Kamla, and a current and longtime NBA scout, agreed with him.

                              Snow said that "everyone in the NBA plays hard or they wouldn't be there". The scout countered that there are a lot of guys that are no longer there because they didn't play hard enough.


                              Besides, Eric Snow is the same guy that said that Danny Granger shouldn't be on the All-Star squad this year and got worked up when NBATV's host Andre Aldridge disagreed with him. After Danny was named to the All-Star team by the coaches, Aldridge ribbed Snow about it a little, which I definitely enjoyed.

                              Comment

                              • #75
                                Re: Tbird analysis: An in depth study of Tyler Hansbrough

                                Ok, Ok, Ok, I feel it is my Duty as an Adoring Pacer Fan that I put The Hanbrough Argument to Rest For Good. As A DUKE BLUEDEVIL FAN, I Believe that there is absolutely no one more entiltled to hate Hansbrough Than I am. But my Reasons for hating him at UNC is the Exact Same Reason why I cant wait to see him Play (and Start) with the Pacers. He Gave a Dominant Effort on a Consistant Basis.
                                OH YEAH WE GOT TYLER HANSBROUGH!!!! WAIT A MINUTE....IM A DUKE FAN

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
                                Working...
                                X