Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > NBA Team Forums > Philadelphia 76ers Forum

Philadelphia 76ers Forum Philadelphia 76ers forum - 76ers message board - Sixers fan forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-19-2006, 11:19 PM   #16
ppierce34
High school junior varsity star
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 576
ppierce34 has an OK reputation so far
Default

I really don't think it's that big of a difference in pure stats and in watching, and I think it's less of a difference when you still consider the fact that even with Webber on the bench the team is still absolutely terrible defensively, so what problem have you really solved? You put Hunter in there he still doesn't hit the defensive glass hard enough and doesn't defend the pick and roll properly either. Shav is fundementally sound on D, but lacks the strength and makes far too many rookie mistakes which lead to foul trouble. The defense is in no way 10 times or immensely better. Better, sure, but it's a stupid argument to have when that better is still terrible.
ppierce34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2006, 09:04 AM   #17
hot97x
Can barely lace up my sneakers
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8
hot97x has an OK reputation so far
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ppierce34
No, not immensely. Actually not even close to imensely. Going from **** to poop isn't anything special.

http://www.82games.com/0506/05PHI13D.HTM

Check out his on/off court stats. The defense got better, but nothing special.

6 point difference? are you kidding? that's not immensely? a 6 point difference per 100 possessions is 5.3 points per game. That would mean instead of being the 6th worst defensive team, they would be the 17th worst defensive team. that's going from bad to middle of the pack, average, certainly not "poop".





Quote:
Originally Posted by ppierce34
Well if you're gonna ***** about his %, at least get it right. He shot just under 44%. Not good for a big man, but better than what you say. And I worry less about his % and more about his shot selection at times.

you're right, it wasn't 41%, it was actually 43.4%, and as you said still terrible for a big.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ppierce34
He had a little over 2 TO's a game, give me a break, there are plenty of other things you can ***** about.
You're *****ing about a brain fart, hell AI as good as he is has those, too.

webber averaged 2.4 a game. and AI is the point guard, he handles the ball all the time. Webber doesn't handle the ball all the time. The point is he tries to handle the ball way too often and it costs the team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ppierce34
You're exaggerating, he's not the player he was, but he's more than just a role player.

exaggerating about what? certainly not the example of him stepping inbounds before the inbound pass. He's a guy that can score sometimes and pass sometimes, other than that he doesn't do much. That sounds like a role player to me.

to further make my point, the team FG% allowed is 5.4% better with him off the court. That's a huge number. Even the team rebounding rates are better with him off the court. Comparatively the offensive stats are improved with him on the court, however they do not come close to outweighing the defensive improvement with him off the court. Why would you give me the link to his on court/off court stats when you had to have seen that it backs up my argument that they are better off without him?

Last edited by hot97x : 07-20-2006 at 09:09 AM.
hot97x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2006, 12:30 PM   #18
hot97x
Can barely lace up my sneakers
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8
hot97x has an OK reputation so far
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ppierce34
I really don't think it's that big of a difference in pure stats and in watching, and I think it's less of a difference when you still consider the fact that even with Webber on the bench the team is still absolutely terrible defensively, so what problem have you really solved? You put Hunter in there he still doesn't hit the defensive glass hard enough and doesn't defend the pick and roll properly either. Shav is fundementally sound on D, but lacks the strength and makes far too many rookie mistakes which lead to foul trouble. The defense is in no way 10 times or immensely better. Better, sure, but it's a stupid argument to have when that better is still terrible.

Sixersfan is correct, as i mentioned in the post previous to this one, the sixers ranked 6th worst (25th best) in opponents points per game with Webber, whereas without him they would have been ranked 17th worst (14th best). I would say that 14th best is far from "still terrible". In fact it's better than average, instead of being in the bottom 20th percentile, they would have been in the 55th percentile. As anyone can see this is without a doubt immensely better. When you ask what problem you solve, well now your an above average defensive team rather than a bad one. Also as mentioned above they also rebounded at a higher % both offensively and defensively without Webber.

To further make my point, the sixers were 5-2 in the 7 games that CWebb didn't play. In comparison, they were 3-7 in the 10 games that Allen didn't play. I realize no one here is comparing the two, but it is clear to me that the team is better off without CWebb, reguardless of who they put in his place, assuming it's someone already on the roster. I also believe that the fact that Chris still thinks he is a superstar hurts this team tremendously.
hot97x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2006, 01:16 PM   #19
ppierce34
High school junior varsity star
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 576
ppierce34 has an OK reputation so far
Default

Quote:
Sixersfan is correct, as i mentioned in the post previous to this one, the sixers ranked 6th worst (25th best) in opponents points per game with Webber, whereas without him they would have been ranked 17th worst (14th best). I would say that 14th best is far from "still terrible".

I used that as a sample size. Now please honestly tell me that they would have been a middle of the pack defensive team with Hunter starting instead of Webber? I'd love to hear it. Hunter is terrible on the defensive glass, mostly because he has the same problem as Sam in that he doesn't box out. Hunter also doesn't defend the pick and roll properly, like Webber and Sam and is often out of position like Webber and Sam. Would it be better defensively yes, but they still wouldn't be a middle of the pack defensive team. They'd still suck, let's come to reality. That's a small sample size of when Webber's not off the court. In the games Webber missed(not counting the last 2, which were garbage games AI missed as well), they still let up 97-100 points in all but 1 game. They still wouldn't be a good or even average defensive team without Webber, they'd still suck because the perimeter defense would still be poor as would the interior and despite him being an average rebounder, Webber is better than Hunter on the defensive glass. Despite what the stats say, Hunter grabs almost as many offensive rebounds as defensive. Hunter is terrible on the defensive glass.


Quote:
To further make my point, the sixers were 5-2 in the 7 games that CWebb didn't play. In comparison, they were 3-7 in the 10 games that Allen didn't play. I realize no one here is comparing the two, but it is clear to me that the team is better off without CWebb, reguardless of who they put in his place, assuming it's someone already on the roster. I also believe that the fact that Chris still thinks he is a superstar hurts this team tremendously.

Actually it doesn't prove much, because 7 games is a small fraction of the season and two of those games were garbage games that AI missed as well in the last two games of the year. Webber does still think he is a superstar and has a fragile ego, but despite his horrid defense, the team would not be any better without him on the court and replaced by Hunter or Randolph, they'd still suck and probably a bit more as despite his ineffeciency shooting the ball(43% isn't nearly as bad you make it out to be)he opened up the offense for others, mainly Iverson.

It's fine to say Webber isn't as effective as he should be or he's not the player he thinks he is, but the team is not better without him. I guarntee that team doesn't win any more games with Hunter and Shav rotating his minutes, I'd feel safe to say they'd lose more. They'd still be a poor defensive team and the offense would take a hit, while Iverson wouldn't have the pressure taken off of him and would have to face more numerous double teams.
ppierce34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2006, 04:47 PM   #20
hot97x
Can barely lace up my sneakers
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8
hot97x has an OK reputation so far
Default

alright pierce, i don't know if you even watch sixers games, but ill satisfy your request. THE SIXERS WOULD BE AN AVERAGE DEFENSIVE TEAM WITHOUT CHRIS WEBBER. You tried to use stats to say the difference wasn't that big and i turned them around on you and showed you how using YOUR stats that they are a much better defensive team without chris. you don't wanna believe it that's fine. i watch every sixer game and it is painfully obvious that reguardless of hunter and shav's shortcomings, the defense is far better with them in there than webber. even when hunter is out of position he has the quickness to recover and make up for bad plays with blocks. webber has neither of these abilities and gets picked apart even worse in pick and pop situations because of his inability to recover.

Furthermore webber is always the last player back on defense and in basketball, bigs gotta get down the floor unless you have good defensive players around them that know how to rotate and recover. Webber is the only player on the team with absolutely NO ability to rotate on defense, which is a MUST when you only have one good perimeter defender (iggy). Making the matter worse is that Allen gambles so often for steals that you need EVERYONE to be able to rotate. Webber is not able to rotate, he's not able to close out, he's not able to move quickly within a short area, something both Hunter and Randolph can do.

Also, if the sixers still gave up 97-100 points in all the games that Webber missed except 1, they won all of those games except 1 (because you excluded the final 2). Doesn't that mean that the offense apparently did just as well with him than without since they would have had to score 100 points or more to win those games? So i guess that doesn't say much about your argument for him on the offensive end does it? Whichever way you look at it, I've used every stat you've given so far against your argument for why Webber helps the sixers.

P.S. Anyone else's thoughts on this matter since me and pierce keep going back and forth?
hot97x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2006, 05:34 PM   #21
ppierce34
High school junior varsity star
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 576
ppierce34 has an OK reputation so far
Default

I just typed out a response and the ****ing board ****ed up.

Anyway, bottom line. Neither Hunter nor Shav are good enough defensively to make up for hte shortcomings of the rest of the team defensively. And no Hunter does not rotate properly or defend the pick and roll properly, Shav does, but he can't manage to stay on the court long enough due to foul trouble, his lack of strength would also be a negative factor.

As for not getting back up court, Sam is just as bad or worse than Webber. He walks the majority of the time or is posing for the crowd or camera because Sam thinks once he blocks the shot the play is over. As for Webber being the only one to rotate properly, I don't know what you are talking about, the only Sixer big man to consistently rotate properly is Shav. Sam is probably the worst one of all as he won't even step out to defend the shot if the man pulls up.

As for the offense argument, 5 games being a small sample size, they were 3-2 in that span jumping around from 85 or 89 to 107. The offense was inconsistent and two of the high scoring games came against teams arguably as bad or worse defensively in Seattle and Washington.

Yes, the defense is terrible with Webber, but no way are Hunter and Shav good enough defensively to make that team average defensively. On offense, Webber is frustrating, but there is no denying he opens things up on offense, specifically for AI, which then in turns open things up for everyone else. Much like Korver does for AI.
ppierce34 is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:48 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy