Hibbert Revisited
In March 2007, as the Musselman Kings slouched toward a late-lottery selection, I made the case for Roy Hibbert. Before Hawes, the Kings obviously needed to draft a big; before Hibbert dropped out of the draft, he looked like the destined fellow.
Here's a slice of what I wrote back then:
This season was a failure for a couple reasons: poor shooting, poor rebounding, poor defense. Why is this all a problem? There's no center on this team. [Brad] Miller hasn't been a decent rebounder, defender, or inside scorer for a couple years. Shockingly, most teams depend on a center to rebound the ball, anchor the defense and provide shotblocking, and score at a high percentage. Miller's calling card to All-Star status was money shooting and incredible passing/playmaking. ...
He's clearly valuable with respect to his passing, his table-setting, his screens, his somewhat clever team defense, and his unhoggish offense.
But he can't be a winning team's starting center, I'm convinced, unless he has an incredibly studtastic frontcourt running mate who can rebound and block shots and man up on opposing bigs and score down low.
Miller rebounded in 2008 -- like, he was a decent rebounder. And his defense picked up a notch in the early season. And his shot came back for a little while. But he's still in the twilight -- no one could argue that -- and his heir, Spencer Hawes, looks a bit similar to him in fashion (though a worse passer/shooter and a better finisher at this point). It can be reasoned that Hawes will be the Miller of the next great Kings team: the heady, confident, high-post type. (I think Shareef Abdur-Rahim is the closer comp to Hawes, actually, but that's neither here nor there.)
In the eyes of many, Hibbert has regressed since we last considered him. Certainly, his production wasn't better in 2007-08 than it had been in the 2006-07 Final Four season. But it's basically similar: 13.4 points, 6.4 reb, 2.2 blocks in 26 minutes ... for a senior. Looks bad, doesn't it?
Toss those per-game and per-minute numbers out the window and consider tempo. Georgetown ranked #316 out of #344 NCAA Div I teams in pace this season. (The figure was similar in 2006-07.) Only four tournament teams played slower basketball (and most of them play the Princeton, too). The Hoyas play incredibly slow, which deflates the number of offensive and defensive possessions, which places an artificial ceiling on per-game and per-minute stats.
In fact, Hibbert -- despite recording only 6.4 rebounds a game -- was one of the best rebounders in the nation. He captured 11.5% of all available offensive rebounds, and 17% of all available defensive rebounds. (His numbers were similar in 2006-07.)
His 2.2 blocks a game become more impressive when you account for tempo, too: he blocked a whopping 9.8% of opponent shots. His size and instincts are unquestionable, and those also helped him remain high in the ranks for shooting percentage, foul-drawing, and not turning the ball over.
Go back to Hawes: what does he project to struggle with? Man defense, rebounding. HMM.
Really, there are almost no objective, data-driven concerns when it comes to Hibbert. Everything you want a big to do -- shoot well, rebound well, defend well, protect the ball, draw contact -- he does.
The negatives with Hibbert are all subjective. Like:
- He's fat and slow.
- He's old.
- He doesn't have upside.
Hibbert's hardly fat -- his conditioning could use some work, but so could Chuck Person's. Don't judge! The coaching staff currently in place might have some deficiencies, but running the hell out of their players in the training camp isn't one of them.
The fact that Hibbert's a senior might cause consternation ... until you realize he's still 21 years old. This isn't one of those old seniors, like Al Thornton. This guy started school at 17, and has played a full four years.
As such, you'd have to think DeAndre Jordan will improve enough in three years to catch up with Hibbert, while Hibbert doesn't improved, to justify refusing Hibbert on the basis of his "lack of upside" alone. It's a bit silly when you really think about it.
I'm not endorsing Hibbert over D.J. Augustin or Anthony Randolph. Heck, I might not even endorse him over Marreese Speights. But I'd honestly be thrilled with a Hibbert choice at #12. The evidence suggests he'd be a terrific match for the Kings.
1 recs |
42 comments
Comments
Good post
Good post educating us on a player I don’t know much about.
by Carl on
Jun 19, 2008 10:37 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
very insightful post
nice work, TZ. i have had a lot of issues with hibbert, but you really addressed them when you brought up georgetown’s pace. the fact that you said he’s actually a very good rebounder and shot blocker, yet does not blow anyone away with his athleticism makes me think of poor man’s tim duncan; i guess we couldn’t really go wrong with that.
you say you’d be thrilled if the kings picked up hibbert…do you envision both he and hawes on the floor at the same time?
by sactoreg on
Jun 19, 2008 10:44 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I do, absolutely. Hawes seems more of a shooter than he was billed to be at draft-time (not skill-wise, but preference). And Hawes (an average rebounder right now) seems to get his boards when there’s no question he should get them—he doesn’t get boards out of his zone. Hibbert does. And Hawes is a surprising help-defender (those blocks on Gasol, I’m thinking) whereas Hibbert’s strengths (in college, at least) come in straight-up man.
Also, I’m an unabashed Georgetown fan as a Catholic (1) from suburban Maryland (2) who loves the Princeton offense (3).
by Ziller on
Jun 19, 2008 10:58 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Suburban MD?
Where?
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on
Jun 19, 2008 3:15 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Cal Ripken’s hometown, over on the east side of the Bay.
by Ziller on
Jun 19, 2008 3:41 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ahh, Havre de Grace
Nice.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on
Jun 19, 2008 6:58 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He was a Rookie
Hawes had a great rookie year i thought. Big men usually take time to develop and he looks pretty good already – clearly an NBA keeper. Lets not get too hasty looking ahead…
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on
Jun 23, 2008 1:23 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The NBA Trend
The trend in NBA big men is getting physical and faster and demands more speed, athleticism and defensive ability to succeed. Tall, slow guys need not apply.
You basically have teams playing two power forwards or a power forward and a small forward or two and 2-3 guards. True centers like Gasol and Shaq are becoming dinosaurs.
That argues against taking someone like Hibbert, Ajinca or Robin Lopez (and possibly Speights) and more towards someone like Randolph if he falls to us. Of course, if he falls to us, then you have the other nagging questions as teams have reportedly not been thrilled with his workouts.
I think Artest can man the 4 if we pick up a combo forward. I still wish Alexander would fall to us, but that’s probably not the case. Maybe we can move to the No. 8 or No. 9 range?
by coolcatreportdotcom on
Jun 19, 2008 11:02 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Gasol's a 4
He played the 5 (and Odom the 4) because Bynum was hurt . He’ll be back at the 4 next year when Bynum’s back. This is also why you’ll see a lot of stories coming out of LA about getting a better shooting & defending 3, because those are not Odom’s strengths (although that’s a bit off-topic).
Anyway, I wouldn’t lump Gasol in with Shaq.
by smgmatt on
Jun 19, 2008 11:29 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Teams have recently been successful with or without a true center. Gasol and Odom basically sucked every game Kendrick Perkins played in, right?
by Ziller on
Jun 19, 2008 12:47 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I’d be more pissed if we drafted Hibbert than I was when we drafted Hawes (which in hindsight was a good pick afterall). Hibbert just does not look like a guy who would be productive in the NBA. He’s a bust wating to happen IMO, which is obviously based on subjective crap rather than stats I know, but he’s a total stiff, a tall stiff with a funny shaped afro. I would be very dissappointed if we took Hibbert at 12
I wanted to adopt, but all the good looking babies were taken
by joeytothelimit on
Jun 19, 2008 11:28 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Seriously … no rationale beyond “Hibbert just does not look like a guy who would be productive in the NBA” and “he’s a total stiff, a tall stiff with a funny shaped afro”? I’m not asking for much here.
by Ziller on
Jun 19, 2008 12:42 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Question
How much of that slow Georgetown pace was because of Hibbert? Or alternatively, is that why he went there?
I’ve seen a lot written about him thriving on a team (like Utah) that favors the half-court set, so maybe you cannot simply write off his low numbers due to the pace of play in Georgetown, but rather understand that he simply is built for that type of pace.
I’m not convinced he’s the right player for the Kings at 12, but if a guard fell and he was the result of our two 2nds, I wouldn’t cry about it.
by smgmatt on
Jun 19, 2008 11:34 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Just about every other team which runs the Princeton offense (including, um, Princeton!) is at the bottom of the tempo rankings. I’d imagine the bulk of the reason Georgetown plays slow is because of the offensive system.
No way to really prove it, though.
by Ziller on
Jun 19, 2008 12:46 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hibbert’s decision to go to Georgetown pre-dated the hiring of JT III, so he didn’t go there to play the Princeton offense.
by Maeve on
Jun 19, 2008 12:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
an illusion?
Subjective? The guy has had four year to developed his body (get in shape) and it hasn’t happened. Will it ever? You can’t teach athletic ability, and heart. What you see is what you get with Hibbert. I’m just glad some of you aren’t GM’s!
by deepnu666 on
Jun 19, 2008 12:16 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
What I see is … the miles of objective rationale I posted above. He has DOMINATED with that body.
Kevin Martin and Brad Miller didn’t look like professional ball players out of college either.
by Ziller on
Jun 19, 2008 12:44 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dominated?
13 and 6 and an earlier-than-expected exit from the NCAAs is not exactly dominating.
by coolcatreportdotcom on
Jun 19, 2008 12:59 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
My post, I think, explains why 13&6 is not the tool to assess this.
by Ziller on
Jun 19, 2008 1:26 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
usually the players that “dominate” at the collegiate level dont stay there for 4 years, they come out early. he’s already developed his body while at Georgetown, he’s plateaued somewhat, so their doesn’t seem to be much more projection there to expect. He screams limited upside to me. We need more athleticism on this team, not to mention a PG! before more size IMO
I wanted to adopt, but all the good looking babies were taken
by joeytothelimit on
Jun 19, 2008 5:37 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agree
He is what you see, a good NBA back-up.
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on
Jun 23, 2008 1:26 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Back to Back regular season BE championships is dominating. Ask Thabeet if he felt dominated. He sure looked it.
by Maeve on
Jun 19, 2008 1:14 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
And Thabeet Will be Taken With What Pick?
Big East was weak this season.
by coolcatreportdotcom on
Jun 19, 2008 1:25 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thabeet would be a lottery pick if he came out.
by Ziller on
Jun 19, 2008 1:27 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Lottery Pick Might Be A Stretch
The mock drafts before he decided to opt out of the draft generally had him going anywhere from 10-25. Here’s one at the low end. DraftExpress ranks him 10th among sophomores, just ahead of Robin Lopez.
by coolcatreportdotcom on
Jun 19, 2008 3:26 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How is lottery pick a stretch if the consensus had him going as high as 10?
by Ziller on
Jun 19, 2008 3:41 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How many
guys in the draft would you take before Thabeet? I have 10 for sure on my list. After that I would lump him in with about a half dozen guys that could fill out the last four lottery slots. The Kings would have had to have given him a long hard look were he available at #12.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on
Jun 19, 2008 4:00 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, I think he’d be in the Arthur-Alexander-Speights-Hibbert zone. I think other teams more prone to freak athlete bigs would be higher on him.
by Ziller on
Jun 20, 2008 10:04 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hibbert's not THAT bad
I’m sure he has the makings of being a solid defensive threat in the NBA. At 7-2 with a wide wingspan and the willingness to get on the inside and grab boards/block shots, I have a feeling Hibbert’s going to be one of those dirty-work, role players. I predict Hibbert’s going to be something like an 8 boards/points per game and 2 blocks per game guy… sort of like a poor-man’s Marcus Camby.
by CloudyEyes on
Jun 19, 2008 1:32 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
8-8-2
I must say, that’d be a pretty solid guy to have as a 3rd big. Probably not a cornerstone . . . but a good team has a guy like this coming off the bench.
I might just talk myself into trading up for him with the 2nds even if we luck into Love/Randolph at #12.
by smgmatt on
Jun 19, 2008 1:58 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Still if Randolph was on the board at 12, you just don’t pass up that possibility. To get an athletic 4 with tremendous upside that can rebound, block shots and score inside and out is a premium. I think his motor will come with age and maturity.
BOOK IT!
by kingme18 on
Jun 19, 2008 2:01 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Hibbert
I think that there is a lot of bad information regarding Hibbert, the same type of “information” that paints Hawes as Brad Miller when he is really much more athetic than B52 (of course, I may be much more athletic than B52).
Is Hibbert any slower than Vlade? No. Well, we were a pretty up and down team with Vlade and somehow he meshed.
Limited upside? I hear this same thing about B.Lopez. But wouldn’t that also mean that he has limited downside? That is, worst case he is a serviceable pro, while a guy with upside (say, DeAndre Jordan) might never develop a pro game.
I like Hibbert and I think that he would be a good fit here. But I still have 12-13 guys that I like better, that being the 10 guys that we’ve already selected as well as B.Lopez, Speights and maybe Gallinari…and maybe Donte Greene.
Can we please, please, please trade Salmons and our 2nd round picks for a top 22 pick? I would love for us to land Westbrook/Augustin/Alexander at #12 and then come back and get Hibbert/R.Lopez/Speights/Jordan/Arthur/Ajinca.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on
Jun 19, 2008 3:03 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I'll second this
well said
Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott
by Kfan in Korea on
Jun 19, 2008 5:14 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
this makes more sense for me anyway
Hibbert in the 20-24 range, okay, but not with the 12th pick, that’d be an overdraft for a career bench role player IMO
I wanted to adopt, but all the good looking babies were taken
by joeytothelimit on
Jun 19, 2008 5:23 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hibbert's a Bum
Hibbert would be an absolute disaster…he actually might be less athletic than Joe Klein…I went to a number of Georgetown games this year (I was living a few blocks from the Verizon center in DC) and he, frankly, was almost non-existent in big games, and even when he was around he just looked like a black version of shawn bradley. They played teams where the tallest player on the other team was 6-foot-6 and Hibbert couldn’t do anything because of lack of athleticism/quickness and lack of bulk. It would be a disaster having Hibbert on the Kings….
by Out of Service Pervis on
Jun 19, 2008 5:32 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
You just guaranteed
that Hibbert will have 2-4 huge games a year – whenever he plays against us.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on
Jun 19, 2008 6:07 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hibbert couldn’t do anything because of lack of athleticism/quickness and lack of bulk. It would be a disaster having Hibbert on the Kingsthat’s what i’m afraid of
I wanted to adopt, but all the good looking babies were taken
by joeytothelimit on
Jun 19, 2008 5:40 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
wow, i fail
I wanted to adopt, but all the good looking babies were taken
by joeytothelimit on
Jun 19, 2008 5:40 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Gtown
Hey, Wizards fan here. Thought I’d share my opinion since I’ve seen Hibbert play plenty.
A huge concern has to be his athleticism and conditioning. This is not, however, a subjective concern. The data shows that even at one of the slowest paces in all of college basketball JT3 had to monitor his minutes. I can’t speak to the Kings pace but given the shorter shot clock in the league its going to be an issue.
Another concern regarding athleticism is that he is essentially a 7’2 280lb center who plays below the rim offensively. His lack of explosion or leaping make it easier for smaller players to challenge his shot. Once he steps on the floor in the NBA he’ll no longer be the biggest kid on the playground anymore. He also has “trouble finishing through contact” according to DX.
He draws fouls not through over-aggressiveness but because he is a step slow laterally. He’s not going to be an above average help defender due to foot speed. This comes into play when he plays defense away from the basket too. Louisville made a nice run on them here at VC by running their offense through Padgett in the high post area. So you know NBA teams are going to run pick and rolls at him as soon as he steps on the court.
He’s 21. I don’t consider that old but it does point out that he’s a bigger, stronger guy who’s been putting up these numbers on smaller younger opponents. Can he do the same against longer, quicker bigs?
I actually do think he has upside that I’ve haven’t seen mentioned. He played tentatively at Gtown in part because he picked up fouls so easily and the main defense against him was for the defender to take contact, any contact, and fall down. Once he is in the NBA it will be eat or be eaten. He can bring the full power of his frame to bear on the defender, if he knows how. He’ll see more one on one defense in his first month than he did at Gtown all season. Its up to him to take advantage of it.
Any post pick at 12 or beyond in this draft comes with warts. I’d probably go with Speights there myself. I also think its hard to ignore Koufos’ athleticism and skill set at his size.
by Jheiser3 on
Jun 20, 2008 6:30 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
why not..
If Westbrook, Augustin and Randolph are gone.. I don’t have a problem drafting Hibbert. He’s not Mutombo but I don’t think he’s Foyle either.
by ZenBaller on
Jun 20, 2008 2:54 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
He's Just Not The Guy
In my opinion. Why are we worrying about Center when we need PF? There are some interchangeable choices, i just don’t think he’s one of them.
eternal skeptical optimist
by lietothegirls on
Jun 23, 2008 1:38 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs













