A (Statistical) Truth About Mike Bibby

[jaywalker72]

I absolutely didn't take it personally---thought they were good points and why I wanted to respond.

Bibby's AST% is going to be the lowest of that group because they didn't have to endure the endless iso plays and dribbling the Hawks employ--lol---I figured the categories, punched in the numbers and out popped the results. Taking the eFG to .500 and expanding the field to include all ages and experience showed that this wasn't an exclusive club. Jay Humphries, Dana Barros, and a number other luminaries appeared in the some 142 instances of these thresholds since 1981-1982.

I like those ideas too mrh---I am afraid of the time I would spend on that site if they expanded the functionality of that tool. Yikes!

[TroyMcClure]

it isn't hard to tell how bad Bibby is at defense since the Hawks are putting JJ on high scoring pgs because Bibby can't stay in front of them.

Feel free to share the starting pgs that you think are worse defensively than Bibby.

It's funny you say that. Seems only a few years ago that I was told Joe couldn't handle most pgs defensively. Especially the quick, scoring ones. I would really like to know how you marry these opposing ideas.

[exodus]

It's funny you say that. Seems only a few years ago that I was told Joe couldn't handle most pgs defensively. Especially the quick, scoring ones. I would really like to know how you marry these opposing ideas.

Where exactly did i say JJ could handle quick pgs?

[Sothron]

So is Steve Nash and he won MVP.

On his way to the Finals and a ring...oh wait...guess you really do need defense.

[Admin]

On his way to the Finals and a ring...oh wait...guess you really do need defense.

Yeah, because it was the lack of defense from Steve Nash that cost them and not David Stern.

[Sothron]

Yeah, because it was the lack of defense from Steve Nash that cost them and not David Stern.

David Stern cost them a ring? Not a complete lack of defense starting from the team leader in Nash or the inability to make shots late in the fourth when it mattered?

[Admin]

David Stern cost them a ring? Not a complete lack of defense starting from the team leader in Nash or the inability to make shots late in the fourth when it mattered?

I suggest you go back and watch that series if you really have to question why the Suns lost.

[Sothron]

I suggest you go back and watch that series if you really have to question why the Suns lost.

Which series are you referring to? The Suns got put out in the early or second round of the playoffs every since Nash got back there so which one is it? If you are talking about the one where Nash got bumped by Horry then Stern did what was in the rules. He even said he didn't want to do it but it was the rules. The owners after that season had the chance to change that rule and they kept it just the same even after what happened to the Suns.

[atlien]

David Stern cost them a ring?

Actually I'd argue it was the Sun's cheap ownership that cost them a ring.

A Nash-JJ-Marion-Amare squad wouldve won at least 1, and maybe more.

But, they let JJ go, and the rest is history.

[drzachary]

Which series are you referring to? The Suns got put out in the early or second round of the playoffs every since Nash got back there so which one is it? If you are talking about the one where Nash got bumped by Horry then Stern did what was in the rules. He even said he didn't want to do it but it was the rules. The owners after that season had the chance to change that rule and they kept it just the same even after what happened to the Suns.

Yeah, the blame is on the rules, not Stern, but his point was that the Suns team that year was Finals-quality, had it not been derailed by the suspensions.

[exodus]

Which series are you referring to? The Suns got put out in the early or second round of the playoffs every since Nash got back there so which one is it?

Huh? They made the WCF two years in a row, once without Amare.

[Sothron]

Huh? They made the WCF two years in a row, once without Amare.

I thought it was just once they made it? The point still stands that Nash's back to back MVP rings meant nothing because they didn't even make it to the Finals because they played zero defense, Nash especially. He's the worst defensive point guard in the entire NBA and Bibby isn't that far behind.

[exodus]

I thought it was just once they made it? The point still stands that Nash's back to back MVP rings meant nothing because they didn't even make it to the Finals because they played zero defense, Nash especially. He's the worst defensive point guard in the entire NBA and Bibby isn't that far behind.

Their defensive efficiency was better than ours last year. They got to the WCF with Boris Diaw as their starting center. If anything the 05-06 season validated Nash's MVP since they won 54 games and made the WCF without their leading scorer.

http://www.nba.com/suns/history/0506_recap.html

There is no way that Nash is as bad as Bibby defensively. When you look at opposing pgs scoring they didnt have field days against Nash like they did against Bibby. I remember specifically Jason Terry going off against Houston and then struggling to score against Nash in the next round. Nash has never been as bad defensively as people seem to believe. The Suns defense hasn't been any better when Nash leaves the court regardless of who has been backing him up.

In contrast the Hawks have given up 6 more ppg consistently since Bibby got here.

[Sothron]

Their defensive efficiency was better than ours last year. They got to the WCF with Boris Diaw as their starting center. If anything the 05-06 season validated Nash's MVP since they won 54 games and made the WCF without their leading scorer.

http://www.nba.com/suns/history/0506_recap.html

There is no way that Nash is as bad as Bibby defensively. When you look at opposing pgs scoring they didnt have field days against Nash like they did against Bibby. I remember specifically Jason Terry going off against Houston and then struggling to score against Nash in the next round. Nash has never been as bad defensively as people seem to believe. The Suns defense hasn't been any better when Nash leaves the court regardless of who has been backing him up.

In contrast the Hawks have given up 6 more ppg consistently since Bibby got here.

What was their rating pre and post Porter? Its no secret they didn't play as hard on defense once Porter was fired and the players couldn't stand him for making them accountable for defense.

Nash is flat out the worst defensive point guard in the NBA. Bibby is horrible on defense but Nash is the worst.

[exodus]

What was their rating pre and post Porter? Its no secret they didn't play as hard on defense once Porter was fired and the players couldn't stand him for making them accountable for defense.

Nash is flat out the worst defensive point guard in the NBA. Bibby is horrible on defense but Nash is the worst.

LOL Porter wasn't their coach when they made the WCF not once but TWICE. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Just because a team plays at a fast pace doesn't mean they are bad defensively. The Suns played at a fast pace and that gave their opponents more opportunities to score. Simple minded people look at the opponents ppg and assume the Suns were bad defensively.

In Nash's first year with the Suns teams shot 44.5% against them, 33.5% from 3. They beat this years Hawks in each category so if the Suns sucked at D what does that say about the Hawks?

Any guy that carries his team to the conference Finals without their leading scorer and with Boris Diaw as the starting center is obviously deserving of the MVP.

Edited July 8, 2009 by exodus

[Dsinner]

Boris Diaw as the starting center is obviously deserving of the MVP.

Despite his horrible defense. Yet Bibby sucks at PG because he can't play D. Also speaking of simple minded when looking at a players D, I'd suggest not going by how many points PG's scored on Nash vs Bibby. Most of our opponents points from that position came because of our switching Defense. Not real fair to make Bibby accountable for when Al is getting schooled by the opponents PG.

[exodus]

Despite his horrible defense. Yet Bibby sucks at PG because he can't play D. Also speaking of simple minded when looking at a players D, I'd suggest not going by how many points PG's scored on Nash vs Bibby. Most of our opponents points from that position came because of our switching Defense. Not real fair to make Bibby accountable for when Al is getting schooled by the opponents PG.

The Hawks don't have to switch before the other team even crosses half court. However the Hawks will frequently have someone else guarding the pg because Bibby can't.

Since the trade the Hawks have consistently given up 6 ppg more when Bibby is playing. Good luck finding another starting pg with a similar number.

[AHF]

Despite his horrible defense. Yet Bibby sucks at PG because he can't play D. Also speaking of simple minded when looking at a players D, I'd suggest not going by how many points PG's scored on Nash vs Bibby. Most of our opponents points from that position came because of our switching Defense. Not real fair to make Bibby accountable for when Al is getting schooled by the opponents PG.

Except that part of the reason is that Bibby can't stay with his man through a pick. Also, Bibby would have to have points scored by Paul Pierce and others counted against him if you employ that standard.

Anyway, I think it is enough to say that we know Bibby is a defensive liability but that he brings enough to the floor in the way of ball control and perimeter shooting that this is a trade off we are willing to live with in the short-term. We have drafted Teague to be a more athletic, dynamic defender in the future and will need to develop him over the course of this year so he can assume more responsibility next season.

[Dsinner]

The Hawks don't have to switch before the other team even crosses half court. However the Hawks will frequently have someone else guarding the pg because Bibby can't.

Since the trade the Hawks have consistently given up 6 ppg more when Bibby is playing. Good luck finding another starting pg with a similar number.

We don't switch strictly based on Bibby's D. I can't tell you how many times Al ended up on the opponents PG and we got burned for it. There is no way we switched to take Bibby, as bad as his D is, off of the PG so that our C could guard him. \

Again you're throwing up a team stat to blame Bibby. In fact, what is that stat for every one of our starters?

[Dsinner]

Except that part of the reason is that Bibby can't stay with his man through a pick. Also, Bibby would have to have points scored by Paul Pierce and others counted against him if you employ that standard.

Again, we do not switch so that Al guards their PG nor do we switch so that Bibby can guard Pierce. We switch because Woody is an idiot.

Edit: To the point...I still think saying "player X's defense is better than player Y's defense because PG's scored more points on player Y's TEAM than did player X's TEAM" is simple minded as well. WAAAAY to many other factors to consider.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Dsinner