PDA

View Full Version : Granger's shooting



yoadknux
03-16-2012, 09:08 PM
Granger has always been a streaky shooter. During previous years, you could see Danny going something like 0-6 at the half then 7-10 at the 2nd half. You could also see him having a series of 4-13 type of games, then a series of 50% shooting games. Heck, if my memory serves me right he'd even have a bad 1/2 season then after the all-star break start bombing it up. His percentages pretty much stayed the same.

But this year, I don't know. He can't hit anything. He misses wide open mid range shots & wide open threes from all sorts of spots. And his shooting % reflects that (Career low 39% from the field & 34% from 3).
Now, during the last 4 years (excluding this season) there are 2 pretty important things I should note:
1. Granger had clowns around him and had to carry our offensive game without any help. Which means he took many, many shots, and teams focused on him.
2. Granger had really really bad shot selection...

Now, about (1). this year he has offensive weapons around him. He has "all-star" center Roy Hibbert, David West, the developing Paul George. All these guys should give him more room to breath because teams aren't doubling and focusing on him anymore, and he's no longer forced to take billions of shots.
About (2), his shot selection pretty much improved this season in my opinion.
Yet he shoots so bad.

So, my question is, how does one go from being one of the best spot up shooters in the league to a guy who can't hit anything? :confused:

croz24
03-16-2012, 09:16 PM
And for how long was Granger one of the "best spot up shooters in the league"? His career high is 46% and his fg% has declined ever since that rookie season. He was simply never what this fanbase made him out to be. But if you want to talk about why the inconsistency, it has a lot to do with his release, the shots he takes, and him rushing shots. He rarely shoots the ball with the same motion and shoots a line drive without much arch in his shot. Not much room for error with Danny's shooting motion.

mattie
03-17-2012, 06:52 AM
And for how long was Granger one of the "best spot up shooters in the league"? His career high is 46% and his fg% has declined ever since that rookie season. He was simply never what this fanbase made him out to be. But if you want to talk about why the inconsistency, it has a lot to do with his release, the shots he takes, and him rushing shots. He rarely shoots the ball with the same motion and shoots a line drive without much arch in his shot. Not much room for error with Danny's shooting motion.

He has a career eFG% of 50%.

In other words, everything you just said is completely wrong. I can prove it with the following link: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/grangda01.html

D-BONE
03-17-2012, 07:36 AM
Granger is what he is. Kind of like the rest of our guys, unable to make the leap from sometimes good to consistently good.

If one of our guys can't make the leap you need either a legit star or a legit PG team/floor leader to bring the other solid parts together.

As much as I like Barbosa, he's neither of those. He's another solid player, but not going to put us over the hump I don't think. I'd love for him to prove that wrong, and I do think he's a really nice addition for offensive support.

Our best chance with the group we have is to develop into a consistently above average defensive team. Thought we might be heading in that direction earlier in the year, but we haven't been able to maintain the level/intensity. Or Hill eventually take over starting PG and that plays out best case, but it's no guarantee.

croz24
03-17-2012, 09:27 AM
He has a career eFG% of 50%.

In other words, everything you just said is completely wrong. I can prove it with the following link: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/grangda01.html

Lol get out of here with those advanced statistics which factor in volume shooting and 3pt shooting. Not a true measure of a guy's actual shooting ability as it gives a clear advantage to players who shoot a lot of 3s. Even then, Granger is only at 45% this year with that statistic and even that number has declined every year he's been in the league. But no, I'm not wrong about Granger. You can be a homer and act like Granger is a franchise savior and give him a pass for his lack of leadership and basketball understanding, but I won't.

Kstat
03-17-2012, 09:30 AM
It's a small thing, but Granger hasn't been hit by a pass in the hands in a long, long time.

IMO a big part of most of Indiana's offensive woes come from the fact they are so dis-jointed offensively, even when the ball is moving it isn't moving crisply. Nobody is really catching and shooting in rhythm.

This isn't all on DC's shoulders either. Nobody on that starting 5 is a skilled passer.

yoadknux
03-17-2012, 10:10 AM
Lol get out of here with those advanced statistics which factor in volume shooting and 3pt shooting. Not a true measure of a guy's actual shooting ability as it gives a clear advantage to players who shoot a lot of 3s. Even then, Granger is only at 45% this year with that statistic and even that number has declined every year he's been in the league. But no, I'm not wrong about Granger. You can be a homer and act like Granger is a franchise savior and give him a pass for his lack of leadership and basketball understanding, but I won't.
I think you're wrong. Granger has never been a superstar scorer, and his high PPG came from volume shots, but he was overall efficient. Over the last 3 years he had 1 really efficient scoring year (the MIP one), then a pretty bad year, and last year he did well enough in my opinion (42% from the field is low, but when you take many threes and hit 38% of them it's good enough). But this year he's just horrible.
Granger WAS a good shooter. He always had above average %eFG and was even selected to the 3pt shootout. The fact he isn't one now doesn't mean his history is forgotten.

It's a small thing, but Granger hasn't been hit by a pass in the hands in a long, long time.

IMO a big part of most of Indiana's offensive woes come from the fact they are so dis-jointed offensively, even when the ball is moving it isn't moving crisply. Nobody is really catching and shooting in rhythm.

This isn't all on DC's shoulders either. Nobody on that starting 5 is a skilled passer.
Makes sense and I totally agree. Our point guard is average and George and Granger aren't exactly good ball handlers/passers. The result is guys getting the ball when they're out of position and have to move before they take their shot (either to create room or to get close enough).
That explains low FG%, but doesn't explain why he's missing so many good looks.

Kstat
03-17-2012, 10:18 AM
That explains low FG%, but doesn't explain why he's missing so many good looks.

Again, huge difference between being hit in the hands chest-high, and having to adjust to catch a pass thrown belt-high, or a foot to the left.

Yes, you still catch the ball, and you're still open, but you're no longer able to step into the pass and shoot in one motion.

Mark Jackson and Stockton were two masters at this. The ball was always on target, and on time. Shooters never had to adjust to a bad pass.

Do I think this is the cause of each and every missed open shot? No, but it is a snowball effect. There's a reason granger was making bad shots with regularity in 2009 and 2010, and is missing wide open ones now. It's a mental thing.

croz24
03-17-2012, 10:23 AM
The excuses made for Danny are pathetic.

Will Galen
03-17-2012, 12:51 PM
Lol get out of here with those advanced statistics which factor in volume shooting and 3pt shooting. Not a true measure of a guy's actual shooting ability as it gives a clear advantage to players who shoot a lot of 3s. Even then, Granger is only at 45% this year with that statistic and even that number has declined every year he's been in the league. But no, I'm not wrong about Granger. You can be a homer and act like Granger is a franchise savior and give him a pass for his lack of leadership and basketball understanding, but I won't.

What does what is highlighted have to do with Granger's shooting? :troll:

croz24
03-17-2012, 01:01 PM
What does what is highlighted have to do with Granger's shooting? :troll:

Has to do with the fact that most Pacers fans are still attached to Granger and cannot provide an unbiased opinion of really anything related to the man based on said attachment and thinking Granger is much better than reality suggests.

yoadknux
03-17-2012, 01:07 PM
Has to do with the fact that most Pacers fans are still attached to Granger and cannot provide an unbiased opinion of really anything related to the man based on said attachment and thinking Granger is much better than reality suggests.
But he IS better than this season suggests. When someone gave you evidence you just told him "get out of here with these stats". Someone even posted here a study that showed that Granger has been one of the best (top 10) shooters in the league over the last 4 years.
You just don't like Granger.

croz24
03-17-2012, 01:27 PM
But he IS better than this season suggests. When someone gave you evidence you just told him "get out of here with these stats". Someone even posted here a study that showed that Granger has been one of the best (top 10) shooters in the league over the last 4 years.
You just don't like Granger.

No, he really isn't when you realize his shooting has been in a constant decline since he's arrived in the league. And the effective field goal % does place much greater emphasis on 3pt shooters. Unless you honestly believe Granger is a better shooter than Wade and a worse shooter than Rashard Lewis...

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 01:27 PM
Has to do with the fact that most Pacers fans are still attached to Granger and cannot provide an unbiased opinion of really anything related to the man based on said attachment and thinking Granger is much better than reality suggests.

I'm not a Granger fan. I never considered him the team's star or franchise corner-stone.

I had issues with his shot selection a lot of times. However, I cannot forgo the fact that he has been a soldier for this team. For this I respect him.

He's a solid, good player. That's what I'm asking. Nothing more and nothing less.

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 01:32 PM
And the effective field goal % does place much greater emphasis on 3pt shooters. Unless you honestly believe Granger is a better shooter than Wade and a worse shooter than Rashard Lewis...

Wade is not a good shooter.

Shooter = | = Scorer

mb221
03-17-2012, 01:35 PM
No, he really isn't when you realize his shooting has been in a constant decline since he's arrived in the league. And the effective field goal % does place much greater emphasis on 3pt shooters. Unless you honestly believe Granger is a better shooter than Wade and a worse shooter than Rashard Lewis...

I'd have to honestly believe he is a better shooter than a career 29% 3PT shooter.

croz24
03-17-2012, 01:44 PM
Wade is not a good shooter.

Shooter = | = Scorer

Wade is not a 3pt shooter. Wade is and always has been one of if not the best midrange shooter in the game. Which is why efg% is so flawed in its overvaluing of 3pt shooters. Using similar stats, you could argue Corey Maggette is the most efficient player in NBA history. Not because it has anything to do with his actual shooting ability, but because very few have gotten to the line at a better clip, thus inflating his advanced statistics.

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 01:54 PM
Wade is not a 3pt shooter. Wade is and always has been one of if not the best midrange shooter in the game. Which is why efg% is so flawed in its overvaluing of 3pt shooters. Using similar stats, you could argue Corey Maggette is the most efficient player in NBA history. Not because it has anything to do with his actual shooting ability, but because very few have gotten to the line at a better clip, thus inflating his advanced statistics.

Wade has always been a cutter. This is where he thrives in. Cutting to the basket, using his athleticism to get easy buckets and drawing fouls.

Great midrange shooting easily translates to good 3 pt shooting. Also, if Wade was as a good midrange shooter as you claim wouldn't he be a better FT shooter? He is below .800 in his career from the line. He is at .770 to be exact. For a comparison, Tyler is at .784. Is e one of the best midrange shooters in the game? Hell no.

croz24
03-17-2012, 02:09 PM
Wade has always been a cutter. This is where he thrives in. Cutting to the basket, using his athleticism to get easy buckets and drawing fouls.

Great midrange shooting easily translates to good 3 pt shooting. Also, if Wade was as a good midrange shooter as you claim wouldn't he be a better FT shooter? He is below .800 in his career from the line. He is at .770 to be exact. For a comparison, Tyler is at .784. Is e one of the best midrange shooters in the game? Hell no.

Then you must not watch much of Wade play, because he is one of the best from midrange. Yes, he slashes and drives to the hole, but that doesn't mean he never takes a jumper from 15-20 feet out. West was one of the best mid range shooting bigs in the game coming into the year, I don't see his game translating to the 3pt line. Hard for you to deny Richard Hamilton wasn't one of the best midrange shooters. His game really didn't translate beyond the 3pt line. Jordan was deadly with his jumper inside the arc. Took him quite a few years to translate to 3pt range. Kobe Bryant is a career 33% shooter from deep. He's not a great midrange shooter?

Nuntius
03-17-2012, 02:18 PM
Then you must not watch much of Wade play, because he is one of the best from midrange. Yes, he slashes and drives to the hole, but that doesn't mean he never takes a jumper from 15-20 feet out. West was one of the best mid range shooting bigs in the game coming into the year, I don't see his game translating to the 3pt line. Hard for you to deny Richard Hamilton wasn't one of the best midrange shooters. His game really didn't translate beyond the 3pt line. Jordan was deadly with his jumper inside the arc. Took him quite a few years to translate to 3pt range. Kobe Bryant is a career 33% shooter from deep. He's not a great midrange shooter?

You're right I don't watch Wade a lot. I know that he takes jumpers from 15-2 feet out.

Do you know what the people you mentioned have? A FT percentage that is above .800.

Do you know what Wade lacks? This exact FT percentage.

You're right for some people midrange shooting does not translate in good 3 point shooting. However, it almost always translate to good FT shooting. Wade is below average in FTs. That's a clear indication (to me at least) that he is not a good shooter.

Jon Theodore
03-17-2012, 03:30 PM
The excuses made for Danny are pathetic.

Do you watch the games? This team is easily one of the worst "passing" teams in the league. I am talking about what Kstat referenced, making a pass for a shooter in rhythm versus a pass that has to be caught.

We have not had a guy who is even an above average passer since Dunleavy...and the fact that he was the best passer on this team for a while, is kind of sad. Everyone remember Danny's buzzer beater against Phoenix a few years ago? That shot doesn't go in if the pass wasn't perfect, which it was.

It's a big deal and it affects the shooting % of every single player, not just Granger. Do you think Granger would shoot a better percentage with Steve Nash making the passes? I think that is a fairly obvious, resounding YES.

I'm not convinced a discussion regarding a possible relationship between our sub par passing and shooting % is "pathetic."

CJ Jones
03-17-2012, 03:58 PM
Yeah I've said this before. I think everyone's %'s would go up with a dynamic PG that could be a threat in the pick and roll. That's why I think the only way this team competes for a championship in the next few years is with a Monta/DWill/Nash type PG that can break down defenses.