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

The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Originally posted by BnG
    The stretch 4 is simply never going to be the best answer for that position . . . . calling for the death of the traditional 4 at this point is a bit premature.
    Let's focus on this. Because I would hope everyone would agree with it.

    Some of us allow that players with Murphy's abilities and limitations are best used as O'Brien uses him, and that spreading the floor is a good thing (though it can be bought at too high a price).

    But I hope that nobody -- not O'Bird or flox or anybody -- is saying they despise the more traditional enforcer role of the power forward.

    Is anybody?




    .
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

    Comment


    • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
      Let's focus on this. Because I would hope everyone would agree with it.

      Some of us allow that players with Murphy's abilities and limitations are best used as O'Brien uses him, and that spreading the floor is a good thing (though it can be bought at too high a price).

      But I hope that nobody -- not O'Bird or flox or anybody -- is saying they despise the more traditional enforcer role of the power forward.

      Is anybody?




      .
      Or that a guy with a jump shot can't also be an enforcer.

      I'm all for having Dale Davis develop a consistent 18-20 foot jumper while not losing his big, mean, nasty edge. I mean the guy played in the NBA for how many years? (15? 16?) You'd think some coach would have had him taking 1,000 jumpers a day over that time. 15 years is enough time to learn how to shoot a jump shot, even for an adult.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
        Let's focus on this. Because I would hope everyone would agree with it.

        Some of us allow that players with Murphy's abilities and limitations are best used as O'Brien uses him, and that spreading the floor is a good thing (though it can be bought at too high a price).

        But I hope that nobody -- not O'Bird or flox or anybody -- is saying they despise the more traditional enforcer role of the power forward.

        Is anybody?




        .
        Not me. The game has evolved however to a point where you can have either be successful in the league.


        @BlueNGold

        Frye + Dragic was a key reason why the Spurs finally lost the Suns this year. Don't look at his overall PPG, look at his impact per series. Okur going down also was bad- the Lakers had problems vs stretch fours and didn't have to really face a good one till the Phoenix series- and Jeff Green still provided a challenge to the Lakers. We're talking about Jeff Green here.

        When we look at stretch fours we lament how bad their defense is, but even if we take your extreme example of 2 points per 1 scored in the case of Okur (highly doubtful, otherwise he would never see the floor), then you are going by points scored on offense vs points allowed on defense, without registering impacts on offensive flow and spacing that leads to more points scored in offense. I think ignoring that part is a mistake

        Comment


        • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          I was going by the listed starters only...
          If you look at the guys who played starters' minutes you get a more accurate view of how much the stretch big is being used in today's game. You listed nine teams that won at least fifty games - that should be ten, since you left out the Thunder. Of those ten, only Boston, Atlanta, and Denver don't give starter's minutes to a stretch big; and Sheed got sixth man minutes for Boston, still pretty important.

          Your opinion is that only Dallas should be doing it, but obviously the coaches and front offices of the successful teams feel differently. I also note with interest that Al Harrington was signed by Denver this month; if you play him with Melo, which seems likely for significant minutes, then you've got another team on the bandwagon.

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Take Frye at Phoenix. Dude shoots 45% and 44% from 3 in the regular season scoring over 11ppg. Great year for a so-so player. The playoffs he goes 35% and 34% from 3 for 8ppg...with a bit more time on the floor. Not exactly a stellar performance helping a team contend, particularly when he's no defender. I simply don't see him adding much to that run. If that guy is the future, the future is simply not very bright.
          Obviously Gentry disagrees with you, since his minutes went UP in the playoffs. Shooting %s almost always go down in the playoffs; but 34% is still pretty good shooting from three, especially if you're the fourth option. Remember that the point is to keep a defender from clogging the lane when you want Stoudemire getting to the rim, and if you're shooting 34% from the arc you're definitely going to get attention. If you got that many points on twos for the same usage, you'd be over 50% shooting - that's good production.

          Now you need to make up your mind what your argument is. Originally it seemed to be that a system that extensively uses a stretch big can't advance in the playoffs, or possibly can't "sniff" a ring. Frye plays starter's minutes and they went to the WCF. Oden plays starter's minutes and they won it all. Rashard plays starter's minutes (while Brandon Bass was buried), and they went to the ECF.

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Also, people singing praises to Okur are the funny ones. For every point he scores, he gives two up. Yes, he's a good shooter and a savvy player but there is nothing more to his game and he's not raising a team up to be a contender
          "Gives two up"? That's rhetoric. Again, obviously the coach disagrees with you. Sloan must think that Okur helps their team (you're not claiming that he's being forced to play him, are you?); he gets the fourth-most minutes, and he's been a fixture in his role for several years now. You were just claiming that Sloan is possibly the best in the game - have you changed your mind?

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          ... Sheed. Great player. ...but more compelling are his numbers the two years he made it to the finals as a Piston Those were the two years he shot less threes than any other year in the last decade...yet even more important is the fact he still had more field goal attempts in those two years than any year except one in the last decade.
          We'd better break this down a bit. First of all, we're talking about two different coaches; it's true that Wallace's three-point attempts (and his %) went up with Flip as opposed to Larry. But it would be hard to argue that the Pistons weren't successful those three years; they won 64, 53, and 59 games, and went to the ECF each year.

          Now are you seriously claiming that they didn't win the ECF those three years because Rasheed Wallace shot more threes?! You're contrasting the two years they went to the Finals with the other years. If that is so - and I don't see what else you could be arguing - then I don't agree; again, I think that you're putting too much of a burden on one guy's production. I think that a much more significant factor was that they didn't play as good team defense, but they also played three exceptional teams those three years.

          And, not so by the way, Wallace took 55 threes out of 125 shots in the playoffs this year, on a team that went to the finals.

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          While a perimeter threat from the 4 spot is a very good thing...calling for the death of the traditional 4 at this point is a bit premature.
          Huh? Who's "calling for the death of the traditional 4"? Where did that come from? Why would you - or I - want to have only one kind of player? Today's more wide-open game both requires players who have a range of skills, and a wide range of players on a team. It's much harder to hide a guy who can't shoot or isn't quick to rotate now, so athleticism is at a premium, and shot-creation is more important than ever, so you need guys who can make things happen.

          Like Lamar Odom...

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Also, as for Odom, he made one three in the entire series with Boston and shot LESS of them percentage-wise than in the regular season.

          ...and to your point, if it was such a successful strategy, why would both of these guys reduce their attempts during the playoffs?
          This is worth looking at, and it's especially useful to look at what happened in the Lakers' different playoff series, because they were different from one another.

          First the big picture: in the regular season, under 25% of Odom's attempts were threes. In the playoffs, over 21%. I think most observers would still say that's a high percentage, though you're right that he took a lower % in the playoffs. But the sample size is pretty small - for him, out of 191 FGA's, 41 were threes, meaning that if he'd taken fewer than seven more he would have equalled his regular season output. That's not a lot of difference, and indeed if the Utah series had gone six games and the Phoenix series four, rather than the other way around, that would have been a good bet.

          The playoff opponents all decided to defend him differently, and his attempts reflect that. Utah was more likely to concede the three and stop the drive; Phoenix chased him off the arc but they couldn't contain him, and he got loose, put it on the floor, and took a lot of twos; Boston, whose defense extends better than anyone else's (their bigs need less help) chased him off the arc AND contained him off the dribble, same as in 2008.

          NBA defenses, especially playoff teams' defenses, can take away the effectiveness of just about anything the offense throws at them; it's only an offense that can make shots on second and third options, and can scramble without falling apart, that can score and win in the playoffs. Utah wasn't going to let Odom beat them off the dribble, Phoenix wasn't going to let him beat them from the arc, and Boston wasn't going to let him beat them, period. Those were all decisions that the coaching staffs made. They could have put five guys on Kobe and shut him down completely - the point is that to win you've got to make the defense "pick its poison." Nice metaphor...

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          IMO, Kendrick Perkins is Lamar Odom level talent but is the opposite type....that represents a traditional "big" that might be available to a contender. Who would you rather have next to Gasol or Garnett? Odom the proverbial stretch 4 or Perkins?
          I think that there aren't only two types. I think that the better a player is, the more unique he's likely to be.

          You've come a long way in a couple of posts, by the way; in your first post you said that the Lakers didn't use a stretch four at all, and now by your reckoning they have the proverbial one.

          The answer to your question, of course, is simple: what did the Celtics actually DO last summer? They got Rasheed. In other words, they didn't decide between Perkins and a stretch big; they also didn't go out and get another Perkins. If you want to win you need guys who can do different things.

          (I love Perk, by the way, and would rather have him than Odom, provided of course that the knee heals; I think Tom Thibodeau is right that he's the best post defender in the league, and if he hadn't gone down they would have won it. C'est la guerre.)

          :
          Last edited by O'Bird; 07-23-2010, 03:48 PM.
          :

          "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

          "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

          "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

          Comment


          • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
            Let's focus on this. Because I would hope everyone would agree with it.

            Some of us allow that players with Murphy's abilities and limitations are best used as O'Brien uses him, and that spreading the floor is a good thing (though it can be bought at too high a price).

            But I hope that nobody -- not O'Bird or flox or anybody -- is saying they despise the more traditional enforcer role of the power forward.

            Is anybody?




            .

            it all depends on who the center is and maybe even who the small forward is. I wouldn't want a traditional power forward (for this discussion lets say Dale Davis) with a center such as Kendrick Perkins (defensively it would be great) but I just feel that at one of the big positions you need an offensive threat, whether it is at the low post or out on the floor. If you had Dale and Kendrick for example, it might be able to work if if the 3 other positions were great offensively, no weaknesses. Also if you had a big coming off the bench to maybe shoot from the outside, then it might work.

            I remember back when the two Davis' were on the Pacers, I liked when they did play together because of the defense, but I always looked to make sure the other 3 positions had offensive players. Pacers could not play the two davis' with Woody, Reggie and mcKey. That is just two many players defensives didn't have to worry about, and with zone rules today, it would be much more difficult

            The question is what is Roy exactly. His best skill is passing, he's a decent shooter, a decent low post player. I don't know if a Dale Davis offensively would be good alongside Roy, defensively it would solve a number of problems.
            Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-23-2010, 03:35 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              Some of us allow that players with Murphy's abilities and limitations are best used as O'Brien uses him, and that spreading the floor is a good thing (though it can be bought at too high a price).
              There might be other ways to use him, but it's hard to imagine him being used better - he's incredibly productive. I think that you could argue about the price, if you are referring to salary; I wouldn't pay him over the midlevel.

              A poster recently accused him of dogging it on defense; that's fantasy, and it pisses me off when people make up crap like that. He doesn't have length for his height, or quick hops, or good lateral movement, or great anticipation, or some other useful defensive traits, but he is not lacking heart or the willingness to get physical. He goes and gets the ball for his team. Isn't that something fans should appreciate - because I bet his teammates do.

              Larry Bird called him MVP for a reason, or rather for more than one reason - he's telling his team you need to work on your game, you need to come to play every night, you need to play your role, because that's what Troy does. Give the guy a break. While you're at it, give Larry a break.

              The coaching staff created a role for Murphy when he came here that is distinctly different from his last team. They refined it in 2009 to the point that his game was not only highly productive but unique in league history; and last year they expanded it. Coaching staff needs to get credit for this, and fans should take their blinders off.

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              But I hope that nobody -- not O'Bird or flox or anybody -- is saying they despise the more traditional enforcer role of the power forward.

              Is anybody?
              I'm surprised this question needs to be asked.

              :
              :

              "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

              "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

              "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

              Comment


              • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
                A poster recently accused him of dogging it on defense; that's fantasy, and it pisses me off when people make up crap like that. He doesn't have length for his height, or quick hops, or good lateral movement, or great anticipation, or some other useful defensive traits, but he is not lacking heart or the willingness to get physical.
                How many Pacers games did you watch last year?
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                  Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
                  A poster recently accused him of dogging it on defense; that's fantasy, and it pisses me off when people make up crap like that. He doesn't have length for his height, or quick hops, or good lateral movement, or great anticipation, or some other useful defensive traits, but he is not lacking heart or the willingness to get physical. He goes and gets the ball for his team. Isn't that something fans should appreciate - because I bet his teammates do.
                  Danny Granger was the primary player accused of dogging it on defense. That's reality. If Murphy has really been giving it his all on defense, he's the single worst defensive player in NBA history. If that's the case, he's just so bad it looks like he isn't trying.
                  "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                  -Lance Stephenson

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                    Originally posted by flox View Post
                    Not me. The game has evolved however to a point where you can have either be successful in the league.


                    @BlueNGold

                    Frye + Dragic was a key reason why the Spurs finally lost the Suns this year. Don't look at his overall PPG, look at his impact per series. Okur going down also was bad- the Lakers had problems vs stretch fours and didn't have to really face a good one till the Phoenix series- and Jeff Green still provided a challenge to the Lakers. We're talking about Jeff Green here.

                    When we look at stretch fours we lament how bad their defense is, but even if we take your extreme example of 2 points per 1 scored in the case of Okur (highly doubtful, otherwise he would never see the floor), then you are going by points scored on offense vs points allowed on defense, without registering impacts on offensive flow and spacing that leads to more points scored in offense. I think ignoring that part is a mistake
                    I am not ignoring that factor and have thought quite a bit about it. It is an important one.

                    I hope you are not ignoring the fact a PF who plays within 15 feet tends to cause more contact, gets the opposition in foul trouble and has a much better chance for offensive boards. Defending that guy inside the paint is very tiring...boxing him out and keeping him off the boards is tiring. It is simply more tiring to defend than to play on offense...if you are doing a good job...because you have to react to what the offense is attempting to accomplish. This causes the bigs on the other end to foul more and wears them down as the game progresses. As players tire, they make mistakes and they become frustrated...so there is a mental aspect to all of this. As the frontcourt gets tired they do not move as briskly and it becomes easier for the guards to drive the lane for easy buckets...and more fouls. It all builds as the game goes into the 4th quarter. These are just some of the reasons I think launching 3's by the PF comes at an extremely high cost that is being discounted by many here.

                    Now, if we want to talk Rasheed Wallace, I'm with you. I still don't think his perimeter game is a major reason he was a great player. It probably did make them a little better with Big Ben in the middle, but I believe a midrange game ala Antonio McDyess would have been just as good.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      it all depends on who the center is and maybe even who the small forward is. I wouldn't want a traditional power forward (for this discussion lets say Dale Davis) with a center such as Kendrick Perkins (defensively it would be great) but I just feel that at one of the big positions you need an offensive threat, whether it is at the low post or out on the floor. If you had Dale and Kendrick for example, it might be able to work if if the 3 other positions were great offensively, no weaknesses. Also if you had a big coming off the bench to maybe shoot from the outside, then it might work.

                      I remember back when the two Davis' were on the Pacers, I liked when they did play together because of the defense, but I always looked to make sure the other 3 positions had offensive players. Pacers could not play the two davis' with Woody, Reggie and mcKey. That is just two many players defensives didn't have to worry about, and with zone rules today, it would be much more difficult

                      The question is what is Roy exactly. His best skill is passing, he's a decent shooter, a decent low post player. I don't know if a Dale Davis offensively would be good alongside Roy, defensively it would solve a number of problems.
                      In the context of the Pacers, it's clear they need a long, mobile PF who patrols the paint to maximize Roy's skills. Many people compare Roy to Smits. Roy has a low post game, but otherwise the comparison is not the worst one you can make...and considering Dale worked extremely well with Rik...I think he would fit with Roy. Of course, good luck finding another Dale. I think a Garnett-like player would work well with Roy...even if the player was no all-star.

                      In any event, I am not fond of 4's who play like 3's. It reminds me too much of the WNBA.
                      Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-23-2010, 11:11 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                        Or a deal would have been done. We were everyone's Plan C. That's not interest, that's asking your sister to prom in case the hot chick and weird chick fall through.
                        FTW
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                          One final question for the Murphy fans. Why are the Pacers trying to unload him? A great stretch 4 like Troy might be able to be resigned for pocket change considering other GM's don't seem to be interested. Also, he spreads the floor for Roy to post up. Why would you want to lose the chance for them to develop together?

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            One final question for the Murphy fans. Why are the Pacers trying to unload him? A great stretch 4 like Troy might be able to be resigned for pocket change considering other GM's don't seem to be interested. Also, he spreads the floor for Roy to post up. Why would you want to lose the chance for them to develop together?
                            My single greatest fear is that they will re-sign him. I'm not kidding I would not be suprised to see this guy back on the team whenever play resumes after the lockout (if there is one).


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

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              I hope you are not ignoring the fact a PF who plays within 15 feet tends to cause more contact, gets the opposition in foul trouble and has a much better chance for offensive boards. Defending that guy inside the paint is very tiring...boxing him out and keeping him off the boards is tiring. It is simply more tiring to defend than to play on offense...if you are doing a good job...because you have to react to what the offense is attempting to accomplish. This causes the bigs on the other end to foul more and wears them down as the game progresses. As players tire, they make mistakes and they become frustrated...so there is a mental aspect to all of this. As the frontcourt gets tired they do not move as briskly and it becomes easier for the guards to drive the lane for easy buckets...and more fouls. It all builds as the game goes into the 4th quarter. These are just some of the reasons I think launching 3's by the PF comes at an extremely high cost that is being discounted by many here.
                              Of course, this doesn't matter of the opposing big likes contact and loves to absorb it and loves to take charges, and is much better as a post defender. In this case, I'd like to have the stretch big. Because you are more likely to defeat Perkins by making him close out and defend the perimeter than you are down low. And if bigs have poor closeouts they will draw fouls too. The rest of your fatigue argument applies here. I don't agree with your assessment that post play is better because of fatigue reasons. Unless you think closeouts aren't tiring- or are you willing to give up open three's to perimeter bigs?

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              In the context of the Pacers, it's clear they need a long, mobile PF who patrols the paint to maximize Roy's skills. Many people compare Roy to Smits. Roy has a low post game, but otherwise the comparison is not the worst one you can make...and considering Dale worked extremely well with Rik...I think he would fit with Roy. Of course, good luck finding another Dale. I think a Garnett-like player would work well with Roy...even if the player was no all-star.

                              In any event, I am not fond of 4's who play like 3's. It reminds me too much of the WNBA.
                              Ignoring the last part which is rhetoric, we are much more likely to find a person who can cover Murphy's defense (average shotblocker, ok post defender, heck, Theo Ratliff fits the mold) than we are to find someone who covers Hibbert. The best PF's on this market were Scola, Gooden, Boozer, and Haslem, and they don't fit the mold to well. We could have had Petro, Haywood, Brown, Wallace, Darko, JO, Kurt Thomas, etc.

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              One final question for the Murphy fans. Why are the Pacers trying to unload him? A great stretch 4 like Troy might be able to be resigned for pocket change considering other GM's don't seem to be interested. Also, he spreads the floor for Roy to post up. Why would you want to lose the chance for them to develop together?
                              Well, last year he was not expiring, this year he will be expiring- that changes the value- and he was option b incase the Tawn Jamison deal fell through. Otherwise, the other contending teams all had their stretch fours already locked up and didn't need another one-looking at your list only a few teams did not have stretch fours, and of those, Atlanta could not trade for one since they couldn't match salaries well ( we were NOT going to take bibby) and Denver didn't have salaries that matched well either.

                              No losing team would trade for a stretch four when trying to lose. I doubt that he will get a contract for less than 4-5 million after this season assuming no lockout- since a team like Miami, the Lakers, Boston, etc will all have interest in getting a stretch forward.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold
                                I hope you are not ignoring the fact a PF who plays within 15 feet tends to cause more contact, gets the opposition in foul trouble
                                Is it a fact? Certainly there are examples. But it isn't a consistent rule. Look at this chart:




                                This is 3-pt attempts and free throw attempts per 36 minutes for every NBA forward that played 500 or more minutes last season.


                                If what BnG says were a hard rule, you'd see some forwards with lots of free throws and few 3-pt attempts (in the upper lefthand corner) and other forwards with lots of 3pt attempts and not many free throw attempts (in the lower right hand corner).

                                I don't see any very clear diagonal pattern here. It is more of a wide scatter, which suggests there is every kind of combination. There are plenty of forwards who don't do much of either thing (lower left corner).


                                Danny Granger is the gold dot. Murphy is the red one, and there are 70 NBA forward who get to the line less often than he does (on a per 36 minutes basis) despite his camping out at the line.


                                Jason Kapono is the purple diamond. He's the guy who never finds contact. (He's on of the three. I forget the other two, but they are marginal guys.)


                                I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I just thought it would be interesting to test whether forwards who take fewer or no threes tend to get more free throw attempts.
                                Last edited by Putnam; 07-25-2010, 07:23 PM.
                                And I won't be here to see the day
                                It all dries up and blows away
                                I'd hang around just to see
                                But they never had much use for me
                                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X