# Bibby or Peja...Who is more valuable?



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Im a kings fan....and i got to thinking about which one is more valuable.......

the numbers say Peja..25pts a game........to Bibbys 18ppg....but truthfully if I had to pick between to two its MIKE BIBBY

Because when the playoffs come around, Bibby goes from a 18ppg scorer..to a 20-25 ppg scorer

and Peja goes from the "Next Larry Bird" to ''let me stay low so people can blame Webber"


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Bibby all the way.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

If you gave me the choice, I'd pick Bibby. 

Peja is a deadly shooter when his shot is on (which is pretty often), but Bibby just brings it night in and night out. If his shot is off (It's rarely off), he will still be a solid PG and most likely be better than the other teams PG when speaking in terms of efficiency.


----------



## guyinabox (Sep 4, 2004)

Peja was atleast top 5 for the MVP Its not even close


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>guyinabox</b>!
> Peja was atleast top 5 for the MVP Its not even close


and what does that mean? Where was Peja in the playoffs? Not being a fan of either player its quite easy to see how much Bibby means to Sacremento. You hear people say you could easily replace Jackson with Bibby and thats nonsense. 2 totally different styles of game and Bibby's jumpshot from the PG postion does wonders for every one else around him.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

It's absolutely Bibby. Bibby is one of the league's best shooters himself, and unlike Peja he makes all the big shots. When the Kings have won games in the 4th quarter, who is the one person who was responsible almost every time? Bibby.

And he is a textbook pointguard too, one of the best in the league.


----------



## Pejavlade (Jul 10, 2004)

the offence runs through him so for the kings hes more valuable although hes asts count could go up a little. Peja on the other hand during the season carried the team and was arguably one of the best players, bibby in the playoffs is more valuable but id take peja in the season


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Bibby. It's not even a question.


----------



## outlook1 (Mar 17, 2004)

It's not even a question?  

I guess you are are not there when bibby gives carreer night to his oposing player. Parker, Cassell and Nash always have carreer night against him


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>outlook1</b>!
> It's not even a question?
> 
> I guess you are are not there when bibby gives carreer night to his oposing player. Parker, Cassell and Nash always have carreer night against him


Apparently you missed that game where Cassell had a career night, because Bibby personally won them that game. And go ahead and look at the Dallas series, and take a look at Nash's numbers, then compare them to Bibbys...


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Bibby, Peja can be shut down if you crowd him the whole game and dedicate your self to do that. Bibby can do alot more with the ball. Peja can get shut down, Biby can be shut down himself.


----------



## guyinabox (Sep 4, 2004)

too many Bibbysexuals on this board


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Bibby, but it's close. Even though Bibby is by far the better postseason performer offensively compared to Peja (hitting shots at a high percentage, scoring big baskets when they're needed, getting the team involved with his passing, etc.), Peja is the better defender, and Peja isn't more than an average or sometimes good defender. Bibby is downright awful at defending the perimeter, he gets beat off the dribble at will by all the elite PGs. 

But I still take Bibby, he brings a lot of mental toughness and confidence to that team. They'd be lost without him. 



> Originally posted by <b>guyinabox</b>!
> too many Bibbysexuals on this board


Too many retardsexuals, too.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>guyinabox</b>!
> too many Bibbysexuals on this board


It's obvious, that your basketball intelligence is microscopic.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I'd take Bibby. He steps up late in games, and basically runs the show for the whole game for the Kings. He is real underrated imo.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> It's obvious, that your basketball intelligence is microscopic.


You can say that again.

BFreak.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Freak</b>!
> You can say that again.
> 
> BFreak.


It's obvious, that your basketball intelligence is microscopic.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> It's obvious, that your basketball intelligence is microscopic.


Except that when he said it, it was true. In your case, no one cares.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i would take bibby too. hes not one of the guys who put up crazy numbers. but hes so efficient and do almost everything right for a team.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

:dead: 

I like Mike Bibby as much as the next guy but in terms of team value, in my mind there's no way Bibby means more to Sacramento than Stojakovic. Performed better when in the playoffs? Sure. 

Bibby isn't even called on to orchestrate Sacramento's offense. That's not a knock on him as a player, because he's obviously more than capable of filling that role but we're talking in terms of team value here, and what Bibby does for this particular team, in my opinion, is very replaceable whereas what Stojakovic does is *unparalleled by anyone in the league* and irreplaceable. We're talking about the greatest shooter of an entire generation here.

Look, Bibby missed 27 games to start the 2002-03 campaign and Sacramento rolled, going 21-6 (would translate to a 65 win season for those keeping score) over that stretch. Bibby is a hell of a point guard, and I think if he was playing just about anywhere else he'd be putting up Marbury type numbers with more success, but the fact of the matter is that *given the situations* I don't think he's more valuable to Sacramento than Stojakovic.

At least in the regular season.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

If you need 30 points in December against the Magic, take Peja.

If you need 30 points in June against the Lakers, take Bibby.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> Except that when he said it, it was true. In your case, no one cares.


:|


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

For the Kings, Peja.

They rely on the bigs' passing along with the PG, but they need a finisher. Peja stepped up to that, at least in the reg. season. Bibby's a dynamite scorer and shooter, even up to about .450 3PP, but Peja's an even better shooter. Plus they have Jackson if Bibby was gone.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Arclite</b>!
> what Bibby does for this particular team, in my opinion, is very replaceable whereas what Stojakovic does is *unparalleled by anyone in the league* and irreplaceable. We're talking about the greatest shooter of an entire generation here.


Name 1 *PG* that can shoot jumpers AND treys like Bibby? Not to mention he is a leader, I've always said if Sacramento ever gets to the finals it's going to be because of Bibby.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> 
> 
> Name 1 *PG* that can shoot jumpers AND treys like Bibby? Not to mention he is a leader, I've always said if Sacramento ever gets to the finals it's going to be because of Bibby.


Steve Nash. 

But I agree with you, Bibby is more important than Peja.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HallOfFamer</b>!
> Steve Nash.


IMO Bibby is a better jump shooter... Bibby's still better going to the basket.


----------



## guyinabox (Sep 4, 2004)

Bibby is one of the worst defenders in the NBA


----------



## guyinabox (Sep 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> It's obvious, that your basketball intelligence is microscopic.




basketball intelligence is preforming on a court with good basketball knowledge and iq


I don't think you can do that and I don't you mean that also try another term


----------



## guyinabox (Sep 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Bibby, but it's close. Even though Bibby is by far the better postseason performer offensively compared to Peja (hitting shots at a high percentage, scoring big baskets when they're needed, getting the team involved with his passing, etc.), Peja is the better defender, and Peja isn't more than an average or sometimes good defender. Bibby is downright awful at defending the perimeter, he gets beat off the dribble at will by all the elite PGs.
> 
> But I still take Bibby, he brings a lot of mental toughness and confidence to that team. They'd be lost without him.
> ...



Don't take my jokes


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

My ignore list just gained a member.


----------



## Pejavlade (Jul 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> 
> 
> Name 1 *PG* that can shoot jumpers AND treys like Bibby? Not to mention he is a leader, I've always said if Sacramento ever gets to the finals it's going to be because of Bibby.


sam cassels?


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pejavlade</b>!
> 
> 
> sam cassels?


He can't hit three's (treys) consistently. He shot a great % last year but still only made 74.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> 
> Name 1 *PG* that can shoot jumpers AND treys like Bibby? Not to mention he is a leader, I've always said if Sacramento ever gets to the finals it's going to be because of Bibby.


Sam Cassell, Steve Nash, his own teammate Bobby Jackson when he's healthy, Brent Barry.. Look I'm not trying to knock Bibby, I'm just saying that when he was out, Sacramento had two point guards who could shoot the ball fairly well in BoJax and D. Jones and they didn't skip a beat.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> 
> He can't hit three's (treys) consistently. He shot a great % last year but still only made 74.


Bibby was never considered a volume 3 point shooter until last year. Over the last three years, Cassell has shot 35%, 36% and 40% from long range. I'm sure if he decided to make volume three point shooting a part of his game he could do it successfully. He was a big three point shooter in the playoffs when his team needed it.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Arclite</b>!
> Bibby was never considered a volume 3 point shooter until last year. Over the last three years, Cassell has shot 35%, 36% and 40% from long range. I'm sure if he decided to make volume three point shooting a part of his game he could do it successfully. He was a big three point shooter in the playoffs when his team needed it.


Actually I think Bibby was considered a volume 3PT shooter after his last season in Vancouver (108 treys at 38%). In his first season with Sacramento he didn't have to take many 3 point shots with Peja, Christie, Turkoglu and Jackson all launching more three's than him. His second season with the Kings was riddled with injuries, but he became more assertive offensively and started shooting more treys. And last year, he played in 82 games and showed what he was capable of from long-distance, hitting 148 treys. I expect that number to be around 175 this year if he stays healthy.

Cassell has always been able to step up and knock down three's during the playoffs, especially in Houston. But he's not the kind of guy who can knock down trey after trey like Bibby is capable of. I honeslty doubt he could hit more than a 100 treys "if he wanted to."


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Another season where Bibby is undervalued. Why doesn't anyone realize it's the system he plays in that keeps him from putting up big numbers? 

How many times do I have to say that they run the offense through the bigs on purpose? You really think Steve Nash is as good a shooter as Bibby. Oh lord.

You can have any other PG other than Kidd and I'll take Bibby.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Arclite</b>!
> 
> 
> Sam Cassell, Steve Nash, his own teammate Bobby Jackson when he's healthy, Brent Barry.. Look I'm not trying to knock Bibby, I'm just saying that when he was out, Sacramento had two point guards who could shoot the ball fairly well in BoJax and D. Jones and they didn't skip a beat.


And neither of those guys could even remotely lead them anywhere during the playoffs. They are not the floor generals that Bibby is and dont have the vision that he has either. 

I cant believe I am speaking for Mike Bibby:sour:


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Steve Nash is a better shooter than Mike Bibby.

I see how Sacramento's system limits Bibby's assist numbers but it definately doesn't hurt his FG%.

And I am a big Bibby fan since his college days at Arizona. Bibby is not a better shooter or floor general than Steve Nash or Sam Cassel at least not yet.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Amareca</b>!
> Steve Nash is a better shooter than Mike Bibby.
> 
> I see how Sacramento's system limits Bibby's assist numbers but it definately doesn't hurt his FG%.
> ...


Steve nash is a better long range shooter than Bibby. mid rang to 20 feet if I had to choose one it would be my choice. Also I think Nash being a floor general is a bit overrated when you have had as many offensive weapons that he has had. Not that Bibby hasnt because he has but Sacremento's offense is that one more extra pass while Nash holds on to the ball a slight bit more. You cant go wrong with either one but for Sacremento's team, Bibby is the MAN.

BIGAmare got a name change


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> 
> 
> Steve nash is a better long range shooter than Bibby. mid rang to 20 feet if I had to choose one it would be my choice. Also I think Nash being a floor general is a bit overrated when you have had as many offensive weapons that he has had. Not that Bibby hasnt because he has but Sacremento's offense is that one more extra pass while Nash holds on to the ball a slight bit more. You cant go wrong with either one but for Sacremento's team, Bibby is the MAN.
> ...


Give him a chance, I actually think Big Amare is one the most mature person on this board basketball tallk aside.

I have been made fun by the posters I tried to "bait" in the English aspect, but did BigAmare ever made fun of my English? Never!

He is a good person but his love towaards Amare maybe is just too much


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> Give him a chance, I actually think Big Amare is one the most mature person on this board basketball tallk aside.
> ...


I totally agree. I have commended BigAmare in the past on some of his post. Strong poster here!


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Another season where Bibby is undervalued. Why doesn't anyone realize it's the system he plays in that keeps him from putting up big numbers?
> 
> How many times do I have to say that they run the offense through the bigs on purpose? You really think Steve Nash is as good a shooter as Bibby. Oh lord.
> ...


So what if the system he plays in keeps him from putting up big numbers? The question is who is more valuable to Sacramento. You're bringing in factors that don't have anything to do with the equation. YES Mike Bibby could put up bigger numbers (particularly assists) elsewhere, but that doesn't pertain to the question of who is more valuable to Sacramento at all. Overall, Bibby might be a more valuable player, but not given the situations.

Do I really think Steve Nash is as good a shooter as Bibby? No, I don't. He's better. He's a better free throw shooter, a better three point shooter, and at least as good from 10-20 feet.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Arclite</b>!
> 
> Do I really think Steve Nash is as good a shooter as Bibby? No, I don't. He's better. He's a better free throw shooter, a better three point shooter, and at least as good from 10-20 feet.


You're really overrating Nash. He is a good player, but he aint that good. Bibby has outplayed him in the playoffs 2 out of the last 3 years, including shooting. 

The Kings would never trade Bibby before Peja, smaller contract and all.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> You're really overrating Nash. He is a good player, but he aint that good. Bibby has outplayed him in the playoffs 2 out of the last 3 years, including shooting.
> 
> The Kings would never trade Bibby before Peja, smaller contract and all.



 I didn't even evaluate him as a player or make a direct overall comparison to Bibby. I didn't even say Nash was a good point guard. I just said he's a better shooter than Bibby. By much? No, he's hardly better at all. Still, by however small a margin it is, he's still better. 

You can throw out whatever kind of circumstancial evidence that you want, but I'm not just looking at a few individual games, I'm looking at the entire picture. If you want to say that Bibby has historically shot the ball better percentage-wise than Steve Nash in the playoffs, I'm more than inclined to agree with you.. but that does not equal "being a better shooter", at least in my opinion.

P.S. He IS that good, from a shooting standpoint. Look at the percentages. No one has a higher FG + 3pt + FT combined percentage than Nash but Peja.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> You can have any other PG other than Kidd and I'll take Bibby.


You have to wonder how effective Kidd would be in half court sets. New Jersey, Dallas, Phoenix... these are teams that really fit his up-tempo style. Would he be able to adapt to a team like Sacramento or Houston that throws the ball inside and works around their biggies? Coming off screens and hitting 15 ft jumpers, cutting to the basket and hitting tough shot after shot. Kidd is a great PG but the crux of his ability lies in the open court. You have to build your team around Jason Kidd, and with Mike Bibby that isn't the case. Bibby is so versatile, he could shine in any system in the NBA.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Steve Nash is a better shooter than Mike Bibby.


No.


----------

