Mike Bibby: Are the Numbers Misleading?
- Thread starter 1kingzfan
- Start date
Don't really understand the people who are up in arms over Mike's one dimensional playing.
Sure, it's a somewhat legitimate argument THIS YEAR. But, Mike has not typically been a one dimensional player. Always a heavier contribution on the offensive side than the defensive. By a lot. But, for years he has been our steady guy both in making big shots and running the team.
Perhaps he's seen a hole this year and is trying (too hard?) to fill it.
Either way, my position on his worth hasn't changed all season -- replaceable for the right piece, but not even close to being a high priority on the Kings' list of problems.
Sure, it's a somewhat legitimate argument THIS YEAR. But, Mike has not typically been a one dimensional player. Always a heavier contribution on the offensive side than the defensive. By a lot. But, for years he has been our steady guy both in making big shots and running the team.
Perhaps he's seen a hole this year and is trying (too hard?) to fill it.
Either way, my position on his worth hasn't changed all season -- replaceable for the right piece, but not even close to being a high priority on the Kings' list of problems.
Word.... And with the arrival of Artest, you can see Bibby picking up the intesity a little on the defensive end. I do believe Bibby needs to become more of a facilitator now on offense with the emergence of the young guns, Artest's arrival and Bonzi getting healthy. He can still take that last second shot though.... cos he's money.
The priority issue doesn't really have anything to do with trades that actually happen.
None of this does, really.
My comment had more to do with how surprised I am that a Bibby trade is so frequently discussed when there are much bigger issues.
Where's the need? What's the fascination?
Trade value, I suppose. The only other piece currently on the roster for whom we could possibly get more in return is the guy we just got.
None of this does, really.
My comment had more to do with how surprised I am that a Bibby trade is so frequently discussed when there are much bigger issues.
Where's the need? What's the fascination?
Trade value, I suppose. The only other piece currently on the roster for whom we could possibly get more in return is the guy we just got.
It's completely relevant because we know that Petrie is taking the long view with improving this team. So if another opportunity arises before the trade deadline, I doubt that Geoff will turn a deaf ear or stop trying to get a better piece, just to see what might be when (IF) everyone that's currently a King gets healthy.
This year matters not. The long term is what matters.
Everybody and his brother knows we are one solid, athletic, front line defender away from becoming a really good defensive team. And it all starts with D.
This year matters not. The long term is what matters.
Everybody and his brother knows we are one solid, athletic, front line defender away from becoming a really good defensive team. And it all starts with D.
OK I'll go out on a limb here. (Note I am NOT necessarly advocating "Trade Bibby") There are really only two scenarios that bring a good solid big in trade for Mike. Scenario one: Trade Mike for an underrated big, for example Mike and filler could go to Charlot for Mel Ely who MIGHT pan out to be a good quality big if he could out of Oakefer's shadow... I am sure that better scouts than I could make a better list of guys that coud be had. Scenario two: Package Mike and one of the Kings biger men like SAR or Kenny up and try to grab a disgruntled high profile big man either demading a trade or contract that is too big for the team so they sign and trade.
In either case the Kings really do not need to start Hart. The offense with Garcia at the 1 with Artest and Brad taking the ball at midcourt works well. and if the Kings can get a solid rebounder, shot blocker for Mike it MIGHT be worth it. But my original post was only meant to point out that there is no sense in trading Mike for anyothe PG and unless the Kings CAN get a big for him it's just not not worth it.
In either case the Kings really do not need to start Hart. The offense with Garcia at the 1 with Artest and Brad taking the ball at midcourt works well. and if the Kings can get a solid rebounder, shot blocker for Mike it MIGHT be worth it. But my original post was only meant to point out that there is no sense in trading Mike for anyothe PG and unless the Kings CAN get a big for him it's just not not worth it.
I agree it would be great to get a solid, good big guy. But to me, trading Biby to get one would just be trading one problem for another. Filling one hole, while creating another. I like Cisco, but no way I'm turning over this team to him at the point. Bibby is far better and steadier, not to mention playoff-tested. And if Hart starts, I would have to kill myself.
Last edited:
You think Heinrich and Ridenour are at the same level as Mike Bibby? BTW: Just in case I missed it. Even though Bibby isn't hitting right now. Who the hell would we have to shoot an outside shot if we traded Bibby for a big? We've all seen that once teams lock up the paint in the fourth the Kings are literally finished. Bottom line is, trading away our only long range shooter is stupid, how bout trading someone besides an outside shooter, for hmm lets see... A shooter?
BTW: Just in case I missed it. Even though Bibby isn't hitting right now. Who the hell would we have to shoot an outside shot if we traded Bibby for a big? We've all seen that once teams lock up the paint in the fourth the Kings are literally finished. Bottom line is, trading away our only long range shooter is stupid, how bout trading someone besides an outside shooter, for hmm lets see... A shooter?
Last edited:
Bibby is having a good year. As for assists go, Brad Miller is taking them all. Bibby's fg% is lower because he isn't getting as many open looks and forces more shots. His TOs are up because he needs to be the 'playmaker'. His game hasn't changed. Keep him.
BTW, why do ppl rank Parker, Arenas, and Billups above Bibby?
Bibby's avgs this season: 20.5 pts 43%fg 84%ft 3 rebs 5.4 assts 2.5 TOs
Parker's avgs this season: 19.5 pts 54%fg 69%ft 4 rebs 6 assts 3 TOs
Billups avgs this season: 19 pts 42%fg 91%ft 3 rebs 8.5 assts 2 TOs
Arenas...all he does is score, his team has no chance.
So what makes them better than Bibby? I think it's because they are winning....BUT then again look at the team Parker and Billups play with. IMO, only Nash and Kidd are clearly better, I don't know how the other PGs are better than Bibby.
BTW, why do ppl rank Parker, Arenas, and Billups above Bibby?
Bibby's avgs this season: 20.5 pts 43%fg 84%ft 3 rebs 5.4 assts 2.5 TOs
Parker's avgs this season: 19.5 pts 54%fg 69%ft 4 rebs 6 assts 3 TOs
Billups avgs this season: 19 pts 42%fg 91%ft 3 rebs 8.5 assts 2 TOs
Arenas...all he does is score, his team has no chance.
So what makes them better than Bibby? I think it's because they are winning....BUT then again look at the team Parker and Billups play with. IMO, only Nash and Kidd are clearly better, I don't know how the other PGs are better than Bibby.
Since this thread talk about stats, I will use this great PG list to play with some stats too...
Nash- 19.4ppg 11apg 3.8 TO
Iverson- 33.2ppg 7.3apg 3.1 TO
Arenas- 28.3ppg, 5.9apg 43 FG%
Kidd- 14.4ppg, 7.7apg 42 FG%
Davis- 18.7ppg 9.2apg 39 FG% 3 TO
Billups- 18.9ppg 8.5apg 42 FG%
Terry- 16.4ppg 3.9 apg
Paul- 15.9ppg 7.7apg 43 FG%
Miller- 14.5ppg 8.2apg 3 TO
James- 17.9ppg 5.4apg
West- sorry I don't even know who you are talking about
Ford- 12.1ppg 6.4apg 39 FG% 3.2 TO
Cassell- 17.9ppg 6.5apg
Parker- 19.4ppg 5.8apg
Francis- 16.3ppg 5.7apg 3.4 TO
Marbury- 18.1ppg 6.9apg 2.9 TO
Bibby- 20.5ppg 5.4apg 43 FG% 2.45 TO
Well, IMO, I would throw away Terry, James, West, and Ford from the top PG list without thinking. Francis is having his worst year, so I would count him out too.
So we left with Bibby, Areanas, Kidd, Davis, Billups, Paul, Cassell, Parker, Nash, Iverson and Marbury. Other than Iverson, Nash and Areanas, the rest are basically playing at about same level this season.
Now the big question: Are any of the above big names not "one of the best PG" in this league? So why would you question if Bibby is not one of the best PG if they are all playing at about a same level?
Nash- 19.4ppg 11apg 3.8 TO
Iverson- 33.2ppg 7.3apg 3.1 TO
Arenas- 28.3ppg, 5.9apg 43 FG%
Kidd- 14.4ppg, 7.7apg 42 FG%
Davis- 18.7ppg 9.2apg 39 FG% 3 TO
Billups- 18.9ppg 8.5apg 42 FG%
Terry- 16.4ppg 3.9 apg
Paul- 15.9ppg 7.7apg 43 FG%
Miller- 14.5ppg 8.2apg 3 TO
James- 17.9ppg 5.4apg
West- sorry I don't even know who you are talking about
Ford- 12.1ppg 6.4apg 39 FG% 3.2 TO
Cassell- 17.9ppg 6.5apg
Parker- 19.4ppg 5.8apg
Francis- 16.3ppg 5.7apg 3.4 TO
Marbury- 18.1ppg 6.9apg 2.9 TO
Bibby- 20.5ppg 5.4apg 43 FG% 2.45 TO
Well, IMO, I would throw away Terry, James, West, and Ford from the top PG list without thinking. Francis is having his worst year, so I would count him out too.
So we left with Bibby, Areanas, Kidd, Davis, Billups, Paul, Cassell, Parker, Nash, Iverson and Marbury. Other than Iverson, Nash and Areanas, the rest are basically playing at about same level this season.
Now the big question: Are any of the above big names not "one of the best PG" in this league? So why would you question if Bibby is not one of the best PG if they are all playing at about a same level?
Last edited:
Marbury sucks, take him off the list. He kills the ball and he kills teams. The only PGs I'd rather have then Mike are Paul, Kidd, Nash, Billups, and Arenas. If Mike can start playing defense and since Kidd and Nash are aging, than he could possibly pass them in 1-2 years. Paul is going to be a legend, Arenas is a scoring machine, Iverson is a chucker who makes his teams worse, Kidd is a tripple double threat and plays decent defense, Nash(although I dislike him) is amazing, Billups is a very good point guard. That list to me doesn't say there are a lot of PGs better than Mike, it tells me there's not a lot of pure point guards anymore anyways.
All the good work you did in with the post you killed with that comment. Are you aware that Billups is MVP candidate for this season. Lets analyse his season shall we?????? 18.9ppg, 8.5apg, 42.3% FG, 43.1% 3PT, 91% FT and not to mention that he is one of the best defensive PGs in the league. He is clearly a better player than Bibby. Any unbiased NBA follower will tell you so.
OH and give me Paul over Bibby any day of the week and twice on Sunday. That kid is a franchise player. He will be HUGE.
OH and give me Paul over Bibby any day of the week and twice on Sunday. That kid is a franchise player. He will be HUGE.
Just what I was about to say. People praise how AI is a leading scorer. But in all reality that's all he does. He does not make his team better. You cant even argue that his defense is better based on steals because all of his steals come on the chances that he takes by going for a steal on passes. Some Kings fans would love to have AI until he start taking 40+ shots a night then we'll hear the same thing about our PG/SG shooting to much. You also cant forget that AI's natural position prior to 2 years ago was the SG.
Your list is a joke. Jason Terry? Terry is just the poor man's Mike Bibby. Hell, Billups isn't any better than Bibby, he is just surrounded by better players than Bibby is.
This is the breakdown of Mike Bibby:
Real good jump shooter
Guard ball handling skills
Average passer/creator
Great in pick n roll
Not a defesive player
Clutch shooter
Bordering on being a mini 2guard(like much of the NBA PGs)
This year, if you go back and watch video, Bibby is a step slower and he has less talent around him than in previous years. For whatever reason he just looks slower and I think it's hurting him in getting to his spots for jumpers and getting past defenders. He is also the focus of every defense the team comes up against. If you replace Bibby with Billups you won't get any more production. Billups will have the same issues Bibby is having, but he doesn't have those issues in Detroit since most teams focus on Hamilton or noone in particular. Jason Terry would have the same issues here without a Dirk to draw attention and get him open shots.
And Arenas is just a small 2guard.
Point Guards are my thing. The only PGs that are true PGs that I'd take over Bibby are Nash and maybe Kidd(depending on health). Tony Parker is a true PG in more ways than Bibby, but he is still mistake prone and inconsistent. He relies heavily on his speed.
This is the breakdown of Mike Bibby:
Real good jump shooter
Guard ball handling skills
Average passer/creator
Great in pick n roll
Not a defesive player
Clutch shooter
Bordering on being a mini 2guard(like much of the NBA PGs)
This year, if you go back and watch video, Bibby is a step slower and he has less talent around him than in previous years. For whatever reason he just looks slower and I think it's hurting him in getting to his spots for jumpers and getting past defenders. He is also the focus of every defense the team comes up against. If you replace Bibby with Billups you won't get any more production. Billups will have the same issues Bibby is having, but he doesn't have those issues in Detroit since most teams focus on Hamilton or noone in particular. Jason Terry would have the same issues here without a Dirk to draw attention and get him open shots.
And Arenas is just a small 2guard.
Point Guards are my thing. The only PGs that are true PGs that I'd take over Bibby are Nash and maybe Kidd(depending on health). Tony Parker is a true PG in more ways than Bibby, but he is still mistake prone and inconsistent. He relies heavily on his speed.
Billups had career games against Bibby ths season
Funny, how people blame everything else but the cause. Bibby doesn't play defense because - he is surrounded with less talent. Cry me a river - will You ? When You don't have people that can make You look good - You true value comes out. Pedja was the same - and he is replaced. It will not stop there
Funny, how people blame everything else but the cause. Bibby doesn't play defense because - he is surrounded with less talent. Cry me a river - will You ? When You don't have people that can make You look good - You true value comes out. Pedja was the same - and he is replaced. It will not stop there
Billups is much better than Bibby. I like Bibby alot but Billups, as Piksi pointed out, plays All-NBA D. Bibby plays all-nba worst D next to Nash. Offensively, Billups is still better. Billups DOESN'T miss 4th quarter FTs like Bibby does (although Bibby is about as clutch as Billups other than FTs. Billups does have better teammates, but Billups is also a great find that we could have had if we so desired (FA), although I think he's been molded from a shoot first, to a more combo-ish, pg. Billups, like Bibby, was a great college PG (both were top 3 picks) although Billups had more trouble finding his nitch (6 teams).
Honestly, great D isn't a common place for PGs, on that list, the only guy's who play D well are Kidd (better in the past) and Billups. Terry isn't a bad defender, but did anyone watch the playoffs last year. Paul, I haven't seen enough of him to judge yet, but from looking at his stats, and the talent he's surrounded with and to be in the playoffs this year is just amazing. Nash is great, he shoots AWESOME, he doesn't play D, but that shouldn't be required for a great PG. He passes, and he passes the best in the league, but honestly, he's the only awesome passer I think we have left in the league. Brevin isn't bad, well actually he's pretty good. But, I'm not sure if his skill sets will transfer (I'm pretty sure we could get him for a fair price if the Kings desired since they have Felton).
Davis, I've always liked Davis and I'm not sure if he can be blamed for all of GS problems, but he is a CHUCKER, a HORRID shooter (fG% wise). He does play decent D but he's never been too consistant. Miller is more of a combo guard, and plays the 2 with the little man on the court (some reason can't remember his name). Mike James has never been proven to be a starting PG in the nba. Yes he's having 1 great year with Toronto, but then again it's Toronto.
If we could get Billups, Nash, Paul or Kidd for Bibby and whatever, I'd do it, otherwise were stuck with a pretty damn good PG who doesn't play D. As others have said, it's easy to blame the system. The system doesn't require him to be a great assist man. If he did pass like he did in Vancouver, the system wouldn't be running.
Honestly, great D isn't a common place for PGs, on that list, the only guy's who play D well are Kidd (better in the past) and Billups. Terry isn't a bad defender, but did anyone watch the playoffs last year. Paul, I haven't seen enough of him to judge yet, but from looking at his stats, and the talent he's surrounded with and to be in the playoffs this year is just amazing. Nash is great, he shoots AWESOME, he doesn't play D, but that shouldn't be required for a great PG. He passes, and he passes the best in the league, but honestly, he's the only awesome passer I think we have left in the league. Brevin isn't bad, well actually he's pretty good. But, I'm not sure if his skill sets will transfer (I'm pretty sure we could get him for a fair price if the Kings desired since they have Felton).
Davis, I've always liked Davis and I'm not sure if he can be blamed for all of GS problems, but he is a CHUCKER, a HORRID shooter (fG% wise). He does play decent D but he's never been too consistant. Miller is more of a combo guard, and plays the 2 with the little man on the court (some reason can't remember his name). Mike James has never been proven to be a starting PG in the nba. Yes he's having 1 great year with Toronto, but then again it's Toronto.
If we could get Billups, Nash, Paul or Kidd for Bibby and whatever, I'd do it, otherwise were stuck with a pretty damn good PG who doesn't play D. As others have said, it's easy to blame the system. The system doesn't require him to be a great assist man. If he did pass like he did in Vancouver, the system wouldn't be running.
P
People keep saying Nash is this terrible defender. I just don't see it. Is he tops of the league? No. But, he exerts FAR more effort than Bibby and at least pushes through screens.
The reason it seems like he is a poor defender is the type of game they play. The opponent gets more opportunities to score - and thus, statistically, look like they aren't putting on any defense.
According to 82games - Nash holds his man to a 14.7PER rating while Bibby is up near 17.
The reason it seems like he is a poor defender is the type of game they play. The opponent gets more opportunities to score - and thus, statistically, look like they aren't putting on any defense.
According to 82games - Nash holds his man to a 14.7PER rating while Bibby is up near 17.
There were what 4 series. Each time he was pretty awful. I'm not making it up that Nash is a horrid defender. That has been known league wide. Bibby is a horrid defender as well. Your trying to tell me Bibby is worse? I guess so.
Terry played pretty well against Nash last year, 16.5 @ nearly 50 %. Parker averaged 20 @ 45%.
Bibby averaged 24 in 2003 @ 52% from the field. In 2002, Bibby and Bobby averaged nearly 27 combined at nearly 45% from the field. I guess every big PG scores well against Nash, maybe there just a concindence that in every playoff series Nash seems to have ever played in he's given up alot of points. Last year, J. Will who usually never plays well in the playoffs, scored 17 @ 53% when he scored 10.8 @ below 40% the year before against the Spurs. Do I need to show you any more to make it more obvious.
Terry played pretty well against Nash last year, 16.5 @ nearly 50 %. Parker averaged 20 @ 45%.
Bibby averaged 24 in 2003 @ 52% from the field. In 2002, Bibby and Bobby averaged nearly 27 combined at nearly 45% from the field. I guess every big PG scores well against Nash, maybe there just a concindence that in every playoff series Nash seems to have ever played in he's given up alot of points. Last year, J. Will who usually never plays well in the playoffs, scored 17 @ 53% when he scored 10.8 @ below 40% the year before against the Spurs. Do I need to show you any more to make it more obvious.
P
Yes, that's my point.
Nahs isn't a "good" defender. He's below average. But, he at least TRIES. He doesn't get beat downcourt every time by the PFs and Cs. This is a constant for Mike Bibby. I constantly see the PF beat Mike Bibby back on defense ... and that's sad considering where Mike is on the court compared to the PF.
Nahs isn't a "good" defender. He's below average. But, he at least TRIES. He doesn't get beat downcourt every time by the PFs and Cs. This is a constant for Mike Bibby. I constantly see the PF beat Mike Bibby back on defense ... and that's sad considering where Mike is on the court compared to the PF.