Mike Bibby - Too early to say goodbye?

[Roman]

I think everyone who has been here more than a week or so knows exactly how you feel. It's not even worth arguing any longer. You won't be convinced that your view of Bibby is tainted for whatever reason and it's really getting beyond tiresome to see you make the same comments over and over and over again.

The converse (and completely obvious) statement to this is that:

YOU won't be convinced that YOUR view of Bibby is tainted for whatever reason and it's really getting beyond tiresome to see YOU make the same blanket defenses for him over and over again.

We're KINGS fans.

So am I.

We will support our point guard because he has shown us over the years that he can get the job done.

Yes, in a completely different role. His role has changed and he's never been the type of player that can fill the PG duties very well.

I don't think we're ready to toss him out just because he's having some struggles.

Nor am I. I toss him because I don't think he fits this team anymore and I think this team either has to build around him or move on, but it needs to make a choice. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to build around him because I don't see him returning to the Kings.

It's better to get a PG of the playmaking ability of Andre Miller than to watch Mike Bibby walk away.

 

[DocHolliday]

No matter what position you think Bibby SHOULD be playing, he's playing the point. Period, end of discussion.

He was not the ONLY reason the Kings had succes, but he WAS ONE reason we had success. He has been a big time scorer, and has been clutch many times.

You do not turn your back on someone so easily, who WAS an integral part of a good TEAM, just because he has had an off year, because his shooting stroke has become messed up do to an injury.

His technique will come back, and with it his shot. It will take some time. He shouldn't have played through that injury, He should have rested his wrist, let it heal and come back. At least his technique wouldn't have been messed up.

Everyone knows he's not a typical distributing pg. He still distributes, he just happens to make points to. A lot of PG's do currently in the NBA. There are only a few *Classic* style PG's in the league currently.

 

[VF21]

The converse (and completely obvious) statement to this is that:

YOU won't be convinced that YOUR view of Bibby is tainted for whatever reason and it's really getting beyond tiresome to see YOU make the same blanket defenses for him over and over again.



So am I.



Yes, in a completely different role. His role has changed and he's never been the type of player that can fill the PG duties very well.



Nor am I. I toss him because I don't think he fits this team anymore and I think this team either has to build around him or move on, but it needs to make a choice. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to build around him because I don't see him returning to the Kings.

It's better to get a PG of the playmaking ability of Andre Miller than to watch Mike Bibby walk away.

Whatever...

I find it remarkable that you can continue to berate Mike and yet you and Wheeler03 are doing a tag-team to defend SAR against any kind of negative comment.

I'm not the only one who has called you and your friend about your tiresome SAR homerism. You've actually created more ill will towards Shareef, who probably doesn't deserve any of it, than anything he's done on the court.

Arguing with you is totally pointless. Have a nice day.

 

[VF21]

No matter what position you think Bibby SHOULD be playing, he's playing the point. Period, end of discussion.

He was not the ONLY reason the Kings had succes, but he WAS ONE reason we had success. He has been a big time scorer, and has been clutch many times.

You do not turn your back on someone so easily, who WAS an integral part of a good TEAM, just because he has had an off year, because his shooting stroke has become messed up do to an injury.

His technique will come back, and with it his shot. It will take some time. He shouldn't have played through that injury, He should have rested his wrist, let it heal and come back. At least his technique wouldn't have been messed up.

Everyone knows he's not a typical distributing pg. He still distributes, he just happens to make points to. A lot of PG's do currently in the NBA. There are only a few *Classic* style PG's in the league currently.

Thank you, Doc. That was very well said, IMHO, although I'm sure Roman and/or Wheeler03 will find a way to totally dissect your comments point by point.

Nice job.

 

[Roman]

I find it remarkable that you can continue to berate Mike and yet you and Wheeler03 are doing a tag-team to defend SAR against any kind of negative comment.

I'm not "berating" Bibby so much as dislike him at PG for this current team.

I've said it numerous times - Mike Bibby is like Jason Terry. When he can play that style of game, he's very, very, very, very (very^7) good. When he's needed to be a PG and someone who can effectively distribute the ball in a more traditional set - we're going to have issues just like when Terry was used in that capacity.

It's not coincidence that their careers flourished when they were moved to an off-guard role.

As for defending SAR - yeah, I'm guilty of it. I think he gets undue flack around here and people are so quick to forget that he's a 20PPG guy and was basically doing it last year before his jaw got broken. He's not "the answer" or "the solution", but he's a piece we're ignoring.

I'm not the only one who has called you and your friend about your tiresome SAR homerism. You've actually created more ill will towards Shareef, who probably doesn't deserve any of it, than anything he's done on the court.

That's a mighty bold thing to say for the frailty of the human resolve.

People should like or dislike someone based on how they play and their actions. I promise you, I don't dislike Mike Bibby because you jock him so much.

Arguing with you is totally pointless. Have a nice day.

Argue? I'm just discussing.

I think this team would be better served with a traditional PG. One who can get Artest/Martin/SAR (et al) the ball in positions to score.

I think that is FAR more valuable than getting Mike Bibby shooting 43% again. I think it will do wonders for team chemistry and overall team effort.

When I weigh it in my mind - I see:

Mike Bibby getting better
vs.
Someone who will make everyone else better and have better looks.

If you think Bibby shooting a higher % is key to this team, than do so. I think it's far more valuable to have a guy that can get Martin wide open 3s, SAR wide-open dunks and Artest wide open j's, KT wide open layups, etc,etc,etc. It'll boost everyone.

 

[VF21]

And so, once again, it all boils down to SAR being our savior? Sorry, Roman - but I just don't attend that particular church.

And SAR isn't a 20ppg guy any longer. You're going to have to deal with that, if you can tear yourself away from his quickly fading past...

 

[Larry89]

So the moral of this thread is, Get rid of Bibby, he is only good on good teams. Lets get a pass first point guard.

Woohoo?

 

[zo0mmike]

Bibby is and has always been a point guard, he just happens to be a very good shooter that has proven to make big time shots.

Jason Terry actually played like crap when he was moved to the SG role. Avery Johnson recently admitted to his mistake and has since put the ball back into Terry's hands and he's been playing a lot better.

 

[zo0mmike]

If you think Bibby shooting a higher % is key to this team, than do so. I think it's far more valuable to have a guy that can get Martin wide open 3s, SAR wide-open dunks and Artest wide open j's, KT wide open layups, etc,etc,etc. It'll boost everyone.

It's true that when Bibby is making shots, Kings win.. check out the Bee article today.

Your preferred lineup of Miller, Kmart, Thomas, SAR, Miller certainly won't get anyone wide open looks as Martin would be the only 3point threat to stretch the floor. Andre is a bad outside shooter, KT forgot how to shoot the ball, Miller is oftentimes afraid to shoot the ball and SAR would get double teammed all day because of the lack of 3point threats to stretch the floor.

 

[Roman]

And so, once again, it all boils down to SAR being our savior? Sorry, Roman - but I just don't attend that particular church.

Nor do I. I think I said above that he's not our savior, but he's a piece.

And SAR isn't a 20ppg guy any longer. You're going to have to deal with that, if you can tear yourself away from his quickly fading past...

It's funny how you and Brick say that - but there's absolutely no proof of this.

* Two years ago in Atlanta he was on pace at 20.1.
* On the bench in Portland, averaged 16.8 on 12.5 (1.35 Points Per Shot - which is ... guess what ... right around his career average!)
* Starting in Sacramento, he averaged 16.5 on 10 before the jaw injury. Again right on par with his career averages.
* This year, averaging just under his point per shot, but is being utilized far less than ever.

I don't see any trend other than a decline in usage because teams either:
A) Had a young future PF/SF in Miles/Randolph and SAR didn't fit in.
B) Broke his jaw and KT came in at a fortuitous time to claim the starting role.
C) Have a team that is reluctant to use the post.

Again, he's not the savior.

Nor is Mike Bibby shooting 43%.

Nor is Andre Miller.

But, I think in the short run and the long run - Andre Miller gives this team an indentity that can break from the past. We aren't that team anymore.

 

[Roman]

It's true that when Bibby is making shots, Kings win.. check out the Bee article today.

The stat is skewed. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Mike Bibby dominates the ball, whether we win or we lose. He leads our team in shots most nights. So .... it goes to figure that if Mike Bibby misses shots, we lose.

Your preferred lineup of Miller, Kmart, Thomas, SAR, Miller certainly won't get anyone wide open looks as Martin would be the only 3point threat to stretch the floor. Andre is a bad outside shooter, KT forgot how to shoot the ball, Miller is oftentimes afraid to shoot the ball and SAR would get double teammed all day because of the lack of 3point threats to stretch the floor.

Possibly. There also used to be a time that teams didn't barf up 3point shots left and right and amazingly ... they created good looks and open paint. It's called a midrange shot.

Miller, SAR, Thomas and Martin all have that shot.

The only reason KT was in the lineup is because I don't see Artest being a good boy much longer. His behavior is too much like he was in Indy.

He whined. He talked about how he has to do everything and that he's the prime piece. Then he pulled back saying it was everyone else's team. Then he demanded a trade. Eerily familiar.

 

[VF21]

Nor do I. I think I said above that he's not our savior, but he's a piece.



It's funny how you and Brick say that - but there's absolutely no proof of this.

* Two years ago in Atlanta he was on pace at 20.1.
* On the bench in Portland, averaged 16.8 on 12.5 (1.35 Points Per Shot - which is ... guess what ... right around his career average!)
* Starting in Sacramento, he averaged 16.5 on 10 before the jaw injury. Again right on par with his career averages.
* This year, averaging just under his point per shot, but is being utilized far less than ever.

I don't see any trend other than a decline in usage because teams either:
A) Had a young future PF/SF in Miles/Randolph and SAR didn't fit in.
B) Broke his jaw and KT came in at a fortuitous time to claim the starting role.
C) Have a team that is reluctant to use the post.

Again, he's not the savior.

Nor is Mike Bibby shooting 43%.

Nor is Andre Miller.

But, I think in the short run and the long run - Andre Miller gives this team an indentity that can break from the past. We aren't that team anymore.

Okay. You continue to believe that SAR is capable of 20ppg. I'll continue to look at this team and see a gaping wound at the 4. It's not about Mike Bibby but you cannot seem to discuss this without bringing him in. And, in a thread started about Mike Bibby, you have to find a way to make it about how bad Bibby is and how SAR is the big piece of the puzzle that we haven't seen.

It's just getting silly now. Dissect this post all you like. I can no more argue the specifics with you than I can argue with those who still believe the world is flat.

I'm trying as nicely as possible to keep this civil, so at this point I'm simply not going to be drawn into yet another endless, fruitless discussion of the greatness that is SAR in your mind.

Peace.

 

[Roman]

Okay. You continue to believe that SAR is capable of 20ppg. I'll continue to look at this team and see a gaping wound at the 4.

Gaping wound?

Because we don't have a shotblocker/mega-rebounder, right? To make up for what? Mike Bibby's poor defense and Miller's interior weaknesses.

I don't "believe" SAR is capable of 20, I think it's a given if he's a part of our offense. Give him 15-16 shots a night and he'll give 19-22 PPG. His efficiency suggests this, his play last year suggests this and the minimal times he's been used on offense this year suggests it.

It's not about Mike Bibby but you cannot seem to discuss this without bringing him in. And, in a thread started about Mike Bibby, you have to find a way to make it about how bad Bibby is and how SAR is the big piece of the puzzle that we haven't seen.

No, those are your words.

I think SAR is a piece of the puzzle not being used. Simply because we don't use the post and he's our best post player.

I know that we've been spoiled in years past and we now believe that post-offense isn't needed or warranted ... but that was a special team. A very special team.

I can no more argue the specifics with you than I can argue with those who still believe the world is flat.

Unfortunately, I use statistics, analysis and basketball experience to make my comments which would put me on the "round world" part ... whereas you don't make any argument. You just state something and assume it as fact, because it makes you sleep better.

I'm trying as nicely as possible to keep this civil, so at this point I'm simply not going to be drawn into yet another endless, fruitless discussion of the greatness that is SAR in your mind.

SAR ISN'T GREAT IN MY MIND. He's a 20PPG guy in my mind. He's a guy that plays decent man defense and is a below average team defender. He's an average rebounder when he's involved and when he's not, he's dreadful. That's not great, it's barely above average. There are a lot of
guys that can claim this.

Why do you assume that just because I stick up for the guy that I'm saying he's our #1 or best player or any such thing. I just think we use the post more and we're a better team. SAR/Artest are our only reliable post options.

As for keeping things civil ... I've said nothing to make it uncivil. So, any hostility or anger is coming from your end.
Peace.[/quote]

 

[fnordius]

You do not turn your back on someone so easily, who WAS an integral part of a good TEAM, just because he has had an off year...

Folks might look at it differently if that same off year weren't the one after which he's pretty certain to walk.

I've felt bad almost every time we've let a player go, whether it was to trade, free agency, retirement or whatever. But I have to realize that they're going to do what they feel that they need to.

When was the last time you turned down an attractive job offer because you didn't want to hand over your employer's customers to someone else's care?

To Bibby, we are his employer's customers. If he's not enjoying working with some of his teammates, is less than thrilled with the owners, and the FA market is looking attractive, he is going to walk and that's all there is to it. Loyalty to us is not going to be his top priority. And loyalty to him should not be ours.

I'd like to see us get something for him before it's too late.

 

[BMiller52]

The stat is skewed. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Mike Bibby dominates the ball, whether we win or we lose. He leads our team in shots most nights. So .... it goes to figure that if Mike Bibby misses shots, we lose.

I don't usually agree with Roman, and I don't hate Mike but I do agree with this. It's a good point.

 

[Roman]

I don't usually agree with Roman, and I don't hate Mike but I do agree with this. It's a good point.

<CLAP>

Woohoo! I even said something BMiller52 agreed with.

Everyone duck and cover ... it's the seventh sign of the seventh sign of the apocolypse.

 

[zo0mmike]

Yes Roman, that is true... so when Mike hits a higher percentage of his shots, Kings will win more games. As for downgrading to a less talented and older player just so others can get more shots, wouldn't get us anywhere. Now if it's Bibby for like say Deron Williams.. that's a different story.

 

[VF21]

Folks might look at it differently if that same off year weren't the one after which he's pretty certain to walk.

You don't know that. No one knows that at this point in time.

Sure, if he ends up wanting to exercise the ETO, there will be some people pointing fingers and saying, "See, I told you." But will those same people be as quick to point if he signs an extension and say, "See, I was wrong"...

Sorry but there are very few choices Bibby can make so anyone predicting he'll make one over another at this point is just making a guess on a multiple-choice question.

I doubt if Mike even knows what he's going to do. It's December. He doesn't have to make any kind of decision at this time and, quite frankly, he'd be pretty silly if he did.

 

[Elise10]

Folks might look at it differently if that same off year weren't the one after which he's pretty certain to walk.

I've felt bad almost every time we've let a player go, whether it was to trade, free agency, retirement or whatever. But I have to realize that they're going to do what they feel that they need to.

When was the last time you turned down an attractive job offer because you didn't want to hand over your employer's customers to someone else's care?

To Bibby, we are his employer's customers. If he's not enjoying working with some of his teammates, is less than thrilled with the owners, and the FA market is looking attractive, he is going to walk and that's all there is to it. Loyalty to us is not going to be his top priority. And loyalty to him should not be ours.

I'd like to see us get something for him before it's too late.

Not exactly to the person above but I'd like to ask the following question:

Who is exactly sure that he's going to opt-out? Everywhere I turn people keep posting that he's certainly going to opt-out but I keep reading that Mike wants an extension.

Edit: Someone other than VF....because I've already asked her!

 

[tyrant]

we're gonna have to start accepting that he may not be a king forever. though he is sucking right now, i dont really think he's the root of our problem. its the coaching and a few other bad apples. i would rather we trade bibby before he ops out. at least we'd get something for him. but like everyone else, know one knows what he plans to do

 

[Roman]

Yes Roman, that is true... so when Mike hits a higher percentage of his shots, Kings will win more games. As for downgrading to a less talented and older player just so others can get more shots, wouldn't get us anywhere. Now if it's Bibby for like say Deron Williams.. that's a different story.

Wait - you'd rather one person get better than adding one person who will make everyone on the team better? I don't get it.

Miller gets everyone better/higher percentage looks when he's on the floor.

When Bibby is on the floor and hits his shots, no one else benefits. No one else gets higher percentage shots.

So, Bibby getting better benefits Bibby and makes us marginally better in that we don't have a volume shooter that is shooting us out of every game. Whereas with Miller, we have a player who would get every player on the court better looks and thus the whole team plays more cohesively.

I agree - Deron Williams would be great. But, let's be honest and reasonable. If you're moving Mike Bibby, the reciprocal piece isn't going to be a budding or a current superstar.

I guess it all boils down to whether you think Mike Bibby is going to stay around and whether him staying makes us a better team. I, and this is completely a personal opinion (no inside source), don't think either is a true statement. I think Bibby walks (if he picks his game back up) and in the long run he's the wrong fit for this team.

 

[tyrant]

Wait - you'd rather one person get better than adding one person who will make everyone on the team better? I don't get it.

Miller gets everyone better/higher percentage looks when he's on the floor.

When Bibby is on the floor and hits his shots, no one else benefits. No one else gets higher percentage shots.

So, Bibby getting better benefits Bibby and makes us marginally better in that we don't have a volume shooter that is shooting us out of every game. Whereas with Miller, we have a player who would get every player on the court better looks and thus the whole team plays more cohesively.

I agree - Deron Williams would be great. But, let's be honest and reasonable. If you're moving Mike Bibby, the reciprocal piece isn't going to be a budding or a current superstar.

I guess it all boils down to whether you think Mike Bibby is going to stay around and whether him staying makes us a better team. I, and this is completely a personal opinion (no inside source), don't think either is a true statement. I think Bibby walks (if he picks his game back up) and in the long run he's the wrong fit for this team.

when bibby scores big the kings win. case closed. other players will find a way to get themselves in the game. your best scorer is the man. the guy that will take the shots. no one else on the team is good enough to take more than 5 shots a contest. except ron. martin plays a running game. he'll get himself into the game by getting in the open court.

 

[Roman]

when bibby scores big the kings win. case closed. other players will find a way to get themselves in the game. your best scorer is the man. the guy that will take the shots. no one else on the team is good enough to take more than 5 shots a contest. except ron. martin plays a running game. he'll get himself into the game by getting in the open court.

That's just silly. Really silly.

We win when Bibby scores big because he takes a boat load of shots whether we were going to win or lose. So, he's either going to contribute big or dig us such a hole that MJ couldn't shoot us out of it.

As for no one being good enough to take more than 5 shots a contest ... that's just absurd. Maybe one of the most absurd statements I've read in a while. Congrats. I'm not digging on you, man, but almost everyone in the NBA is good enough to take 5 shots. Let alone players like Martin, SAR and Brad Miller.

Of course, if you want two players who can't create for themselves hogging the ball so much that no one else touches it ... that's your call. I prefer distributing it amongst our scorers. SAR, Artest, Bibby should probably all get around 13-15 shots (every night without question) with Martin getting about 12-14 (more when he gets them through the offense) and Brad Miller getting around 10.

 

[BMiller52]

when bibby scores big the kings win. case closed. other players will find a way to get themselves in the game. your best scorer is the man. the guy that will take the shots. no one else on the team is good enough to take more than 5 shots a contest. except ron. martin plays a running game. he'll get himself into the game by getting in the open court.

"That was the easiest 20 points of my life"-Andre Iguodala talking about Andre Miller.

Nobody else on the team is good enough to take more than 5 shots? That is really wrong. As long as SAR is a King he needs touches in the post to be effective, and he will be(I'm not saying he's a #1 option but when you need a bucket he comes in handy). Brad Miller is a good shooter and in the last few games he's gotten more touches, he's found Martin for easy points, rebounded the ball, and scored. Salmons has been decent, why can't he get 5 or more shots a game if he's getting to the bucket and getting good shots?

Sorry but if Mike is your #1 option on offense you're never going to go anywhere besides the lottery, where you'll get the 10th pick in the draft.

 

[tyrant]

"That was the easiest 20 points of my life"-Andre Iguodala talking about Andre Miller.

Nobody else on the team is good enough to take more than 5 shots? That is really wrong. As long as SAR is a King he needs touches in the post to be effective, and he will be(I'm not saying he's a #1 option but when you need a bucket he comes in handy). Brad Miller is a good shooter and in the last few games he's gotten more touches, he's found Martin for easy points, rebounded the ball, and scored. Salmons has been decent, why can't he get 5 or more shots a game if he's getting to the bucket and getting good shots?

Sorry but if Mike is your #1 option on offense you're never going to go anywhere besides the lottery, where you'll get the 10th pick in the draft.

see, this is the reason the kings are 11-14. (feels more like 10-28). every player on this team is not on the same level. THEREFORE, they should not get an equal amount of shots. i admit that bibby's shooting slump has something to do with this team being under .500, but another solid reason would be my first statement. martin is gonna get himself into the game. we dont run plays for him, but he's gonna move without the ball and get up the court. that's why he's getting over 20 a game. reef is our best postplayer. (as i stated in another thread). i definately agree with him taking more than 5 shots (if they're not jumpshots). he helps us when he's in the paint.

 

[VF21]

see, this is the reason the kings are 11-14. (feels more like 10-28). every player on this team is not on the same level. THEREFORE, they should not get an equal amount of shots. i admit that bibby's shooting slump has something to do with this team being under .500, but another solid reason would be my first statement. martin is gonna get himself into the game. we dont run plays for him, but he's gonna move without the ball and get up the court. that's why he's getting over 20 a game. reef is our best postplayer. (as i stated in another thread). i definately agree with him taking more than 5 shots (if they're not jumpshots). he helps us when he's in the paint.

Actually, the Kings are 11-14 because out of those 25 games they've only managed to score more points than their opponents 11 times. Each game has had different problems. There aren't any simple solutions, although getting a healthy team on the court for each game would certainly help.

 

[fnordius]

Who is exactly sure that he's going to opt-out? Everywhere I turn people keep posting that he's certainly going to opt-out but I keep reading that Mike wants an extension.

Edit: Someone other than VF....because I've already asked her!

I heard that he was asking for an extension through most of last year, but obviously didn't get it. One might suspect that he could be a little annoyed with the Maloofs over that.

Then there's the fact of some pretty dreadful play, apparent lack of team chemistry (suspected to exist particularly between himself and Artest), rumors that he was on the trading block, a growing number of empty seats at the as yet unreplaced Arco, and so on. When he signed this contract, his job was a blast, now it's definitely not looking so fun from any perspective.

Hollinger, at ESPN:
"Bibby has an opt-out that he's likely, but not certain, to use..."

Martin McNeal at the Bee:
"Last summer, word leaked out that Kings guard Mike Bibby might take advantage of an opt-out clause in his contract after the current season. Under his contract, Bibby is scheduled to make $13.5 million in 2007-08 and $14.5 million in 2008-09, but presumably would like to make more money and/or explore any options that might arise."
http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/92485.html

Stephen Smith, Philadelphia Inquirer:
"Mike Bibby is owed $28 million over the final two years of his contract, but rumors have swirled he could elect to opt-out."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/16210804.htm

"Problem is, Bibby may opt out of his contract next season..."
http://nbaunplugged.wordpress.com/2006/12/09/which-team-is-most-likely-to-trade-for-iverson/

"It would seem to make sense to opt out."
http://www.sactownroyalty.com/story/2006/10/17/115158/82

"What about Mike Bibby? He could become a free agent after this season, or he could play out the last two years of his contract at an average of $14 million per. He hasn't said anything one way or the other yet, but financially, it makes sense for him to opt out. (He wouldn't make as much in 08 and 09, but would make substantially more in '10, '11, and '12.)"
http://www.blogabull.com/story/2006/10/26/122135/17

I'm just thinking that, if it makes sense financially for him to opt out, if team chemistry is bad and the team is losing, if the Maloofs are seeming unappreciative, Arco has lost its zip, and he doesn't want to worry about moving to Anaheim, why should he stay?

 

[tyrant]

i think we'd be 14-11 instead of the other way around if bibby knocks down his shots. but you have to live with your best player taking the majority of the shots. players like john salmons shouldnt even be in this discussion. if he got as many shots as bibby each game we'd be 5-20. hope mike gets better fast. we need him making shots

 

[Roman]

i think we'd be 14-11 instead of the other way around if bibby knocks down his shots. but you have to live with your best player taking the majority of the shots.

The problem is that Bibby is not the team's best player, in my opinion. He's (maybe) our best jump shooter, but not our best player.

Our best scorer is SAR. Our best option when open is Martin. Our best playmaker is Miller. Our best defender is Artest. Our best rebounder is KT.

Bibby is only as good as his jumpshot (which admittedly is very sweet) after that he's very average.

players like john salmons shouldnt even be in this discussion. if he got as many shots as bibby each game we'd be 5-20. hope mike gets better fast. we need him making shots

I agree, John Salmons does not need 15 shots a game, but he's effective and makes pretty good decisions (plus, I rarely see him firing up ill-advised shots on a whim).

But, there is no reason players like Martin, Artest, Miller and SAR aren't in the discussion.

 

[tyrant]

The problem is that Bibby is not the team's best player, in my opinion. He's (maybe) our best jump shooter, but not our best player.

Our best scorer is SAR. Our best option when open is Martin. Our best playmaker is Miller. Our best defender is Artest. Our best rebounder is KT.

Bibby is only as good as his jumpshot (which admittedly is very sweet) after that he's very average.



I agree, John Salmons does not need 15 shots a game, but he's effective and makes pretty good decisions (plus, I rarely see him firing up ill-advised shots on a whim).

But, there is no reason players like Martin, Artest, Miller and SAR aren't in the discussion.

we're not breaking this discussion down by nonstatistical categories. miller isnt our best playmaker because he cant create his own shot. and how is martin our best option "when open"? what's that? how does that work? lol. its the NBA. he's rarely going to be open. i advise him to just continue running the floor. do what he does. true that ron is the best defener. but look, mike bibby can shoot the ball and he is our leading assist guy. so that's saying that mike shoots the most and he's also our leading assist guy. . HE can get others involved and ive seen him break down the defense more than anyone else on the team. just because reef is our best post player doesnt mean he's noticeable for "the best player on the team