PDA

View Full Version : just how talented is Danny Granger?



Infinite MAN_force
12-29-2008, 01:15 AM
Top 5 scorers in the nba:

1. Dwayne Wade
2. Lebron James
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Dirk Nowitzki
5. Danny Granger

Pretty nice company. Sitting just behind the last two MVP's and the two top contenders to win it this year.

So the first couple weeks of the season we were all calling this an anomaly, but now 30 games in we see Danny Granger still firmly in the top 5 scorers in the NBA, and hes shooting a fairly solid 45%-46% from the field, so its not like he is just chucking. He is also bringing his assist number up closer to 3.5 per game, and has been averaging a solid 4.25 assists in the last 12 games, in fact... last 12 games: 25.6 ppg, 5 rebounds, and 4.25 assists. Danny Granger is STILL improving with no signs of stopping yet. Now there are still some weakness areas, still needs to cut his turnovers down... and has shown flashes with his driving ability along with getting to the free throw line, just needs a bit more consistency. I also don't feel like he has reached his defensive potential...

That being said, Im hardly worried about any of those things because I feel they are all within his natural ability to improve upon and as far as improvement goes, it would appear that Danny Granger never stops improving.

On to the main point of this post. These are impressive numbers, but for some reason, people continue to prop up the same old line... Danny is a great robin, but he is not a batman. I am going to propose a novel concept that may send people's heads spinning... Perhaps instead of Danny needing a "Batman", maybe he needs a "Robin"? Could that be the problem?

Heartland fan brought up an interesting point in the post game thread... If Danny Granger would have been drafted in the top 5 as he probably should have been, people around here would view him as an emerging super star, but because he was picked 17 people have a hard time reconciling this. Im curious as to WHY exactly Danny Granger is so far less talented than the best player on every other team in the NBA, as seems to be the common wisdom around here... despite the fact that most of these players are not quite as productive. Something just does not compute.

Best player on a bad team? I have never really bought into this line of thinking, at least in our case. I mean, Kevin Durant is the best player on a terrible team, way worse than ours, does this mean he lacks talent? That team is on pace for the worst record ever. Of course there are cases where a one-dimensional scoring player puts up a lot of points on a crappy team, usually by chucking on bad percentages... but this is not what I see when I watch the Pacers.

Another possibility I will address is "Clutchness". Pacers have been good enough to be in all these games (with good teams no less) at the end but just haven't had enough to finish them out... why? Some would say that this is because of talent level. I think this is correct, but not in the way many might think.

How many game winning shots has Danny missed this year? Lately he has been scoring a lot of points in the 4th, but has anyone ever noticed he never seems to get the ball on the last possesion? It would appear that the other team goes to great lengths to deny danny the ball in these situations, and the fact of the matter is, we don't have a consistent second scoring threat to take the pressure off him in crunchtime.

I mean, I could also go into team defensive failures as another culprit, which is another non-danny related issue that might explain some of these close losses.

Did anyone honestly expect Danny Granger to produce like he has so far this season? I didn't. I think its about time people reconcile their preconcieved notions about Granger with reality... dude is a hell of a player, and appears to have stepped into his "1st option" role without a problem. Im going to go against convential wisdom here and argue lack of a first option is no longer a pacers problem. Discuss.

Coop
12-29-2008, 01:17 AM
I'm glad you posted this. I was thinking of coming up with something, but it's late and I didn't feel like typing a lot. I'm interested in seeing everyone's responses here.

Trader Joe
12-29-2008, 01:25 AM
I think it's a recurring problem that began about 2001 when a lot of people had trouble reconciling that Reggie Miller wasn't going to be the best Pacers player for the rest of their lives. I think many have still not gotten over this, and if the best Pacers player isn't scoring 25 points in the 4th quarter or nailing dagger threes (which HEY DANNY WAS DOING TONIGHT IF ANYONE ELSE HAD GIVEN US ANYTHING IN THE 4th WE WOULD HAVE WON) then they just aren't up to snuff for us or in regards to the rest of the NBA.

My point is this, don't expect another Reggie Miller, he's was an unique talent, but he's not coming back, ever. So stop trying to get every other top Pacers player to measure up to him.

And now, I'm going to commit some real blasphemy, you can make the argument, that based on talent alone, Granger is already better than Miller. Does he have the resume, the cojones, or the moxie? Absolutely not, and he may never have the balls that Reg had, but that goes back to my point, they are two different talents. People were so attached to Reggie that I think they have a hard time accepting anyone else as the face of the Pacers franchise, and this is responsible for the backlash that Danny and to some extent JO received when they tried to do it.

I'm just curious as well, to where Danny is so lacking in his game that it looks like it cannot be fixed. Does he bog down the offense? Is he such a turnover machine that there is no way this could improve as he ages or the cast around him gets better? Does he not give his greatest effort every night?

You wanna know what the typical best player on a bad team looks like go take a gander at Jackson on the Warriors or even Michael Redd and Richard Jefferson, (Unless you really think highly of the Bucks that is).

Bball
12-29-2008, 01:28 AM
The Pacers used to do an excellent job of getting Reggie open AND getting him the ball in late game situations. Everyone in the building, coaches, vendors, fans, opposing players, etc KNEW Reggie was getting the ball and the shot and more times than not we got him open and he got a good look.

Soooooo are we really doing those things for Granger?

-Bball

Trader Joe
12-29-2008, 01:31 AM
I think our late game plays suck to put it nicely. They are usually ill conceived and they do not utilize screens nearly as well as most of the teams Reggie played on. Most of the time they seem to focus on some poorly timed handoff maneuver between the initiator of the play and the person who will take the shot.

rexnom
12-29-2008, 01:31 AM
I just wonder what Granger and this team will be like when (if) Dunleavy returns.

Coop
12-29-2008, 01:32 AM
Soooooo are we really doing those things for Granger?


Good point. I don't know if it's coaching, Grangers passiveness, or other players' unwillingness to give him the ball, but he doesn't get the ball enough in last second situations. Tonight, he carried us for the entire forth quarter, but on the inbounds pass with 2 seconds to go, he wasn't even on the screen. There should be a concerted effort every game to get Danny open. I don't care if you have to set 12 screens in the process. You get him open and give him the last shot. No offense to the other players, but they have no business taking those shots.



I just wonder what Granger and this team will be like when (if) Dunleavy returns.


This is a valid concern, but IMO I don't feel it will be the same as it was when Jermaine was here last year. When JO was out in the past, Danny typically stepped up. He would show flashes of brilliance only to be smothered by JO when he came back because Jermaine was supposedly the main guy. Now, Danny is clearly the Pacers best player and #1 option at all times. If anything, I think the return of Dunleavy will help Granger by taking pressure off him.

Trader Joe
12-29-2008, 01:33 AM
Jarrett Jack is a big fan of having a vice grip on the ball in late game situations, unless the target of his pass is the opposing team.

Infinite MAN_force
12-29-2008, 01:42 AM
I just wonder what Granger and this team will be like when (if) Dunleavy returns.

I was tempted to bring this up but I don't want it to seem like I am arguing the return of dun would solve all our problems. However, he is certainly capabale of being a second scoring option on a good team. On the other hand, he is not a guy who is going to gaurd the other teams best player therefore allowing Danny to focus on scoring for the bulk of the game... so ideally I hope to see Dunleavy as a sixth man who finishes games.

joew8302
12-29-2008, 02:26 AM
I love Granger, he is my favorite player in the NBA right now, but I still think he could do a better job at the end of games. See NJ a week ago, two costly missed free throws at the very end. Tonight, setteling for long jumpers instead of being more aggressive. Could Danny turn into a batman? Sure. Right now though he is not. Batman's teams don't have as poor of a record in close games as we do.

Kemo
12-29-2008, 02:31 AM
With us losing 90% or better of our games in the 4th quarter , and usually under a 10 point margin , I REALLY think that when Dunleavy comes back .. he is that missing link we need to get over that hump to win all those games...

I think we are a Dunleavy away from being a feared team ..

Look at it like this...

ALOT of teams and coaches ,believe it or not , respect what we are capable of doing on the court... and many have mentioned it numerous times throughout this season , saying that our record doesn't tell the tale of how good we actually are ..

I think that with Dunleavy on the floor.. not only does he take away the pressure of the scoring load off of Granger, but he also will draw the opposing team's defense off of Granger, which in turn will make it ALOT easier for Danny to be that GO TO guy and to take over games...

Dunleavy is such an intelligent player... even without the ball , that his on court decisions, actually make the team around him better...

Dunleavy is , in my opinion , just as deadly at the 3 , if not more than Danny ..
His 20 - 25 points per game , and high IQ , is what we need to really strike the fear into other teams.. If Marquis is still playing as good as he is , when Dun gets back , It will give our bench that much NEEDED scoring boost with his 16 to 20 pts a game..


I just hope like heck that Dun gets his knee in check , and will perform at the level he did last season.. If he can do that, then I think we will be very close to where we need to be in terms of progress and winning...

joew8302
12-29-2008, 02:40 AM
I like Dunleavy's game, but if the missing piece to winning is a guy whose never played in the playoffs we are hurting for sure. Yes Mike will help on offense, but his return will make our defense worse than it already is if that is possible.

QuickRelease
12-29-2008, 09:07 AM
I like Dunleavy's game, but if the missing piece to winning is a guy whose never played in the playoffs we are hurting for sure. Yes Mike will help on offense, but his return will make our defense worse than it already is if that is possible.

See, but to make this statement amounts to faulting Dunleavy for the teams he played on not making the playoffs. Players build their playoff resume by making the playoffs, and making the playoffs is a team thing. Dunleavy not having played on a playoff team says nothing about his ability to dramatically improve the flow of this team.

Anthem
12-29-2008, 09:40 AM
The Pacers used to do an excellent job of getting Reggie open AND getting him the ball in late game situations. Everyone in the building, coaches, vendors, fans, opposing players, etc KNEW Reggie was getting the ball and the shot and more times than not we got him open and he got a good look.

Soooooo are we really doing those things for Granger?
Nope. They were throwing 2 guys at granger in the 4th last night, and he was still shooting because everybody else on the floor was waiting for him to do so.

This team still needs more balance, and more real threats late in games.

Will Galen
12-29-2008, 10:12 AM
The Pacers used to do an excellent job of getting Reggie open AND getting him the ball in late game situations. Everyone in the building, coaches, vendors, fans, opposing players, etc KNEW Reggie was getting the ball and the shot and more times than not we got him open and he got a good look.

Soooooo are we really doing those things for Granger?

-Bball

Unlike Reggie, Granger can get his own shot. Still I'd take him shooting off a screen like Reggie used to do for a last shot.





I just wonder what Granger and this team will be like when (if) Dunleavy returns.

I'm thinking we can score on anyone. Our trouble is we can't stop anyone at the end of games. So how is Dun going to help there?

duke dynamite
12-29-2008, 11:21 AM
Good enough to make a shot like Nestle's Quik.

duke dynamite
12-29-2008, 11:22 AM
The Pacers used to do an excellent job of getting Reggie open AND getting him the ball in late game situations. Everyone in the building, coaches, vendors, fans, opposing players, etc KNEW Reggie was getting the ball and the shot and more times than not we got him open and he got a good look.

Soooooo are we really doing those things for Granger?

-Bball
There is not a lot of experienced talent around Danny as there was for Reggie. Give it time.

Justin Tyme
12-29-2008, 12:51 PM
[QUOTE=Will Galen;825250]

Our trouble is we can't stop anyone at the end of games. /QUOTE]



No, the trouble is that the Pacers can't stop anyone during the whole game. 20 games of teams scoring 100 or more points with other teams winning 18 of those games. When the Pacers keep their opponents 99 points or less, they have won 80% of those games. If this team was playing "D" the whole game, other teams wouldn't be in a situation where they can win games in the last 3 minutes or less.

Dece
12-29-2008, 01:16 PM
Anyone remember Sharif-Abdul Rahim?

Year Team GP GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG SPG BPG PPG
199900 Vancouver 82 82 39.3 .465 .302 .809 10.1 3.3 1.1 1.1 20.3
200001 Vancouver 81 81 40.0 .472 .188 .834 9.1 3.1 1.1 .9 20.5
200102 Atlanta 77 77 38.7 .461 .300 .801 9.0 3.1 1.3 1.0 21.2
200203 Atlanta 81 81 38.1 .478 .350 .841 8.4 3.0 1.1 .5 19.9

He's the definition of a reasonably talented player putting up stats due to being the only good player on bad teams. I'll withhold real judgment on Danny for when we aren't terrible.

trey
12-29-2008, 03:13 PM
Honestly I feel like if Danny improved his ball handling and agility a little bit then he would be nearly unstoppable, and would be mentioned as a superstar by most people. I have noticed that he's great at coming off screens and getting that open shot, and he can drive if someone gives him a little space, but at times he struggles with his dribbling and seems to be looking down at the ball when he's trying to get around someone.

I also feel like he would be even better if he was on a better team because he is such a great shooter and defender, and it's not like he's just jacking up a lot of shots to try and get 25 per game..he's taking good shots and knocking them down. I only see him take maybe 3 bad shots a game.

naptownmenace
12-29-2008, 03:45 PM
Jarrett Jack is a big fan of having a vice grip on the ball in late game situations, unless the target of his pass is the opposing team.

IMO, that's the only thing holding Danny back. After last night's game and the loss to the Clippers I couldn't help but wonder if the Pacers would've won if Diener was on the floor to finish the game.

As far as the question of this thread is concerned... Danny is as good as Andre Igoudala, Richard Jefferson, Josh Howard, Michael Redd, Vince Carter, Caron Butler, Shawn Marion, and the current bad back version of TMac. He's actually better than most of those guys because I don't think the Pacers would be getting equal value if they traded him for any of those guys.

He's close to being as good as Pierce, Joe Johnson, and maybe Carmelo (only because Melo's defense is still lacking) but I'd put him on that same level. I guess I'd say he's in the tier below superstars like LeBron, DWade, and Kobe.

However, it's the fact that we can even have this debate that shows how talented Danny is. He's been a wonderful bright spot for the Pacers this season and we should be glad to have him.

Dr. Awesome
12-29-2008, 05:13 PM
IMO, that's the only thing holding Danny back. After last night's game and the loss to the Clippers I couldn't help but wonder if the Pacers would've won if Diener was on the floor to finish the game.

As far as the question of this thread is concerned... Danny is as good as Andre Igoudala, Richard Jefferson, Josh Howard, Michael Redd, Vince Carter, Caron Butler, Shawn Marion, and the current bad back version of TMac. He's actually better than most of those guys because I don't think the Pacers would be getting equal value if they traded him for any of those guys.

He's close to being as good as Pierce, Joe Johnson, and maybe Carmelo (only because Melo's defense is still lacking) but I'd put him on that same level. I guess I'd say he's in the tier below superstars like LeBron, DWade, and Kobe.

However, it's the fact that we can even have this debate that shows how talented Danny is. He's been a wonderful bright spot for the Pacers this season and we should be glad to have him.

Melo is so overrated. Danny Granger is already better than Melo, Melo just has more publicity. Melo's defense isn't lacking, its non existent. Granger is also better than all those players you mentioned on the top. I agree that Pierce and Johnson are better at this point with their ability to close games, once he can prove to do that, I'd only put him behind Bron, Wade, and Kobe.

DisplacedKnick
12-29-2008, 05:29 PM
Talented?

Danny Granger is mid-level in the NBA judging strictly on talent. Reggie Miller was too.

Danny is talented "enough."

What he is is fundamentally sound, has his head in the game, and gives effort and works hard. His real strength though is his fundamentals which are better than about 85% of the players in the league.

d_c
12-29-2008, 06:22 PM
Melo is so overrated. Danny Granger is already better than Melo, Melo just has more publicity. Melo's defense isn't lacking, its non existent. Granger is also better than all those players you mentioned on the top. I agree that Pierce and Johnson are better at this point with their ability to close games, once he can prove to do that, I'd only put him behind Bron, Wade, and Kobe.

Carmelo was drafted by a team that was in the basement. Ever since, the Nuggets have made the playoffs every single season in the Western Conference and he's been the best player on the team. He's been on Team USA since 2004 and been one of the 3 or 4 best players on the team each time he's played. He's a multiple time all-star who's been voted in by the COACHES each time.

He's overrated if you want him to be Lebron or Kobe. Otherwise, he's the best player on a perennial playoff team. It's amazing how much hate guys like Carmelo get for being very good, but not the best.

Dr. Awesome
12-29-2008, 06:39 PM
Carmelo was drafted by a team that was in the basement. Ever since, the Nuggets have made the playoffs every single season in the Western Conference and he's been the best player on the team. He's been on Team USA since 2004 and been one of the 3 or 4 best players on the team each time he's played. He's a multiple time all-star who's been voted in by the COACHES each time.

He's overrated if you want him to be Lebron or Kobe. Otherwise, he's the best player on a perennial playoff team. It's amazing how much hate guys like Carmelo get for being very good, but not the best.

Carmelo Anthony - 34 MPG, 21 PPG - .431 FG%, 7.5 RPG, .96 SPG, .31 BPG, 3.5 APG, 3.5 TOPG

Danny Granger - 36 MPG, 25 PPG - .455 FG%, 5.1 RPG, 1 SPG, 1.33 BPG, 3.2 APG, 3.1 TOPG

Now, I'm not saying Melo is bad - but he is a scorer - thats it. He is not the superstar that everyone makes him out to be. I'm not faulting him for being compared to LeBron, I'm saying he simply got so much hype out of college and high school, that when he puts up 21 ppg, everyone acts as if he is amazing. Had Jamaal Crawford gotten the same hype, we'd be talking about him in the same sentence. Carmelo Anthony doesn't play defense at all, and while he may have been one of the best scorers on Team USA, he wasn't close to being the best player.

d_c
12-29-2008, 06:43 PM
Carmelo Anthony - 34 MPG, 21 PPG - .431 FG%, 7.5 RPG, .96 SPG, .31 BPG, 3.5 APG, 3.5 TOPG

Danny Granger - 36 MPG, 25 PPG - .455 FG%, 5.1 RPG, 1 SPG, 1.33 BPG, 3.2 APG, 3.1 TOPG


Denver Nuggets: 20-11 record with Carmelo Anthony as their leading scorer AND best player. He's doing something right.

Dr. Awesome
12-29-2008, 06:55 PM
Denver Nuggets: 20-11 record with Carmelo Anthony as their leading scorer AND best player. He's doing something right.

The team is 3-1 without him, 4-1 if you include the game he only played 14 minutes. I think most anyone whos been paying attention realizes that Chauncy Billups is easily the most important player on that team.

Also, Chauncy Billups was the best player on a team that constantly dominated the Eastern Conference, does that make him better than LeBron James? Of course not, he simply had a much better supporting cast.

Hicks
12-29-2008, 06:59 PM
Talented?

Danny Granger is mid-level in the NBA judging strictly on talent. Reggie Miller was too.

Danny is talented "enough."

What he is is fundamentally sound, has his head in the game, and gives effort and works hard. His real strength though is his fundamentals which are better than about 85% of the players in the league.

Define talent. Athleticism? Speed? Intelligence? Other?

Because when I see Danny being an offensive weapon (a work in progress), a very good shooter, starting to be a good passer, someone who fluxuates between average and very good defensively, and a good rebounder, I think of that as a lot more than a "mid-level" talent.

Hicks
12-29-2008, 07:02 PM
The team is 3-1 without him, 4-1 if you include the game he only played 14 minutes. I think most anyone whos been paying attention realizes that Chauncy Billups is easily the most important player on that team.

Also, Chauncy Billups was the best player on a team that constantly dominated the Eastern Conference, does that make him better than LeBron James? Of course not, he simply had a much better supporting cast.

Yeah, I continue to detest knocking a player based on what the TEAM he is on is achieving. The best players of course play a key role in winning, but they're never the sole reason a team wins.

d_c
12-29-2008, 07:03 PM
The team is 3-1 without him, 4-1 if you include the game he only played 14 minutes. I think most anyone whos been paying attention realizes that Chauncy Billups is easily the most important player on that team.

Also, Chauncy Billups was the best player on a team that constantly dominated the Eastern Conference, does that make him better than LeBron James? Of course not, he simply had a much better supporting cast.

This is the same Chauncey Billups who is a career 41% shooter and is shooting right about there this season. Take out Carmelo for longer than some 4 game stretch and the Nuggets would go right down the toilet.

Chauncey Billups is an excellent player, but it's Carmelo Anthony who is the focal point of every opposing team's game plan when they play against the Nuggets. It's Carmelo who draws the double/triple teams and Carmelo who they throw the ball to every time they need a bucket down the stretch of a close game.

Quis
12-29-2008, 07:05 PM
Denver Nuggets: 20-11 record with Carmelo Anthony as their leading scorer AND best player. He's doing something right.

So what is it that makes Melo's Nuggets so much better than Granger's Pacers? Is it the less efficient scoring? The inferior defense? Or could it be, you know, that whole 'team' concept, where teams wins and loses depend on the entire makeup of the team and not just one player?

d_c
12-29-2008, 07:09 PM
Yeah, I continue to detest knocking a player based on what the TEAM he is on is achieving. The best players of course play a key role in winning, but they're never the sole reason a team wins.


So what is it that makes Melo's Nuggets so much better than Granger's Pacers? Is it the less efficient scoring? The inferior defense? Or could it be, you know, that whole 'team' concept, where teams wins and loses depend on the entire makeup of the team and not just one player?

The Nuggets roster is chalk full of players many people on many boards (not just this one) have said that they wouldn't even want on their team. I've read it many times before. They don't want Carmelo. They don't want JR Smith. The don't want Kenyon Martin. They think Nene is overrated, overpaid and a done nothing.

Either Carmelo is really that good or a lot of these other players who people say they don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole are a lot better than they've been described.

Dr. Awesome
12-29-2008, 07:15 PM
The Nuggets roster is chalk full of players many people on many boards (not just this one) have said that they wouldn't even want on their team. I've read it many times before. They don't want Carmelo. They don't want JR Smith. The don't want Kenyon Martin. They think Nene is overrated, overpaid and a done nothing.

Either Carmelo is really that good or a lot of these other players who people say they don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole are a lot better than they've been described.

They don't want Melo because he is one of the worst defenders in the NBA, with a **** poor attitude, and a huge ego. They don't want Martin because he has one of the worst contracts in the NBA. The don't want Nene because of his injury history. They don't want Smith because of his **** poor attitude and ego.

They all have red flags, but that has nothing to do with their talent level. We don't want Tinsley, but he is talented. We didn't want Jackson, but he is talented. There is two sides to every story, your simply looking at it from one angle.

Hicks
12-29-2008, 07:15 PM
Personally I don't want guys like Smith or Martin because of their attitudes and/or salaries, not their talent.

d_c
12-29-2008, 07:21 PM
They don't want Melo because he is one of the worst defenders in the NBA, with a **** poor attitude, and a huge ego. They don't want Martin because he has one of the worst contracts in the NBA. The don't want Nene because of his injury history. They don't want Smith because of his **** poor attitude and ego.

They all have red flags, but that has nothing to do with their talent level. We don't want Tinsley, but he is talented. We didn't want Jackson, but he is talented. There is two sides to every story, your simply looking at it from one angle.

I never talked about liking any of these guys and their attitudes. I just said they're 20-11, so at least a few of their players must be pretty good.

They're getting the job done (where it counts) on the basketball floor and none of their players are shooting up clubs or punching people in the stands. Personally, I don't like a lot of the players on that team myself, but I give credit where it's due.

Kuq_e_Zi91
12-29-2008, 07:25 PM
Denver Nuggets: 20-11 record with Carmelo Anthony as their leading scorer AND best player. He's doing something right.

Give us Billups and you can replace Denver Nuggets and Carmelo Anthony in that sentence with Indiana Pacers and Danny Granger.

Dr. Awesome
12-29-2008, 07:29 PM
I never talked about liking any of these guys and their attitudes. I just said they're 20-11, so at least a few of their players must be pretty good.

They're getting the job done (where it counts) on the basketball floor and none of their players are shooting up clubs or punching people in the stands. Personally, I don't like a lot of the players on that team myself, but I give credit where it's due.

You pretty much took the same argument I had against you and reworded it.

idioteque
12-29-2008, 07:34 PM
Danny Granger is quite possibly the most all-around talented Pacer in the NBA era. He might not be there yet, but he has a great chance of getting there. I thought JO had the ability to be so but bad luck and injuries got in his way.

Reggie was a great, great player but like others have said, the offense was designed for him and a good portion of his talent was utilized through incredible intangibles. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but Danny is probably the more gifted player. And I should note that I absolutely love Reggie and I don't think any Pacer will ever replace him as my favorite.

Quis
12-29-2008, 07:38 PM
d_c, if anyone here has said they didn't want those players, it's for reasons that go well beyond their talent level.

I haven't seen anyone say they wouldn't want Melo, just that he's overrated, and even then I think that has a lot more to do with a perceived lack of respect for Granger than Melo. I'm not one who feel Melo is overrated nor do I think Granger is disrespected, for the most part.

J.R. Smith is a headcase. After years of Artest, Tinsley, and Jackson, do you really expect the fans to welcome the idea of adding someone like J.R. Smith to the team? It has nothing to do with his talent level. We don't want guys who run stop signs, especially when it results in death.

Nene was overpaid and injury prone ...up until this season. It's not like he's averaging career highs in PPG, RPG, BPG, FG%, and FT% or anything...... If the Nuggets are looking to move him, I'm sure Bird and Morway would be all ears, as well as about 28 other GMs.

Kenyon Martin is a good player, he just has a horrific contract, something we're trying to rid ourselves of. Again, it has nothing to do with talent level.

The Nuggets are a talented team, as their record shows, they're just not the type of team the majority of Pacer fans are looking for. We want a winning team full of classy, respectable players. It looks like we've got a good start towards the later, hopefully in time they can achieve the former as well.

Infinite MAN_force
12-29-2008, 10:57 PM
Apparently I picked the wrong sample space, his stats in the last 7 games seems to look most impressive. 30 pts, 5.7 boards, 4.3 assists. Figures the day after I create this thread a new article about danny on the pacers website...

"No debate about Granger's All-Star credentials" (http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5800017345)
Pacers: Caught in the web
Conrad Brunner

First came the broken teeth, and then the viral infection that sent him to the hospital. Most recently was a concussion that sent Danny Granger wobbling to the locker room in Memphis.

Playing without wingman Mike Dunleavy hasn't helped, either. Though Marquis Daniels has played very well as Dunleavy's stand-in, he doesn't have the ability to spread the defense and create driving lanes for teammates.

Somehow, though, Granger has managed to do more than take the next step on his career path toward stardom. He's taken several while avoiding the aforementioned potholes.

It's to the point now that there really isn't much of a debate about his All-Star credentials.

"He's really becoming quite a basketball player," said Coach Jim O'Brien. "I hope the rest of the league recognizes it because if there are people more deserving of being an All-Star than Danny, I don't know who they are. He's been terrific for us in every phase of the game."

The league is noticing.

"He’s going to be a superstar," said Hornets Coach Byron Scott after Granger scored 34, 15 in the fourth quarter, Sunday night. "Every time I see him shoot, I think it’s going in and he is going to be the face of this franchise.”

"With the kind of basketball he’s capable of," said David West, "you need to prepare for him just like you are going to prepare for (Tracy) McGrady or somebody like that.”

His last seven games have been remarkable. He has averaged 30.0 points, 5.7 rebounds and 4.3 assists, shot .493 from the field and .439 from the 3-point line. Of particular note are his increases in assists and free throw attempts (8.7 per game in the last seven, up from 5.1 in the previous games). Those are prime indicators of the continued expansion of his game.

"I'm definitely growing it," Granger said. "I'm trying to create more, pass the ball more, drive more. There was a stretch when I wasn't getting to the line as much. I've tried to change that and I've been getting to the line a lot lately."

Free throws aren't sexy, but they are absolute gold for scorers. In Granger's two biggest games (42 against the Pistons and 41 against the Warriors), for example, he went 30-of-30 from the line. In the Golden State game, he shot 11-of-27 from the field but reached 41 by making all 17 of his free throw attempts, a career-high.

"I don't think through any fault of his own he stopped getting to the foul line a few games ago," said O'Brien. "It's just that we haven't had the ability to necessarily space the court as much as we did last year. When you space the court you get more one-on-one opportunities and more one-on-one opportunities lead to more foul shots.

"When Danny catches the basketball now and he sees everybody on defense loaded up in the lane against him, he knows we do not want him to dribble into traffic and as a result of being one-on-three or one-on-four, it doesn't give him the chance to be aggressive. If he's not aggressive, foul shots become a difficulty. So that's why not having Travis (Diener) and Mike's 3-point shooting has really challenged Danny and challenged our offense."

Another significant adjustment Granger has made in those situations is the ability to use the defense's focus on him to create opportunities for his teammates, hence the increase in assists.

"Any time Danny can have a positive assist-turnover ratio, then that's growth," O'Brien said. "He has been asked to be not only a scorer but also a playmaker because when (a good shot opportunity) is taken away from him he has to see the open guy, which I think he's doing a very good job at."

His scoring average of 24.9, if maintained, would rank as the highest by a Pacers player since Billy Knight's 26.6 in 1976-77. He is on course to post career highs in assists and blocked shots.

So what's next on the list of things to do?

"Becoming one of the best defensive players in the league," said O'Brien. "Sometimes because we have played Marquis on the other team's best perimeter player, I think players mistakenly think we're protecting them so maybe they don't have to be as aggressive defensively. We always need him to be aggressive defensively. We need him to be equally successful at the defensive end as the offensive end."

Sounds a little much to ask. The funny thing is, he's fully capable.

DisplacedKnick
12-29-2008, 11:06 PM
Define talent. Athleticism? Speed? Intelligence? Other?

Because when I see Danny being an offensive weapon (a work in progress), a very good shooter, starting to be a good passer, someone who fluxuates between average and very good defensively, and a good rebounder, I think of that as a lot more than a "mid-level" talent.

That's not talent. Those are all skills.

Talent is a natural ability. A skill is the possession of an art or craft.

Hicks
12-29-2008, 11:31 PM
That's not talent. Those are all skills.

Talent is a natural ability. A skill is the possession of an art or craft.

What natural abilities are you thinking of?

Infinite MAN_force
12-29-2008, 11:34 PM
natural ability... like physical ability? Like having a good 40 time and jumping high? Lots of guys with that kind of talent don't amount to squat in the NBA.

Nobody comes out of womb with the ability to shoot the basketball, its a skill, a learned skill. For everyone.

This is something Iv'e always wondered about, I think some people put too much stock in pure athleticism when it comes to evaluating talent. Did Larry Bird lack talent? Or did he just have lots of "skills"?

I think the only way you can evaluate talent is taking in a wide spectrum of factors, these include mental toughness, heart, skills, in addition to pure athleticism.

naptownmenace
12-29-2008, 11:58 PM
natural ability... like physical ability? Like having a good 40 time and jumping high? Lots of guys with that kind of talent don't amount to squat in the NBA.

Nobody comes out of womb with the ability to shoot the basketball, its a skill, a learned skill. For everyone.

This is something Iv'e always wondered about, I think some people put too much stock in pure athleticism when it comes to evaluating talent. Did Larry Bird lack talent? Or did he just have lots of "skills"?

I think the only way you can evaluate talent is taking in a wide spectrum of factors, these include mental toughness, heart, skills, in addition to pure athleticism.

Yeah, speed, leaping ability, agility... I categorize that as athleticism not talent. Talent is practical application of that natural ability.

Sounds like semantics but I think a player can be athletic and not very talented. Look at Stromile Swift for example. Likewise a player can be talented without a lot of athleticism.

When it comes to Granger, guys that have and/or had talent in the national media along with coaches of opposing teams always comment on how "talented" he is.

BRushWithDeath
12-30-2008, 02:59 AM
Granger is a great, GREAT, jump shooter off the catch. He is a decent jump shooter off the dribble. Unfortunately, he doesn't do much else. He rarely attacks the basket. His ball handling is atrocious. He doesn't defend as hard as he used to. He's a talented player. But if he's the best player on the team (he is right now) it's going to make for a long season.

Trader Joe
12-30-2008, 03:04 AM
That's not talent. Those are all skills.

Talent is a natural ability. A skill is the possession of an art or craft.

I think you're picking nits.

DisplacedKnick
12-30-2008, 06:54 AM
I think you're picking nits.

Really? I think I'm discussing the use of the English language - a language where words have meaning.

Talent is talent - there's a reason why you talk about "raw talent" or "undeveloped talent." But talent alone doesn't make a basketball player - you have to add a skill set.

IMO, as NBA players go, Danny Granger is not supremely talented. He's talented enough, which is where 85% of NBA players are. From there it's how you utilize that talent which is where he excels. We can look at dozens of examples of more talented players who aren't as good as Danny. For whatever reason, they haven't utilized or taken advantage of their talent as well as he has. Look at Tim Thomas as an example - monster talent, more talented than Granger, but for a variety of reasons he's never come close to achieving what Danny will on the basketball court.

Usually that comes down to work ethic and also how hard someone plays when they're on the floor.

Reggie's another great example - another guy who wasn't hugely talented (in NBA terms - as with Danny, compared to most of us he was monstrously talented). But he worked his tail off utilizing screens to get his shot and even became a solid defender, not because he was a talented defender but because he knew his strengths and weaknesses, knew what he wanted to force the opposing player to do and understood how the team defense worked.

DisplacedKnick
12-30-2008, 06:56 AM
What natural abilities are you thinking of?

Hand-eye coordination, speed, quickness (both hands and feet), ability to process multiple mental inputs that are occurring simultaneously, etc.

Hicks
12-30-2008, 11:11 AM
So those are the NBA talents you think of when you decide how talented you think someone is?

DisplacedKnick
12-30-2008, 11:44 AM
So those are the NBA talents you think of when you decide how talented you think someone is?

A few of 'em - I could probably come up with a dozen or more.

Since86
12-30-2008, 11:46 AM
Talent is a grouping. Skills and athleticism/god-given ability is a sub-grouping. You can't have talent without some skills and some athleticism. The more of each, the better the talent.

When describing how a player is talented, you list their skills or athletic measurements.

And BRush, Danny is in the top 25 of FT attempts per game (and there's ten players that are less than 1 ft att/gm more than him). And if you go by his last 7 games at 8.7 attempts, that would put him tied for 6th. You get to the FT by attacking the basket.

Hicks
12-30-2008, 12:05 PM
A few of 'em - I could probably come up with a dozen or more.

Please do because whenever this comes up the specifics never seem to come up fully and every discussion of talent vs skill vs athleticism becomes murky.

Infinite MAN_force
12-30-2008, 12:27 PM
Really? I think I'm discussing the use of the English language - a language where words have meaning.

Talent is talent - there's a reason why you talk about "raw talent" or "undeveloped talent." But talent alone doesn't make a basketball player - you have to add a skill set.



eh, this seems to be coming down to semantics. What you are referring to here is the dreaded p word, potential. I think Potential is just an abbreviation for Potential Talent.

A raw player with good size and athleticism has potential, Danny Granger has talent.

I still look at this as Talent meaning the finished product. By your logic, any player who doesn't have supreme athleticism is a mediocre talent... but would you call Larry Bird a mediocre talent? See what Im getting at, its all semantics. A top 10 player of all time can't be a mediocre talent, that just doesen't sound right.

Jammal Tinsley had a lot of unrealized potential for example. not unrealized talent. His talent is only a measure of how "good" he was at any given time, at least thats how I look at it.

Hicks
12-30-2008, 01:48 PM
Talent
* endowment: natural abilities or qualities
* a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity

I take this to mean talent = ability

So what's ability?

Ability
* the quality of being able to perform; a quality that permits or facilitates achievement or accomplishment

Okay, so how about able?

Able
* having the necessary means or skill or know-how or authority to do something

So here we reach skills and knowledge.

So talent is ability, and to be able to do something is to have the skills or knowledge to do something.

This tells me that for the topic of basketball players, it comes down to four things things:

1) Someone's physical abilities
- How fast they can be
- How strong they can be
- How well they can jump
- How big/tall/long they are
- How durable their bodies are
- Fill in the blank if you think I'm leaving important things out, but you get the idea

Some of these abilities are purely genetic, others can be manipulated (eating right, working out, taking care of your body)

2) Someone's intelligence
- How fast they can learn/understand
- How much they can learn/understand
- What they can and cannot learn/understand

3) Desire and interest
- How badly do they want to do and learn these skills
- How interested are they in learning and practicing these skills

These first three combine to determine:
4) Someone's skills
- What they know how to do
- What they learn how to do
- What they are taught to do
- What they practice doing

JayRedd
12-30-2008, 02:07 PM
Gerald Green is an incredibly "talented" basketball player.

He can jump out of the gym. He has an incredible first step. He is extremely fast. His foot quickness is absolutely elite. He's strong. He has great balance. He has optimal coordination. He has thoroughbred stamina.

These things all also help lead to him incredibly "skilled."

His quickness gives him blow-by-ability. His balance and stop-and-go quickness makes him a fantastic dribbler who can abuse defenders off the bounce. His balance, explosive leaping ability and tremendous muscle memory produce a notably consistent jumpshot, in both form and accuracy. His coordination and footspeed make him a capable defender who can react instantaneously to a dribbler. His stamina allows him to do all these things on both ends of the court for extended stretches without losing much on either end.

Yet, for some reason, despite being both more "talented" and more "skilled" (aside from jumpshooting accuracy and probably hand-eye coordination) than the guy picked one spot ahead of him, our own Danny Granger, Gerald Green is an absolute scrub by comparison.

Anyone can speculate why this is and some reasons are rather obvious...but if a basketball talent scout saw both of these guys playing by themselves in an empty gym or running through drills without knowing who they were or ever having seen them in game situations before, I think, even today, he would say that Gerald was the better basketball player.

He would, of course, be undeniably mistaken -- and that's the difference between talent, skill and "ability."

Hicks
12-30-2008, 02:17 PM
That's why I say skill and physical ability are a part of what defines someone's talent.

Will Galen
12-30-2008, 04:19 PM
Gerald Green is an incredibly talented basketball player.

He can jump out of the gym. He has an incredible first step. He is extremely fast. His foot quickness is absolutely elite. He's strong. He has great balance. He has optimal coordination. He has thoroughbred stamina.

These things all also make him incredibly skilled.

His quickness gives him blow-by-ability. His balance and stop-and-go quickness makes him a fantastic dribbler who can abuse defenders off the bounce. His balance, explosive leaping ability and tremendous muscle memory produce a notably consistent jumpshot, in both form and accuracy. His coordination and footspeed make him a capable defender who can react instantaneously to a dribbler. His stamina allows him to do all these things on both ends of the court for extended stretches without losing much on either end.

Yet, for some reason, despite being more skilled and talented (aside from jumpshooting accuracy and probably hand-eye coordination) than the guy picked one spot ahead of him, our own Danny Granger, Gerald Green is an absolute scrub by comparison.

Anyone can speculate why this is and some reasons are rather obvious...but if a basketball talent scout saw both of these guys playing by themselves in an empty gym or running through drills without knowing who they were or ever having seen them in game situations before, I think, even today, he would say that Gerald was the better basketball player.

He would, of course, be undeniably mistaken -- and that's the difference between talent, skill and ability.

Now this is a good post!

DisplacedKnick
12-30-2008, 06:31 PM
eh, this seems to be coming down to semantics. What you are referring to here is the dreaded p word, potential. I think Potential is just an abbreviation for Potential Talent.

A raw player with good size and athleticism has potential, Danny Granger has talent.

I still look at this as Talent meaning the finished product. By your logic, any player who doesn't have supreme athleticism is a mediocre talent... but would you call Larry Bird a mediocre talent? See what Im getting at, its all semantics. A top 10 player of all time can't be a mediocre talent, that just doesen't sound right.

Jammal Tinsley had a lot of unrealized potential for example. not unrealized talent. His talent is only a measure of how "good" he was at any given time, at least thats how I look at it.

No - I'm talking about English words as they are defined. Talent is innate and natural. How good a player ultimately ends up being is a factor of his talent and skill set and, IMO, the raw talent is less important than skill set. There's a floor - let's face it, the least talented NBA player in the league would blow most of us away athletically - but there are many players with more raw talent than Danny Granger who aren't nearly as good.

DisplacedKnick
12-30-2008, 06:36 PM
Talent
* endowment: natural abilities or qualities
* a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity

I take this to mean talent = ability

So what's ability?

Ability
* the quality of being able to perform; a quality that permits or facilitates achievement or accomplishment

Okay, so how about able?

Able
* having the necessary means or skill or know-how or authority to do something

So here we reach skills and knowledge.

So talent is ability, and to be able to do something is to have the skills or knowledge to do something.

This tells me that for the topic of basketball players, it comes down to four things things:

1) Someone's physical abilities
- How fast they can be
- How strong they can be
- How well they can jump
- How big/tall/long they are
- How durable their bodies are
- Fill in the blank if you think I'm leaving important things out, but you get the idea

Some of these abilities are purely genetic, others can be manipulated (eating right, working out, taking care of your body)

2) Someone's intelligence
- How fast they can learn/understand
- How much they can learn/understand
- What they can and cannot learn/understand

3) Desire and interest
- How badly do they want to do and learn these skills
- How interested are they in learning and practicing these skills

These first three combine to determine:
4) Someone's skills
- What they know how to do
- What they learn how to do
- What they are taught to do
- What they practice doing

Wow - you spent a long time re-defining a simple word. You had it right the first time before you fell all over yourself trying to make a logical inference that doesn't exist.

Talent
* endowment: natural abilities or qualities
* a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity

The definition isn't too complicated but keep working at it - I'm sure there's a hundred-page paper in there somewhere by which you can change the meaning of a word.

Jon Theodore
12-30-2008, 07:04 PM
You guys are funny

Hicks
12-30-2008, 07:24 PM
Wow - you spent a long time re-defining a simple word. You had it right the first time before you fell all over yourself trying to make a logical inference that doesn't exist.

Talent
* endowment: natural abilities or qualities
* a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity

The definition isn't too complicated but keep working at it - I'm sure there's a hundred-page paper in there somewhere by which you can change the meaning of a word.

Why did you say it that way? Not your definition. The stuff before and after.

DisplacedKnick
12-30-2008, 10:04 PM
Why did you say it that way? Not your definition. The stuff before and after.

Pointing out someone going to ridiculous lengths to change the meaning of a word?

Anyway - I'm out of this discussion. Getting irritated over nothing. Before long I'll turn pedantic and nobody wants that.

Shade
12-30-2008, 10:18 PM
To be honest, Danny is already better than I ever thought he would be. Hopefully he continues to improve, and we get some help around him ASAP.