RealGM

What's Portland's plans on keeping this guy? Do y'all have the cap space to do so? Also is the guy a solid option as a true center?
From the outside I see an athletic guy that is a rebounding machine that would work well in Dallas. Is he a good defender?
Im a mavs fan and really have this guy on the radar for the mavs to get this offseason.

bbfan4life wrote:What's Portland's plans on keeping this guy? Do y'all have the cap space to do so? Also is the guy a solid option as a true center?
From the outside I see an athletic guy that is a rebounding machine that would work well in Dallas. Is he a good defender?
Im a mavs fan and really have this guy on the radar for the mavs to get this offseason.

Not a good defender. Offensively and as a rebounder he'd be great next to Dirk though. Wonder what kind of money he would demand. I'm not sure I want to keep him but that obviously depends on the price. We have cap space but might want to use it otherwise. Also depends on who we draft/if we draft.

He wants to play PF and he has said as much. He's not a real Center, and I don't think he will sign with a team that intends to play him there full time. He's not a great defender, but more than solid offensively and as a rebounder. He's an excellent option as a starting PF somewhere

Personally I think hes the 3rd best player on this team,
or atleast tied. Hickson is very consistent and pretty
much is a double-double machine, plus he is still young.
Its true hes not the best defender, but hes not horrible.
Hickson is going to want more money so I doubt he will
be back. I for one will miss him, hes a sure bet to get
around 10-15pts & 9-15rbs a night and lots of energy.

hickson is a great hustle player with some actual skill in his game as well. if he were 7 foot and blockin shots as well as getting garbage points and being a rebounding machine he would be here long term. but the fact is hes maybe 6'9 and does nothing defensively outside of rebounding, but i cant really dis his defense because hes clearly playing out of position.

i would love to have someone step up for the starting 5 role so hickson could go be the first big off the bench, as i think his playing style could be great coming off the bench as well as what he is already doing in the starting 5. hes really the 4th or even 5th option with the starting 5, he would easily be a number 1 option off the bench and a guy who has proven can get buckets when the offense is ran through him like he did when LA went down last year.

anywho if you need a pretty good starting PF who will get you double doubles every night but all star worthy play, he could be your man if the price is right. i personally wouldnt give him more than the max MLE since he isnt really a game changer as he is a blue collar glue guy out on the court

Has Hickson ever mentioned if he'd mind coming off the bench? Or what about even long term as the first big off the bench? I really like Hickson and would be really sad to see him go, but I think in the end he goes else where to be a starting PF on a bigger salary as well

Mr Odd wrote:Its true hes not the best defender, but hes not horrible.

As a center his defense ist pretty horrible.

He and Wes Matthews are the hustle of the team. Kaman and OJ Mayo (and I believe Rodrigue Beaubois) have been mentioned on this board as potential targets.

Hickosn puts up empty stats. The teams production with him on and off the floor are virtually the same. (Portland actually rebounds better with him off the floor) He wants to play PF, and wants to start. I can't see any way Portland re-signs him. He is a below average defender. Hickson is one of those players that fans have a huge range of feelings on. I don't like him, others think he is amazing because of his numbers

I would give anything if Portland could find a trade partner at the deadline for him

Jack wore plaid wrote:Hickosn puts up empty stats. The teams production with him on and off the floor are virtually the same. (Portland actually rebounds better with him off the floor) He wants to play PF, and wants to start. I can't see any way Portland re-signs him. He is a below average defender. Hickson is one of those players that fans have a huge range of feelings on. I don't like him, others think he is amazing because of his numbers

I would give anything if Portland could find a trade partner at the deadline for him

I think there's a less then 50-50 chance he'll be a Blazer next season. Probably less then 40%. However, I'd rate the chances of him being traded before the deadline as less then 5% (those percentages directly from my colon, so handle at your peril)

I'd guess having the option to S&T Hickson this summer will have more potential value then anything Portland could get for him in the next 2 weeks

but I also think the "empty stats" stuff is bogus. I've asked people before to support that argument and all they'll do is point to some team numbers that lack any relevant context

for instance, in all the +/- categories, the relevant context is that the two starters who spend the most time playing with majority 2nd unit players are Hickson first, and Batum second. So guess which players have the worst +/- among the starters....yes, Hickson and Batum. No coincidence

as far as rebounding, 13 of the 20 five-man units the Blazers use have rebound rates over 50%. Of those 13 units, Hickson is part of 9 of them. And of course, since the starting unit is so dominant in terms of floor minutes, any other unit will likely have skewed numbers. And since the starting unit has exactly a 50% rebound rate, the potential for skew is even higher. The starting unit has logged 55% of Portland's floor time. That's almost certainly the highest in the NBA.

the most played unit without Hickson is the Lillard-Matthews-Batum-Aldridge-Leonard combination. Well, that unit has logged just 0.7% of Portland's total floor time. Trying to extrapolate any trends from a unit that has played less then 1% of the floor time is pointless (to put that in perspective, over a 48 minute game, that unit would be on the floor for 20.1 seconds!)

as a matter of fact, only 22% of Portland's floor time is when Hickson is not on the floor. 78% of the time, Hickson has been on the floor. That's too large a gap to have a very substantive basis for comparison. That would be like trying to compare a PG like Lillard logging 37 minutes a game against starters to a 2nd unit PG averaging 11 minutes a game against other 2nd units. There would be no valid statistical comparison

Wizenheimer wrote:

as a matter of fact, only 22% of Portland's floor time is when Hickson is not on the floor. 78% of the time, Hickson has been on the floor. That's too large a gap to have a very substantive basis for comparison. That would be like trying to compare a PG like Lillard logging 37 minutes a game against starters to a 2nd unit PG averaging 11 minutes a game against other 2nd units. There would be no valid statistical comparison

Hickson has played 1430 minutes so far this season. The Blazers have played 2387. Sorry, that's not 78% of the minutes played this season.
Am also not sure where you're seeing Hickson has played more time with bench players.

cucad8 wrote:

Wizenheimer wrote:

as a matter of fact, only 22% of Portland's floor time is when Hickson is not on the floor. 78% of the time, Hickson has been on the floor. That's too large a gap to have a very substantive basis for comparison. That would be like trying to compare a PG like Lillard logging 37 minutes a game against starters to a 2nd unit PG averaging 11 minutes a game against other 2nd units. There would be no valid statistical comparison

Hickson has played 1430 minutes so far this season. The Blazers have played 2387. Sorry, that's not 78% of the minutes played this season.
Am also not sure where you're seeing Hickson has played more time with bench players.

82 games

and I was using their 5 man units which accounts for injuries to different players. Should have said 22% of credited floor time for their 5 man units

22% of time, but they didn't count all the lineups, seems like a flawed stat if they don't have all of the minutes in there, no?
Also you go through those 5 man units, and you get all the way down to 13 before Hickson is in a lineup with more than one bench player. I don't see where you are getting Hickson has spent more time with bench players than someone like, say, Aldridge to give him a negative rebound split, but Aldridge a positive one.
It's also funny you blame it on bench minutes when, when it was brought up, you were saying it was likely because when he left the game, good rebounders came in. Those same good rebounder he's be playing alongside, no?

cucad8 wrote:22% of time, but they didn't count all the lineups, seems like a flawed stat if they don't have all of the minutes in there, no?
Also you go through those 5 man units, and you get all the way down to 13 before Hickson is in a lineup with more than one bench player. I don't see where you are getting Hickson has spent more time with bench players than someone like, say, Aldridge to give him a negative rebound split, but Aldridge a positive one.
It's also funny you blame it on bench minutes when, when it was brought up, you were saying it was likely because when he left the game, good rebounders came in. Those same good rebounder he's be playing alongside, no?

you're right...I probably went off half-cocked about those numbers

the irony is I believe the "hollow" stats stuff about Hickson is based upon the same source for a negative rebounding differential for Hickson...isn't that true?

it's probably a good idea to be skeptical about any of those on-court/off-court numbers, and I may over-use them myself

I'd still like somebody to make the case for Hickson's alleged hollow rebounding numbers.

for a gauge of validity, 82games also compiles on-court/off-court numbers for defensive pts/100 possessions. Guess who has the best differential on the Blazers?...Nolan Smith. Guess who has the worst...Batum. So obviously, Nolan is a better defender than Batum. Using the same template, Freeland is a better defender then Aldridge while Pavlovic is a better defender then Matthews. I find all that just about as credible as the rebounding differential for hickson

well, if you want to try to compare Nolan to Batum, instead of Hickson's on/off #s, then feel free. You're obviously not looking for a serious discussion if you think the tiny amount of minutes played for Nolan compared to Batum shows an issue with those #s. However, Hickson has a 60/40 split of minutes on and off the court, and has played the majority of his minutes with 3 other starters on the court.

cucad8 wrote:well, if you want to try to compare Nolan to Batum, instead of Hickson's on/off #s, then feel free. You're obviously not looking for a serious discussion if you think the tiny amount of minutes played for Nolan compared to Batum shows an issue with those #s. However, Hickson has a 60/40 split of minutes on and off the court, and has played the majority of his minutes with 3 other starters on the court.

I'm perfectly willing to have a serious discussion as soon as somebody explains what "hollow" rebounding numbers are and how Hickson's rebounds qualify as such. I This isn't the first time I've asked for people to support that assertion.

maybe you'd be willing to try

People usually call a stat empty when it doesn't lead to anything, I guess? So empty points might be a player scoring 20 a night, but his team losing, or them being better when he is off the court. That someone else would easily fill that void if he wasn't there doing it. Define empty as you will, I suppose.
With Hickson, while his TRB% is great, it's odd that with such a high TRB%, the team is better with him off the court rebounding. You don't see that too often with great rebounders. Generally, if you are a dominant rebounder, your team will suffer slightly when you leave the court, and your opponents will benefit. Yet Hickson off the court shows Portland as a slightly better rebounding team. No other player in he top 10 of TRB% has his team get better when he leaves the court, rebounding wise. You argued before it is because the other players on our team are decent rebounders, with Leonard, Freeland, Babbitt, and Jeffries all over 10, LMA at around 14. So there might not be the dropoff that another team might experience with a worse bench. But Evans has a few good rebounders in Blatche, Lopez, Humphries. Faried plays with quite a few good rebounders. Yet they're 5% better TRB when he's on the court. Without the big dropoff of his bench guys.

If he was making a huge positive impact, then you would think our team would suffer greatly when he left the court, and we don't.

cucad8 wrote:People usually call a stat empty when it doesn't lead to anything, I guess? So empty points might be a player scoring 20 a night, but his team losing, or them being better when he is off the court. That someone else would easily fill that void if he wasn't there doing it. Define empty as you will, I suppose.
With Hickson, while his TRB% is great, it's odd that with such a high TRB%, the team is better with him off the court rebounding. You don't see that too often with great rebounders. Generally, if you are a dominant rebounder, your team will suffer slightly when you leave the court, and your opponents will benefit. Yet Hickson off the court shows Portland as a slightly better rebounding team. No other player in he top 10 of TRB% has his team get better when he leaves the court, rebounding wise. You argued before it is because the other players on our team are decent rebounders, with Leonard, Freeland, Babbitt, and Jeffries all over 10, LMA at around 14.

to be accurate, the stat I pointed at was the +/- on-court/off-court differential. Points per possession. Not rebounds

So there might not be the dropoff that another team might experience with a worse bench. But Evans has a few good rebounders in Blatche, Lopez, Humphries. Faried plays with quite a few good rebounders. Yet they're 5% better TRB when he's on the court. Without the big dropoff of his bench guys.

according to the 82game stat, Hickson has a -0.8% net effect on total rebounding

by the way, Utah is a better rebounding team then Portland, but Millsap is -2.9% and Jefferson is -4.0%

Freeland has a +3.2, but I'd guess you'd say sample size. I would wonder what Freeland's superior rebounding differential has "lead to" though. Ronnie Price has -0.3 number so Portland is a better rebounding team with Price on the floor, according to this stat, then they are with Hickson. It's a trade off though since Portland has a much better assist differential with Hickson. Price for rebounds, Hickson for assists...hmmm

Portland is +3% better in assists when Lillard is on the court. But they are 5% better when Hickson is on the court. That evens out though because Portland is a better shot-blocking team with Lillard on the court. hmmm again

you said the numbers should "lead to something" otherwise they might be empty. Yet, when I read your post you made no connection to where Hickson's positive rebounding numbers led to versus to where his negative on/off differential led to. Seems like the assumption is that the 0.8 negative on/off differential in Hickson's case overrides the fact that he's top-10 in the league all 3 rebounding-rate categories. In other words, unless I'm missing something, the only thing you've shown that's being led to is that differential stat itself, nothing further

just listing how various players rank in that differential doesn't seem to be enough since the circumstances for every team are different.

you did allude to something I can agree with...that being that plugging in another player into Hickson's role might yield better results. I think that could be the case even if player X was a significantly weaker rebounder because a lot of the other aspects of Hickson's game are not that impressive, especially on the defensive end. Portland may very well be a better overall team but I wouldn't expect them to be a better rebounding team

cucad8 wrote:If he was making a huge positive impact, then you would think our team would suffer greatly when he left the court, and we don't.

maybe there's more to the game then just rebounding

again, I don't have a problem is people suggest that Hickson's overall net effect is negative. I don't really agree with it, but it's a valid position to hold. I was responding to the narrower idea about impact of Hickson's rebounding.

bbfan4life wrote:What's Portland's plans on keeping this guy? Do y'all have the cap space to do so? Also is the guy a solid option as a true center?
From the outside I see an athletic guy that is a rebounding machine that would work well in Dallas. Is he a good defender?
Im a mavs fan and really have this guy on the radar for the mavs to get this offseason.

Somebody confirm the details of Hickson contract for me. If he gets traded this season, he loses his Bird rights, correct?

Assuming that is the case, he seems like a prime candidate for a sign and trade in the off-season. Keep playing him big minutes, proving his worth. That seems like a win-win for both Hickson and the Blazers.