Jeff Teague is no star. He’s a second-year guard who isn’t great at initiating the offense, and isn’t much of a perimeter shooter. He isn’t the type of talent who demands playing time, but merely suggests it politely with each correctly executed possession. He makes mistakes, doesn’t often induce awe, and clearly has a lot to learn.A veteran on a team that fetishizes experience? A poor defender playing for a team that appears to evaluate defense on a scale of effort rather than ability or results?
If the Hawks had a legitimately productive starting PG, then Teague’s marginalization would at least be understandable. Yet Bibby is completely useless as a defender, and not terribly effective offensively, either. His adjusted plus/minus puts him at -2.38 for the season, and Bibby’s 12.3 PER is a career low. That PER mark — in addition to Bibby’s higher turnover rate, disappointing points per minute average, etc. — is particularly troubling. PER best measures a player’s offensive contributions and efficiency, and thus should tilt in Bibby’s favor. After all, he’s an offensive player who isn’t forced to do a lot with the ball, and shoots more than half of his attempts from behind the three-point line, an inherently efficient zone. Yet according to his PER, Bibby is inefficient and below average on the end of the court that’s supposed to be his strength. If he’s obviously subpar on offense, what does that make Bibby on defense?
I'd be only marginally less surprised were Teague to take minutes from Bibby than for John Schuhmann's next Q&A about the usage of statistics to feature any member of the Atlanta Hawks organization talking about a proprietary statistical database or the 54 defensive criteria they use to grade every defensive possession.