RealGM

When Hibbert plays 20+ minutes, the pacers are 6-4.
When Hibbert plays under 20 minutes, the Pacers are 0-4.

Not only are the pacers not good enough to win a title now (so they should be working on developing their young big man), they are actually better when he plays big minutes.

Instead of playing small lineups to match teams like Toronto, they should be making the other teams try to handle Hibbert with the likes of undersized/soft players like Bargnani.

What we should do and what O'Brien does do, are two completely different things.

3 games - thats all it took for me to realize the guy was a moron. I called it 3 games into his Pacers career.

^^And you haven't let us forget since.

plustin wrote:When Hibbert plays 20+ minutes, the pacers are 6-4.
When Hibbert plays under 20 minutes, the Pacers are 0-4.

Not only are the pacers not good enough to win a title now (so they should be working on developing their young big man), they are actually better when he plays big minutes.

Instead of playing small lineups to match teams like Toronto, they should be making the other teams try to handle Hibbert with the likes of undersized/soft players like Bargnani.

If only it were this simple.

Roy has to really be efficient offensively in order to make up for what he gives away in some defensive matchups. I would like to see us send the ball low to Roy rather than settle for some of the shots we take and that would seem to fall on O'Brien. But Roy's got to get better. He really struggles with stronger quicker players.

The reality is that Roy is still a work in progress. He needs to get his 20-25 minutes a night for his development to continue and you hope there aren't too many nights when he hurts us. He will tease us with the occasional dominant game.

He can be a liability in some defensive matchups, but I am not sure Shaq could guard Bargnani on the perimeter either. As a coach you have to adjust, not bench your big man.

And Hibbert blocks plenty of shots and forces alot of other shots to go off target. That more than makes up for some of his other shortcomings.

Isnt the only reason roys playing under 20mins because of his foul trouble? Please dont tell me obies been benching him purely for match-ups?

Hibbert creates more matchup problems for his opponents than the other way around most of the time, I think.

To me this isn't even a question. In games in which Hibbert took 7 shots or more and played more than 24 minutes the Pacers are 6-3 (and his box score was fairly impressive). In all other games they are 0-5. What more do you need to know??

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/447 ... Sk_Z_cPaB4

spudmonkey31 wrote:Isnt the only reason roys playing under 20mins because of his foul trouble? Please dont tell me obies been benching him purely for match-ups?

Nope, he has actually done better with fouling less this year. O'brien is trying to do his match-up thing, and it's not working. When Roy has been on the court he has been very impressive for the most part. Does he still get in foul trouble occasionally? Of course, all big men do, but not near as much as last year. I've come to the conclusion that O'brien is just an idiot. I tried giving him the benefit of the doubt, but he just keeps disappointing me with his bone head coaching decisions.

spudmonkey31 wrote:Isnt the only reason roys playing under 20mins because of his foul trouble? Please dont tell me obies been benching him purely for match-ups?

Nope, he has actually done better with fouling less this year. O'brien is trying to do his match-up thing, and it's not working. When Roy has been on the court he has been very impressive for the most part. Does he still get in foul trouble occasionally? Of course, all big men do, but not near as much as last year. I've come to the conclusion that O'brien is just an idiot. I tried giving him the benefit of the doubt, but he just keeps disappointing me with his bone head coaching decisions.

Here's a number for ya:

.337

That's the combined winning percentage of the 6 teams the Pacers have beaten.

Take Boston out of the mix, and it drops to .253.

Here's another number for ya: -28.

That's Roy's +/- in the four games he's played fewer than 20 minutes. He was +7 in the Cleveland game, but was limited with 5 fouls.

In the other three games, he was -6 in 16 minutes, -17 in 13 minutes, and -12 in 12 minutes. Now, admittedly, +/- numbers must be analyzed more deeply to understand their actual meaning. However, since the basic premise of this thread is that Roy is the answer, and that he should have played more minutes in those losses, don't you think it would help that argument if the team wasn't getting its ass kicked when Roy was on the floor in those games?

It's too small of a sample size. When Hibbert is playing well and out of foul trouble, he probably plays more minutes...we probably do end up winning more games simply because we have a low post presence in the game, and his increased availability gives the team more offensive options.

PR07 wrote:It's too small of a sample size. When Hibbert is playing well and out of foul trouble, he probably plays more minutes...we probably do end up winning more games simply because we have a low post presence in the game, and his increased availability gives the team more offensive options.

Exactly my point. My argument isn't that Hibbert is great, but argument is that the pacers are better off with HIbbert in the lineup for 30+ minutes a game.

The problem is that they bench him when he is playing well to go small and they bench him when he gets in foul trouble and they bench him when they face small teams.

With Dunleavy back I assume they will use Hibbert less and less and this team will not get much better.

PR07 wrote:It's too small of a sample size. When Hibbert is playing well and out of foul trouble, he probably plays more minutes...we probably do end up winning more games simply because we have a low post presence in the game, and his increased availability gives the team more offensive options.

Of course, it's too small of a sample size. The entire season is too small of a sample size.

And, of course, we do better when Roy plays well. However, the implication of the OP, and the general tone of the thread is that Roy's minutes fluctuate arbritrarily, and when he doesn't get enough minutes, we lose. However, with the exception of the foul-limited Cleveland game, he hasn't played particularly well in the games where he got short minutes.

While we tend to think in minutes, there's actually another factor that is underrated in effect. Whether or not you start has a big effect on how you approach a game. The games where he's had short minutes are usually the same ones he doesn't start, if I recall correctly. Psychologically you're being told that if you don't start, you are not plan A, and you are not what the team wants. This is especially true when you usually start. However, some players function better off the bench, with the biggest name being Manu Ginobili. His starting +/- and efficiency is better off the bench.

count55 wrote:

PR07 wrote:It's too small of a sample size. When Hibbert is playing well and out of foul trouble, he probably plays more minutes...we probably do end up winning more games simply because we have a low post presence in the game, and his increased availability gives the team more offensive options.

Of course, it's too small of a sample size. The entire season is too small of a sample size.

And, of course, we do better when Roy plays well. However, the implication of the OP, and the general tone of the thread is that Roy's minutes fluctuate arbritrarily, and when he doesn't get enough minutes, we lose. However, with the exception of the foul-limited Cleveland game, he hasn't played particularly well in the games where he got short minutes.

That is true, but young players need time to develop. Maybe not a great example, but Derrick Rose started off tonights game scoring 0 points in first quarter. The coach stuck with him and he ended up with 19-7. O'brien needs to learn patience with hibbert, but it looks like its going the other way and forster will be the new man in the middle for the Pacers.

Foster isn't taking Hibbert's spot. I think it's just a matchup thing against quicker frontcourts like Toronto and Golden State.

There's no doubt that Hibbert needs some development, big men typically take a little longer too. However, Jim O'Brien is trying to win the games, and apparently, that means sitting Roy against quicker frontcourts. Debating whether that's the right move is a different debate entirely.

I think there's a reason Roy sits when he sits. It's either because of matchups, poor play, or foul trouble. If he's playing well and stays out of foul trouble, while not being a liability defensively, he'll get all the minutes he wants.

I just saw this:

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archi ... cond_unit/

O'Brien states:

He is taking a serious look at using Jeff Foster as his starting center over second-year option Roy Hibbert.

"I have to decide whether Jeff should be the guy that starts for us," O'Brien said. "He's so successful in the plus/minus (category) all the time."

The "plus/minus" comment confused me. Looking at 82games it looks like Hibbert has a better +/- than Foster:

http://www.82games.com/0910/0910IND.HTM

Hibbert looks superior or at least on par in almost every metric to Foster.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/2010.html

What is this +/- stat that O'Brien is looking at?

Even the NBA's own +/- tracking shows Hibbert basically on part with Foster.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusminus ... eam=Pacers

Maybe not this season, where Jeff hasn't played many games, but career-wise he's a plus/minus anomaly. He got 2nd place after Granger last season.

Pacers are now 6-4 when Hibbert plays 20+ minutes and 0-6 when he plays under 20 minutes a game.

Foster played a very good game today, but he has no inside offensive presence like Hibbert. Defenses have to double Hibbert when he gets the ball in the low post, especially against some of the smaller centers.

And Hibbert blocks shots and disrupts many others while Foster does neither.