PDA

View Full Version : Reggie Miller: Granger not an All-Star!



PacerGuy
01-22-2009, 01:04 AM
In the week of 1/19 edition of SportingNews magazine that I get delivered, Reggie Miller, who writes a article for them, wrote one this week on the All-Star game. His point in the entire article is that only players on winning teams should be All-Stars. The article is entitled:
"Don't just hand out All-Star spots - make theplayers earn them"
In his last paragraph he say's:

"Keep in mind, I'm rewarding team wins - anyone can get numbers on a bad team. So, no disrespect to Al Jefferson, Danny Granger, Kevin Durant, or David Lee, all guys with great numbers, but it should be about winning."
Sorry Reg, but that is B.S.!!!
The All-Star game is for EXIBITION, the Play-Off's are for "winning teams". I get not wanting it to be a total popularity contest, where deserving players are over-shadowed by "names", but this is not the way to do that.
Thoughts?

(P.S. Sorry for the absence of a link. I went on their web site to get it, but could not fibd the article on-line.)

Raoul Duke
01-22-2009, 01:08 AM
****in traitor. There are plenty of All-Stars on losing teams.

Kemo
01-22-2009, 01:12 AM
Sounds like Miller *opened mouth, inserted foot*


I disagree with him on this one , 100% ..

Sollozzo
01-22-2009, 01:19 AM
Wow, Reggie. How many All-Star teams were you on with a mediocre team?

Not great, but okay teams.


He made 5 all star games, but only in one of those years did the Pacers have a "mediocre" team (1990 in which they won 42). The other 4 times (95, 96, 98, 00) he was playing on Pacer teams that ended up winning 50+.

duke dynamite
01-22-2009, 01:24 AM
He made 5 all star games, but only in one of those years did the Pacers have a "mediocre" team (1990). The other 4 times (95, 96, 98, 00) he was playing on Pacer teams that ended up winning 50+.
Still made it on with a mediocre team, then.

ChicagoJ
01-22-2009, 01:25 AM
Wow, Reggie. How many All-Star teams were you on with a mediocre team?

Not great, but okay teams.

1.

And that team in 1990 was off to a red hot start as Q-tip head played Chuck, Reggie and Det super heavy minutes. I think they started 19-9 before fading badly, then getting swept in the playoffs.

They weren't lottery bound.

Pretty sure they were well above 0.500 when the all-star reserves were announced, and that was one of they key reasons Reggie was added.

duke dynamite
01-22-2009, 01:28 AM
Okay, sorry.

I retract my statement...

kester99
01-22-2009, 01:30 AM
Lots of folks have expressed this same opinion before...that the All-Stars should be from the top of the standings. Nothing new there, and that's not the way the rules stand, so theirs is just another irrelevant opinion at this point.

Reggie's certainly entitled to his opinion. Doesn't make him a traitor to anything. Your vote counts as much as his.

Spirit
01-22-2009, 01:44 AM
All Stars should just be the best players in the league regardless of record.

Pacersfan46
01-22-2009, 01:56 AM
I would agree with this assessment more if we weren't competitive. Even though our record isn't so great, we have been in many, many games we haven't lost until the final buzzer. That doesn't count in the standings, but in this case it should.

I read somewhere that our team is 26 points away from having 26 wins. That's ridiculous if true, I haven't double checked it. I wouldn't doubt it though.

-- Steve --

d_c
01-22-2009, 02:11 AM
FWIW, coaches hate voting in players on bad teams for the all-star game. Back a few years ago when Antawn Jamison had the back to back 51 point games and had a 25 ppg average plus 7 rebs a game heading into the break, the coaches didn't vote him in because the Warriors were so bad.

That being said, I think Granger is an all-star this year, simply by the way he's played. It's not about his stats (like Troy Murphy and his double doubles), he's just played great.

Dr. Awesome
01-22-2009, 03:26 AM
Reggie has really become the Tiki Barber of the NBA. He has done nothing but bash the Pacers since retiring. I mean, in some cases he has points, but I just didn't expect blow after blow from him.

Alabama-Redneck
01-22-2009, 04:40 AM
Dwayne Wade is a prime example. He made the 2008 All-Star team and Miami won 15 games last year.

Will Chris Bosh make the All-Star team this year with Toronto having a worse record than the Pacers ?

It should be about the players and not the teams.

:cool:

Jose Slaughter
01-22-2009, 05:09 AM
Wade was voted a starter by the fans in 08.

Cactus Jax
01-22-2009, 06:54 AM
To me Granger has to make it and will make it. When the only names ahead of you in the sexiest stat around are Kobe, Lebron, and Wade you're really doing something right, and I believe the coaches will reward him for that (remember its a coaches vote after the starters and not a media thing)

SoupIsGood
01-22-2009, 08:47 AM
Am I the only one that thinks Reggie has proven to be stunningly uninteresting/annoying in his media career? And I'm not saying this just because of this article. It just seems like he says a lot of banal, sort of vapid stuff.

count55
01-22-2009, 08:56 AM
I have a standing rule (OK, more of a guideline) about players/musicians/personalities that I like: I do my utmost to avoid hearing them talk or finding out about their views (political, religious, or otherwise), opinions, upbringing, favorite color, etc. I don't always succeed, but I prefer not to have my enjoyment of them in their chosen fields of endeavor impaired or polluted by indirect issues..

That, and the fact that most of them are relatively uninteresting.

Will Galen
01-22-2009, 09:52 AM
I'm not a fan of the all star game. However the NBA says the all star game is for the fans. If so it really doesn't matter who makes it.

Unclebuck
01-22-2009, 09:55 AM
In theory I agree with Reggie - but Granger has been sooo good that he is the exception

DocHolliday
01-22-2009, 10:23 AM
To me, Granger is a fringe All-Star. If he makes it, I can understand why and I can understand why if he doesn't make it.

pacergod2
01-22-2009, 10:24 AM
I blatantly disagree with Reggie on this one. Guys who are in their early stages of their career aren't truly expected to win right. What about Kobe on those post Shaq years where they weren't very good. What about Jordan in the mid eighties. And its all about sexy like someone mentioned. Scoring. Did Robert Horry ever make an all-star appearance. One of the greatest winners ever, who did everything a basketball player should. He was a GREAT basketball player, but wasn't the guy who ever did the scoring extremely well. He shot three's, blocked shots, rebounded, and got a lot of steals. He was very good defensively. He was one of the greatest pick setters ever. He made clutch shots time and time again. He got key rebounds game after game after game. Regular season and Post season. He was a GREAT "winner" but was never rewarded with an All-Star appearance. It is all about the sexy players who score. There is no reason that Granger won't make it. Especially when coaches have said what a great player he is becoming like Byron Scott and Doc Rivers both did.

Reggie has been nothing but a goofball as a commentator. He is annoying because that is him. That's his personality. Great guy to hang out with, but as a media type it doesn't work. I would much rather listen to Cheryl. I wonder how many times she beat him one on one in their driveway.

NapTonius Monk
01-22-2009, 11:32 AM
In the week of 1/19 edition of SportingNews magazine that I get delivered, Reggie Miller, who writes a article for them, wrote one this week on the All-Star game. His point in the entire article is that only players on winning teams should be All-Stars. The article is entitled:
"Don't just hand out All-Star spots - make theplayers earn them"
In his last paragraph he say's:

Sorry Reg, but that is B.S.!!!
The All-Star game is for EXIBITION, the Play-Off's are for "winning teams". I get not wanting it to be a total popularity contest, where deserving players are over-shadowed by "names", but this is not the way to do that.
Thoughts?

(P.S. Sorry for the absence of a link. I went on their web site to get it, but could not fibd the article on-line.)

These are my sentiments exactly. The All-Star game is a collection of the best players (a time for individual recognition). The playoffs is a collection of the best teams. Couldn't disagree with Reggie more.

JayRedd
01-22-2009, 12:51 PM
It's a philosophical argument: (1) Should the All Stars be the players who have flat out played the best basketball for the past three months, or (2) Should the All Stars be the players who have led their teams to the best record?

Some people (i.e., Reggie and Eric Snow) are firmly entrenched in camp #2. Some people are all about camp #1. Most coaches I imagine probably flip flop a little bit considering their philosophical posturing on silly crap like this is naturally gonna be less idiotically "I'm drawing a line in the sand in front of this TV camera" than the punditry. I reckon some coaches don't spend more than 10 minutes filling out their ballots and base some of it on "Well, ****, that Granger kid dropped like 40 on us and hit a game winner...Check."

Persoannly, I tend to go both ways. (Shut up.)

As UB says, Granger has just been so good he should be a lock. He's not only playing above all but three or four forwards in the East, but he's playing so far beyond what he's ever done in the past that his consistently stellar and clutch play should make him a lock. Additionally, I think Al Jeff should be a West All-Star.

Then again, I'm really not sure Paul Pierce really "deserves" recognition for his first half. He's been rather ordinary by his own high standards -- and both Ray Ray and KG have been better for the past three months. Yet, Truth is the most potent weapon on a team that started 27-2. So he's probably a lead pipe lock.

If the coaches feel the same way about Tay (who should be a definite, IMO), Rashard and Hedo...Danny actually might be **** outta luck. Didn't really think the Magic were gonna get both of them in -- both given their record, it's seeming more probable by the day.

I mean, right now he's up against: (1) LeBron, (2) KG, (3) Bosh, (4) Tayshaun, (5) Pierce, (6) Rashard, and (7) Hedo. And aside from CB4, those teams have lost an absurdly low number of games.

I still think Danny will squeak in (maybe Hedo and Rashard split the Magic vote, they call Bosh a C and call Pierce a G?), but he's certainly walking on rather thin ice given all these other forwards that "need to be rewarded" for their team's record.

In conclusion: **** the Magic. Danny's All-Star credentials shouldn't even be debatable.

Fool
01-22-2009, 12:58 PM
Does Reggie ever say positive things about the Pacers anymore?

JayRedd
01-22-2009, 12:59 PM
Does Reggie ever say positive things about the Pacers anymore?

Unfortunately, his job is to tell the truth.

Fool
01-22-2009, 01:12 PM
Nice.

Roaming Gnome
01-22-2009, 02:15 PM
Unfortunately, his job is to tell the truth.
Wish that was the case for Steve Kerr or most of their color analyst when they worked for TNT.

Since86
01-22-2009, 02:50 PM
Unfortunately, his job is to tell the truth.


No, his job is to tell us his opinion. Danny not being an All-Star is his opinion, not the truth.

NuffSaid
01-22-2009, 03:16 PM
In the week of 1/19 edition of SportingNews magazine that I get delivered, Reggie Miller, who writes a article for them, wrote one this week on the All-Star game. His point in the entire article is that only players on winning teams should be All-Stars. The article is entitled:
"Don't just hand out All-Star spots - make theplayers earn them"
In his last paragraph he say's:

Sorry Reg, but that is B.S.!!!
The All-Star game is for EXIBITION, the Play-Off's are for "winning teams". I get not wanting it to be a total popularity contest, where deserving players are over-shadowed by "names", but this is not the way to do that.
Thoughts?

(P.S. Sorry for the absence of a link. I went on their web site to get it, but could not fibd the article on-line.)
I guess that depends on one's definition of a "winning team."

If it's definited as teams with records greater than .500, then I'll buy that. But if it means a team that have consistent playoff appearances, then alot of players will be left of the All-Star ballot.

I agree with PacerGuy here. I hate the way the All-Star balloting is conducted. It's too much of a popularity contest, IMO, even w/the online voting. Fans will still go with name recogniztion vice actually reviewing each candidate's states and/or watching how they perform before casting a well-informed vote.

For example: Would anyone disagree that Troy Murphy is putting up All-Star numbers this year? His play has been consistent. He's putting up numbers close to Pau Gasol, but he won't get voted in because no one really knows his name.

Another case and point is Yi of the Nets. He reportedly has more votes than Granger!, and yet Yi's numbers don't even compare. That's the absordity of All-Star voting the way it's configured! It is a popularity contest.

BRushWithDeath
01-22-2009, 03:19 PM
I guess that depends on one's definition of a "winning team."

If it's definited as teams with records greater than .500, then I'll buy that. But if it means a team that has consistent playoff appearances, then alot of players will be left of the All-Star ballot. I agree with PacerGuy here. I hate the way the All-Star balloting is conducted. It's too much of a popularity contest, IMO, even w/the online voting. Fans will still go off of name recogniztion vice actually reviewing each candidate's states and/or watching how they perform before casting a well-informed vote. For example: Would anyone disagree that Troy Murphy is putting up All-Star numbers this year? His play has been consistent. He's putting up numbers close to Pau Gasol, but he won't get voted in because no one really knows his name. Another case and point is Yi of the Nets. He reportedly has more votes than Granger!, and yet Yi's numbers don't even compare. That's the absordity of All-Star voting the way it's configured. It is a popularity contest.

If you just seriously compared Troy Murphy with Pau Gasol you need to rethink things.

ajbry
01-22-2009, 03:34 PM
Pau Gasol is putting up 18 and 9 on the best team in the West...

Troy Murphy is putting up 12 and 11 on a losing team in the East with very little frontcourt competition.

And while I think Reggie's point is inherently correct, it still should be a case-by-case basis. Granger has proven he deserves serious All-Star consideration at the very least this year... But coaches may discount his numbers for reasons we all know.

croz24
01-22-2009, 03:38 PM
Still made it on with a mediocre team, then.

there's a pretty big difference between a mediocre team and a bad team. granger is on a bad team.

naptownmenace
01-22-2009, 03:44 PM
All Stars should just be the best players in the league regardless of record.

I agree. If there is a better player on a better team, I'd understand the argument. There's not too many players playing better basketball than Granger in the league this year.

D23
01-22-2009, 04:52 PM
Another case and point is Yi of the Nets. He reportedly has more votes than Granger!, and yet Yi's numbers don't even compare.

Yeah, you could say that. Last count (on January 8) had Yi with 1,216,348 votes... almost ready to overtake Garnett's 1,375,814 for 2nd place and a starting spot. Danny, meanwhile, was humming along with a mere 199,200 - roughly 16% of Yi's total. Sorry to get off of the thread topic, but this just kills me :(

Naptown_Seth
01-22-2009, 05:36 PM
He made 5 all star games, but only in one of those years did the Pacers have a "mediocre" team (1990 in which they won 42). The other 4 times (95, 96, 98, 00) he was playing on Pacer teams that ended up winning 50+.
But he was most often overlooked on those mediocre teams and was rewarded with some AS games when he was not as sharp as he had been. Reggie was his most deadly around seasons 3-5, but it takes time to get respect and Jordan was in the way most of the time (everybody fighting for the 2nd or 3rd slots).

Seriously, who here that saw Reggie play live his entire career thinks he was a more dominant, difficult to stop player in 98-2000 than he was in 91-93? No way, not even close. He kept up the shooting, he didn't get worse, but it's a total disservice to Reggie himself to imply that he wasn't the bomb in those early seasons.

Maybe he's just bitter about being overlooked back then, maybe he's come to terms with it by justifying his snubs due to teams that weren't as great.

But the improvement from 1992 to 1998 had ZERO to do with Reggie finally not being a loser or player than couldn't win. Nothing. Not one ounce. Coaching and the roster around him (ahem, Jax anyone) got his teams to win more, Reggie was always the reliable constant just waiting for more help.

Why in the heck wouldn't you want to reward a player for being great regardless? Aren't they already punished enough by being stuck on a bad team?

Ooh, let's put Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott on the AS team instead of Reggie because clearly they are doing what Reggie could not if paired with Shaq/Penny. :rolleyes:

Can't believe Reggie drank the Kool-Aid on that one.

Naptown_Seth
01-22-2009, 05:42 PM
Wade was voted a starter by the fans in 08.
You say this as though you really think the coaches wouldn't have put him on, and/or as though fans wouldn't have lost their mind on the snub if the coaches did overlook him.

Has Melo been missing AS games, has AI? And what I mean there is that these vote ons aren't considered massive controversies when they do make the team with .500 or worse rosters. Plenty of players from not so great teams make the AS game with no one thinking twice about it.


Wins is a tie-breaker, or near tie-breaker. Two close calls, sure go with winning. But a clear strong player vs a hanger-on from a good team, come on.


It's also chicken/egg, is the guy better because he's paired with other good players that help him or is the team better because he's on the team?

See Rashard Lewis, who apparently is much better now that he's with Orlando (winning) than when he was in Seattle (losing). Sure his PPS and PER are slightly down but that's because he must share the ball as he carries Howard on his back and makes him and the crappy Magic look good.

And clearly Gasol no longer sucks now that he's come along and started to carry Kobe. Back when he was in Memphis he couldn't lead an anvil to the ground.

Isn't it funny how some of these "numbers on a bad team" keep putting up numbers when they move to a good team? You know what you often do see, you see guys putting up numbers on a good team sign with a bad team where they are in charge and their numbers go in the toilet.


I think the rule is really that numbers in support of 2-3 other stars don't mean squat, or at least hella less than numbers from the top guy on a bad team. You know that guy can get it done without help, without a guy to relieve the pressure and defensive focus. Again I cite Dennis Scott and his decade run of greatest 3pt ace ever.

Naptown_Seth
01-22-2009, 05:55 PM
One other thing for Reggie to be upset about - Danny's going to make more AS games than he did. He's not the only one telling the truth out there.
;)

Hoop
01-22-2009, 06:36 PM
I get both sides of the argument, but the Reggie and Eric Snow opinion makes little sense when they both think Bosh should be in and not Danny. I would not trade Danny straight up for Bosh. The Raptors are a much more dissapointing team, based on expectations, than the Pacers have been.

I normally agree a good player on a bad team should not make it based on just big numbers. BUT, Wade, Lebron and Kobe are the only ones a head of him in scoring and he has made tons of clutch shots this season, He's not having your typical "big numbers on a bad team" kind of season. Few players in the entire league are having better seasons than Danny is.

Danny truly deserves a All-Star spot IMO.

ChicagoJ
01-22-2009, 07:39 PM
Without Danny, we would be OKC/ Memphis bad.

That has to count for something, right?

BlueNGold
01-22-2009, 07:51 PM
So....what happens if the best player in the history of the game is on a team with no talent. Should he not be on the all-star team just because he cannot singlehandedly get to the finals?

As much as I admire Reggie, he is just rong.

Oneal07
01-22-2009, 11:07 PM
LOL How Many Games Did Miami Win Last Year?

ajbry
01-22-2009, 11:34 PM
Without Danny, we would be OKC/ Memphis bad.

That has to count for something, right?

The Pacers are second-to-last in their conference. The Grizzlies are higher than that in the West, so basically the Pacers are OKC/Memphis bad...

DGPR
01-22-2009, 11:40 PM
The Pacers are second-to-last in their conference. The Grizzlies are higher than that in the West, so basically the Pacers are OKC/Memphis bad...


I just looked at the standings and realized this. :eek:

We are now 6 games out of the playoffs.

BlueNGold
01-22-2009, 11:49 PM
The Pacers are second-to-last in their conference. The Grizzlies are higher than that in the West, so basically the Pacers are OKC/Memphis bad...

Whateva. The EC > WC this year. In fact, as bad as we are, amazingly Indy > nearly half the WC. Scrub division it is...

BlueNGold
01-22-2009, 11:51 PM
I just looked at the standings and realized this. :eek:

We are now 6 games out of the playoffs.

It will require a minor miracle to make the playoffs this year. If we are not any closer by the end of Feb., it is over.

Kid Minneapolis
01-23-2009, 01:00 AM
Imagine the chip on Granger's shoulder if he gets snubbed. He'd average 40/game for the rest of the year. I... I think I'd almost want to see that. Is that sick?

MrSparko
01-23-2009, 01:12 AM
Imagine the chip on Granger's shoulder if he gets snubbed. He'd average 40/game for the rest of the year. I... I think I'd almost want to see that. Is that sick?


If he managed to average 40 a game while still shooting a reasonable percentage then by all means snub him! :cool:

Pacersfan46
01-23-2009, 01:37 AM
The Pacers are second-to-last in their conference. The Grizzlies are higher than that in the West, so basically the Pacers are OKC/Memphis bad...

Wow, that's a terrible way to compare teams. How about this ... if the Pacers had the same record in the West that has them #14 in the East, they would be #10 in the West ....

That's like saying last year in baseball since the Red Sox finished 2nd in their division, and the Rangers finished 2nd in their division too ..... they must be equals right? I mean, lets ignore that the Red Sox went 95-67 and the Rangers went 79-83 .... I mean they just absolutely MUST be equals because they finished in the same spot in each division, right?

Silly.

-- Steve --

Kuq_e_Zi91
01-23-2009, 01:45 AM
Reggie just went more in depth about it while doing the Lakers/Wizards game.

He said, "Danny Granger is playing out of his mind, but what has he done for his team. It's a team game."

What has he done for our team? Reg, I love you, but are you even watching?

Trader Joe
01-23-2009, 02:25 AM
You mean besides the buzzer beaters in Houston and Phoenix? Or the ridiculous play against the Celtics or Lakers? Or the shot he hit against the Hornets, that was still balls to the wall ice in the veins even if Paul did one up him?

I don't know what Reggie's smoking on this one.

croz24
01-23-2009, 02:41 AM
Reggie just went more in depth about it while doing the Lakers/Wizards game.

He said, "Danny Granger is playing out of his mind, but what has he done for his team. It's a team game."

What has he done for our team? Reg, I love you, but are you even watching?

i think reggie and i are watching the same game and the majority of you are not. good for granger that he's putting up 26ppg, but where are the wins? in basketball, yes, one great player makes that much of a difference. all any outsider needs to do to understand the homerism on this board, is read the "who would you trade granger for" thread.

Merz
01-23-2009, 03:11 AM
i think reggie and i are watching the same game and the majority of you are not. good for granger that he's putting up 26ppg, but where are the wins? in basketball, yes, one great player makes that much of a difference. all any outsider needs to do to understand the homerism on this board, is read the "who would you trade granger for" thread.

:unimpress

Trader Joe
01-23-2009, 03:46 AM
This team would probably be lucky to have five wins right now if Granger wasn't around, and I say that with 100% seriousness.

ChicagoJ
01-23-2009, 12:59 PM
The Pacers are second-to-last in their conference. The Grizzlies are higher than that in the West, so basically the Pacers are OKC/Memphis bad...

The WC is a bit goofy again. There are nine legit playoff contenders that are way over 0.500, and a huge dropoff to #10-15, where you have six terrible teams that get to play each other four teams a year so they won't be winless. Nobody is close to 0.500, they are either 6 games or more over 0.500 or 14 games or more under 0.500.

In the East, there are three contenders, and then nine teams within eight game of each other in the #4-12 spots that bracket 0.500 basketball (from 0.400 to 0.600).

That's difficult to reconcile.

Hicks
01-23-2009, 01:39 PM
Reggie just went more in depth about it while doing the Lakers/Wizards game.

He said, "Danny Granger is playing out of his mind, but what has he done for his team. It's a team game."

What has he done for our team? Reg, I love you, but are you even watching?


Reggie is a nut on this one. What has he done? He's given the team 27 points, 5 rebounds, 3 assists, a block, and a steal per game, along with occasional offensive explosions and game-winning/tie-ing shots at the end of close games.

Stupid argument IMO.

ajbry
01-23-2009, 01:46 PM
Wow, that's a terrible way to compare teams. How about this ... if the Pacers had the same record in the West that has them #14 in the East, they would be #10 in the West ....

That's like saying last year in baseball since the Red Sox finished 2nd in their division, and the Rangers finished 2nd in their division too ..... they must be equals right? I mean, lets ignore that the Red Sox went 95-67 and the Rangers went 79-83 .... I mean they just absolutely MUST be equals because they finished in the same spot in each division, right?

Silly.

-- Steve --

I didn't make the damn comparison initially either, Jay did. I was simply stating that the Pacers are - in a relative, unbiased sense - basically on the same level as the Grizzlies and Thunder... Don't blame me for the Pacers being second-to-last in their conference.

ChicagoJ
01-23-2009, 01:54 PM
Unbiased? I don't know. But this is just twisted. The tenth place team in the West is 10 games out of the last playoff spot.

The 14th place team in the East is 4.5 games out (3 in the loss column).

Now I don't think the Pacers are particuarly close to the playoffs. I was just citing two teams that I think everyone agrees are universally terrible basetball teams and saying that without Danny, the Pacers would be too.

Sollozzo
01-23-2009, 01:56 PM
i think reggie and i are watching the same game and the majority of you are not. good for granger that he's putting up 26ppg, but where are the wins? in basketball, yes, one great player makes that much of a difference. all any outsider needs to do to understand the homerism on this board, is read the "who would you trade granger for" thread.


Where were the wins for Michael Jordan's 87 Bulls who went 40-42 despite his 37ppg average?

Not even the best player of all time could compensate for a crappy team. No, I'm not saying Granger is anything close to Jordan but am merely pointing out that a great player can't compensate for a lousy supporting cast.

Since86
01-23-2009, 02:30 PM
Where were the wins for Michael Jordan's 87 Bulls who went 40-42 despite his 37ppg average?

Not even the best player of all time could compensate for a crappy team. No, I'm not saying Granger is anything close to Jordan but am merely pointing out that a great player can't compensate for a lousy supporting cast.


Don't bring the actual logic into a conversation that basketball is played with FIVE players on the court, please.

Everyone knows that one player should be good enough to single handly guard the whole opposite squad, while being able to shoot a good enough percentage on offense to win games.

Living in a fantasy world where ONE player can beat FIVE players is a much better place to live, so stop being a freaking buzz kill.:censored:

Naptown_Seth
01-23-2009, 02:51 PM
i think reggie and i are watching the same game and the majority of you are not. good for granger that he's putting up 26ppg, but where are the wins? in basketball, yes, one great player makes that much of a difference. all any outsider needs to do to understand the homerism on this board, is read the "who would you trade granger for" thread.
Was Nick Anderson mid-90s truly a better player than Reggie, or even his equal? Did having Shaq and Penny count for nothing?

Again I ask and I want to see someone on Reggie's side of this show me some good examples - GIVE ME A CASE WHERE A GUY'S "bad team" NUMBERS DROPPED LIKE A ROCK WHEN HE WENT TO A GOOD TEAM.

It's a retarded old wives tale based on thinking that guys getting points are doing it only in volume. Some are, sure, but if you are putting up EFFICIENT numbers with zilch around you to help then you are doing MORE, MUCH MORE than the dude with 3 guys helping him.

Paul Pierce, better last year by 20 miles than the year before? Numbers got a lot worse when they got KG and Ray Allen?


The only time numbers fall off the table for players usually, barring injury, is when they go FROM a good team TO a bad team. Then you find out that without the help of others they actually stink.

But there isn't one Pacer who is worse off with Danny on the court than off it.


My tool for measuring AS ability, swap the 2 players and try to feel how they would fare in those switched spots. What kind of output would Pierce be capable of without KG, Ray and Rondo. Heck, what would Rondo do without the big 3, what would Nelson do without Howard?

Would Danny put up bad numbers if he was swapped with Paul or R Lewis or any other East SF besides James? Of course not. Case closed. Who in their right mind sees Orlando tanking if Lewis and Granger are traded for each other. Speak up now or stop taking Reggie's side.

Naptown_Seth
01-23-2009, 03:05 PM
By the way, how many guys on teams going for sub-30 wins put up 25 ppg in a season, especially with the effective FG% or Points Per Shot that Danny has. List out all these other examples of unworthy stars on bad teams putting up numbers at Danny's level.

See, there's 18 ppg, 6 reb, 3 assists good with a 43% FG and 33% from deep on 5 TOs, and then there's 25+ and much better shooting, plus great help defense (still weak 1 on 1 though). Lots of top guys on bad teams put up that 17-19 range, not too many put up the 25+ range.

At the very least you are getting into TMac/Vince in their prime range, where the team is a little less than excepted, and no one questioned those guys going to the AS game. No one said "well Tmac only has the Magic at .500 despite his numbers".

Sheesh, we live in a world where it was blatently accepted that both Lebron and Pierce "needed help" (AI at one point too) but suddenly because Danny is new it's "he's not worthy". Where's the national outcry of "if only he had some help, it's a shame his ability is going to waste right now" that no one had any problem saying for Jordan or James?

D23
01-23-2009, 03:13 PM
^^ What Seth said. All of it.

Peter_sixtyftsixin
01-23-2009, 03:21 PM
Don't bring the actual logic into a conversation that basketball is played with FIVE players on the court, please.

Everyone knows that one player should be good enough to single handly guard the whole opposite squad, while being able to shoot a good enough percentage on offense to win games.

Living in a fantasy world where ONE player can beat FIVE players is a much better place to live, so stop being a freaking buzz kill.:censored:

Agreed. Please stop.

ChicagoJ
01-23-2009, 03:25 PM
Again I ask and I want to see someone on Reggie's side of this show me some good examples - GIVE ME A CASE WHERE A GUY'S "bad team" NUMBERS DROPPED LIKE A ROCK WHEN HE WENT TO A GOOD TEAM.

I'm not taking Reggie's side. But I can't help pointing out that Stephen Jackson's numbers dropped like a rock when he left Atlanta and came to Indiana. Not that he was ever an all-star caliber player, but that is a good example...

count55
01-23-2009, 03:32 PM
I'm not taking Reggie's side. But I can't help pointing out that Stephen Jackson's numbers dropped like a rock when he left Atlanta and came to Indiana. Not that he was ever an all-star caliber player, but that is a good example...

but they went up when he went to an arguably better team (than the Pacer team he was leaving) in Golden State...

ajbry
01-23-2009, 04:37 PM
I'm not taking Reggie's side. But I can't help pointing out that Stephen Jackson's numbers dropped like a rock when he left Atlanta and came to Indiana. Not that he was ever an all-star caliber player, but that is a good example...

ATL (03-04): 18.1
IND (04-05): 18.7

You just accidentally gave me some statistical insight that will send shudders up the spines of every Pacer fan who reads this thread...

Danny Granger in the first half of the 08-09 season on a bad East team with an up-tempo offense (without his 2nd leading scorer): 26.2 / 5.1 / 3.4 / 1.0

Stephen Jackson in the second half of the 03-04 season on a bad East team with an up-tempo offense (without his 2nd leading scorer): 24.0 / 5.5 / 3.5 / 2.2


Word to the wise... Stop uttering the words Stephen Jackson around here. Most PD posters want nothing to do with it anyway.

EDIT: Just saw the All-Star caliber comment... Is that why he was on several prominent journalists All-Star lists last year? Why he got MVP consideration until the New Year? Who cares what the hell casual fans think in terms of voting numbers? We all see how well that worked for Danny this year.

naptownmenace
01-23-2009, 04:58 PM
I'm not taking Reggie's side. But I can't help pointing out that Stephen Jackson's numbers dropped like a rock when he left Atlanta and came to Indiana. Not that he was ever an all-star caliber player, but that is a good example...

His numbers went down but didn't "drop like a rock" as you put it. In fact his scoring average went up!

Atlanta 03-04 - 18.1 ppg
Indiana 04-05 - 18.7 ppg

His rebounds per game went up a little too. Not sure what sort of point you were trying to make but I don't think you made it. ;)

ChicagoJ
01-23-2009, 05:21 PM
Eh, I forgot that the 25+ ppg numbers were just over the second half of that season and that the total season average was much lower.

Also, in my head, he was a 14-15 ppg player for the Pacers. I forgot that he hogged the ball so much to get it up to 18.

It was a seven point drop from the last half of 03-04 to the full 04-05, when I was thinking it was a ten point drop.

Oops. My bad.

Trader Joe
01-23-2009, 05:23 PM
ATL (03-04): 18.1
IND (04-05): 18.7

You just accidentally gave me some statistical insight that will send shudders up the spines of every Pacer fan who reads this thread...

Danny Granger in the first half of the 08-09 season on a bad East team with an up-tempo offense (without his 2nd leading scorer): 26.2 / 5.1 / 3.4 / 1.0

Stephen Jackson in the second half of the 03-04 season on a bad East team with an up-tempo offense (without his 2nd leading scorer): 24.0 / 5.5 / 3.5 / 2.2


Word to the wise... Stop uttering the words Stephen Jackson around here. Most PD posters want nothing to do with it anyway.

EDIT: Just saw the All-Star caliber comment... Is that why he was on several prominent journalists All-Star lists last year? Why he got MVP consideration until the New Year? Who cares what the hell casual fans think in terms of voting numbers? We all see how well that worked for Danny this year.

Just curious what Jack's shooting percentages were during that run? Seriously, I'm interested.

ajbry
01-23-2009, 05:26 PM
Somewhat close to Danny's actually, surprised me a bit.

Jack: 43.6% FG / 37.4% 3PT / 81.7% FT
Danny: 44.8% FG / 39.7% 3PT / 86.8% FT

Granger's shooting numbers this season really are remarkable though.

Pacersfan46
01-24-2009, 03:44 AM
I didn't make the damn comparison initially either, Jay did. I was simply stating that the Pacers are - in a relative, unbiased sense - basically on the same level as the Grizzlies and Thunder... Don't blame me for the Pacers being second-to-last in their conference.

Huh? Jay made the comparison as the Pacers being the better team, you're the one who took it off the deep end with your asinine 'conference placement comparison' that you for some reason thought holds some form of merit. Quit trying to duck out of your silly comment. Don't blame me for the Pacers being in the better conference ....



ATL (03-04): 18.1
IND (04-05): 18.7

You just accidentally gave me some statistical insight that will send shudders up the spines of every Pacer fan who reads this thread...

Danny Granger in the first half of the 08-09 season on a bad East team with an up-tempo offense (without his 2nd leading scorer): 26.2 / 5.1 / 3.4 / 1.0

Stephen Jackson in the second half of the 03-04 season on a bad East team with an up-tempo offense (without his 2nd leading scorer): 24.0 / 5.5 / 3.5 / 2.2


Imagine that, a guy who's known as a chucker anyway, suddenly began chucking up 19 shots per game and acquired the highest half season scoring total of his career, all while he was only 3 months away from being a free agent?

You don't say? I never would have guessed that. :laugh:

-- Steve --