PDA

View Full Version : Pacers looking to trade Danny?



Pages : [1] 2

Heisenberg
08-23-2012, 11:28 PM
I know, I know. Same story, different offseason. And it's a random blog that's never broken a damn thing far as I know. But still.

http://blognbasketball.com/2012/08/source-pacers-will-look-to-trade-granger/


You heard it here first…Danny Granger will not be a Pacer at this time next year.

According to people close to the Indiana front office, management will actively look to move Granger this upcoming season if not next offseason.

There are numerous reasons behind their thinking, both financial and basketball.

Danny Granger is due $27 million over the next two seasons. Yes, he’s the team’s leading scorer and spiritual leader (see altercations with Lebron James and Dwyane Wade…oh and even Larry Sanders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QVxC8SPrAI)). However, he is no longer the face of the franchise, Roy Hibbert is. Roy, coincidentally, just signed a maximum contract (courtesy of the Portland Trail Blazers).

It is conceivable to pay both players that much money, but the real issue is the future of swingman Paul George. While Danny is a finished product and one-time All-Star, Pacers management feels that Paul can exceed that in the coming years. His contract will be up in 2014 and Indiana is simply not going to let another team come in and outbid them for their homegrown stud. Also, George has been playing SG the past two seasons despite being more of a small forward. The longer Granger is occupying that SF spot in the starting lineup the more Paul’s growth is hindered. It’s time he assume his rightful position and grow into a star role, much like Danny once did.

The Pacers have a lot of things they can accomplish with Granger’s money. The team still needs to improve their depth on the frontline to tangle with the rim-attacking Heat and the new Bynum-led Sixers. Power forward David West is on the decline (and will be a free agent next summer) while Tyler Hansbrough and Miles Plumlee are merely a step up from Jeff Pendergraph. Indiana lost Darren Collison this summer and replaced him with…D.J. Augustin, hardly an upgrade. Then they lost Leandro Barbosa while netting the mercurial Gerald Green. Other than keeping Hibbert, it’s been a very average summer in Indiana as they hope to grow from within. I agree, but you still need depth to get through an 82-game season and deep into the playoffs.

Much the same way that Philadelphia recently traded Andre Iguodala and that Memphis continues to gauge interest in Rudy Gay, so will Indiana try and move Danny Granger in the near future. All three guys are talented star-caliber players…..but they are not the face of their franchises.

To sum up: Roy Hibbert is the present, Paul George is the future…..and Danny Granger is just a well-paid scorer.

That “star” money can be spent better elsewhere for a team hoping to take the next step.

Pacers4Life
08-24-2012, 12:03 AM
We won't be able to get anyone to replace him. Unless Paul George explodes this season.. Which he could.. I simply don't want to see Danny go. He's not afraid. He's above averagely clutch. He lets the other team know we aren't gonna take whatever garbage is being dished out to us.

I've made a comment before about loyalty to a franchise and loyalty to a player and what that can ultimately lead to. I think we're looking at one of the top 3 or 4 pacers of all time when all is said and done. And I wouldnt have it any other way.

What more can we realistically hope for? We won't compete year in and year out for NBA titles.. We never really have. But what we can do is put a team together on the floor that I'm proud to watch compete. And think of how sweet it will be when we finally do get that ring. Don't you want Danny to be a part of it? People said the Florida gators would NEVER win a national title with Chris Leak as the starting QB (Tim Tebow was a freshman). well guess what? They did.

beast23
08-24-2012, 12:12 AM
Same stuff we have argued about for the past year. No new material presented. Problem is that Hibbert is not yet an elite big man although he is paid like one and there is still a lot more "P" associated with George than there is consistent top-level execution.

The only positive is that the author indicates patience on the part of TPTB. They might seek to trade Granger if Hibert continues to grow and especially if George makes a big leap.

I don't think that would really surprise anyone, although it also equally wouldn't surprise anyone if the Pacers found a way to re-sign a much improved George while retaining Granger and also re-signing West.

ilive4sports
08-24-2012, 12:21 AM
Sure its a possibility, but its the same article written in a different year. I'll believe it when i see it.

pacergod2
08-24-2012, 12:31 AM
In other news, Danny could be traded for someone much better than he is, but nobody is offering that. Plus, if a deal is remotely fair, it doesn't benefit us to trade a guy who loyally signed a deal with a small market team.

Hypnotiq
08-24-2012, 12:37 AM
Trade him to Toronto for Ross and Calderon

Bball
08-24-2012, 12:40 AM
If the team believes for George to reach his potential he needs Danny out of the way then the blog makes sense.

Pacers4Life
08-24-2012, 12:59 AM
If the team believes for George to reach his potential he needs Danny out of the way then the blog makes sense.

Paul loves Danny. Again who cares about positions 2-4.. Everything a player has an advantage in, someone else has that same dude beat due to said players strength. Paul and Danny go together like pb and j

And I'm not saying that's not what you were saying... I'm just sayin'.

Heisenberg
08-24-2012, 02:19 AM
Paul loves Danny. Again who cares about positions 2-4.. Everything a player has an advantage in, someone else has that same dude beat due to said players strength. Paul and Danny go together like pb and j

And I'm not saying that's not what you were saying... I'm just sayin'.
Dude, I love em both, but Danny and PG are anything but complimentary. Offensively they're really similar. Iggy + Danny's a great (deadly, contender) combo, PG + Harden's a great combo, Manu + (anybody)Danny is a great combo. Two guys who can't dribble for **** and are best suited as spot shooters on a team that can't pass are redundant, not complimentary.

ilive4sports
08-24-2012, 02:27 AM
Dude, I love em both, but Danny and PG are anything but complimentary. Offensively they're really similar. Iggy + Danny's a great (deadly, contender) combo, PG + Harden's a great combo, Manu + (anybody)Danny is a great combo. Two guys who can't dribble for **** and are best suited as spot shooters on a team that can't pass are redundant, not complimentary.
Thats how PG plays today, but it might not be how he plays tomorrow. I think he will be a much more dynamic player this season. If he cleans up his handles, he will be a beast of an attacker. PG is still finding his way offensively. This year the picture should be clearer on what he will become.

Heisenberg
08-24-2012, 02:36 AM
Thats how PG plays today, but it might not be how he plays tomorrow. I think he will be a much more dynamic player this season. If he cleans up his handles, he will be a beast of an attacker. PG is still finding his way offensively. This year the picture should be clearer on what he will become.
Paul George is a 22 year old pro with 2 years of the highest level of professional basketball player under his belt. And he still can't dribble. I have no doubt he'll improve his handle. But I don't think it'll ever be to the point that you can rely on him as a break a guy down off the dribble and make something happen guy.

If you want me to be honest I think now's the time to trade PG and his "superstar potential." I don't see the top end most Pacers fans (want to) do. I just don't think he's as special as most of us want to think. Strong ball penetration stopper that can get out and run, knock down an open jumper, and do nothing with the ball in his hands. That's a quality player, but it's not a face of a franchise.

Will Galen
08-24-2012, 02:47 AM
Our front office doesn't talk to the media about trading our players. The author of that article is just doing some speculation that many on here have already done.

MvPlumlee
08-24-2012, 03:36 AM
Paul George is a 22 year old pro with 2 years of the highest level of professional basketball player under his belt. And he still can't dribble. I have no doubt he'll improve his handle. But I don't think it'll ever be to the point that you can rely on him as a break a guy down off the dribble and make something happen guy.

If you want me to be honest I think now's the time to trade PG and his "superstar potential." I don't see the top end most Pacers fans (want to) do. I just don't think he's as special as most of us want to think. Strong ball penetration stopper that can get out and run, knock down an open jumper, and do nothing with the ball in his hands. That's a quality player, but it's not a face of a franchise.
I think Paul George is special. He has the potential to be one of the best wing defenders in the league and every championship team needs at least one elite defender.
As a 3, Paul has good handles and great quickness. I can see him getting around his defender if that defender is taller and slower. He isn't undersized for a 3 and has great athleticism so I don't see why the size would really bother him.

Who do you suggest they trade him for? It has to be for a player on a rookie deal with the same question marks about his potential or a proven player on a bigger contract that will be difficult to absorb.

I just want to start the season with both of them to be honest and see which player might become available. The ones I like are either going to be free agent next summer or are on a team that thinks they are going to be good or can play 2 SGs next to eachother.

wintermute
08-24-2012, 03:45 AM
Same old speculation as before. Nothing's changed to make us want to move Granger more than in the past, I think.

I will say though, that if we can pull off an Iggy for Bynum type trade, then I think it would be a no-brainer. Obviously we're not targeting a C like Bynum, but if we can trade Granger for a max worthy PF or SG, then yeah. Low odds of that, but Philly did show that it could happen.

daschysta
08-24-2012, 03:51 AM
Paul George is a 22 year old pro with 2 years of the highest level of professional basketball player under his belt. And he still can't dribble. I have no doubt he'll improve his handle. But I don't think it'll ever be to the point that you can rely on him as a break a guy down off the dribble and make something happen guy.

If you want me to be honest I think now's the time to trade PG and his "superstar potential." I don't see the top end most Pacers fans (want to) do. I just don't think he's as special as most of us want to think. Strong ball penetration stopper that can get out and run, knock down an open jumper, and do nothing with the ball in his hands. That's a quality player, but it's not a face of a franchise.

Paul George has gotten elite player potential hype from many sources outside of the Pacers fan circle.

Bball
08-24-2012, 03:52 AM
Our front office doesn't talk to the media about trading our players. The author of that article is just doing some speculation that many on here have already done.

He might be lying, or someone misunderstood, but he said this:

According to people close to the Indiana front office, management will actively look to move Granger this upcoming season if not next offseason.

So unless you want to call him a liar, he's not speculating.

Roaming Gnome
08-24-2012, 05:31 AM
Our front office doesn't talk to the media about trading our players. The author of that article is just doing some speculation that many on here have already done.

The Larry Bird front office was pretty good about keeping a lid on trades, but I'm not so sure on the Donnie Walsh front office model. However, I do agree that this feels and reads more like speculation.

vnzla81
08-24-2012, 06:35 AM
Our front office doesn't talk to the media about trading our players. The author of that article is just doing some speculation that many on here have already done.

And you know that because? ......

vnzla81
08-24-2012, 06:37 AM
And regarding the article, trading Danny for a guy like Josh Smith makes so much sense but there is no way the Hawks are that stupid.

BlueNGold
08-24-2012, 07:28 AM
I'm perfectly fine keeping Granger and having him retire a Pacer, but there are a couple good reasons you trade him. One is because he will be on the decline when Paul is entering his prime. Danny will be 37 when Paul is in the middle of his prime. That might become important if this team ever starts contending because that process will not be just one year but we may be trying to contend for 5 or 6 years.

The other reason is that Danny and Paul are too similar and really, they are both SF's. Neither have good handles and we really need guards who can handle the ball better than that. This isn't like Jalen Rose and Reggie Miller. Jalen had an excellent handle and could even run the point some.

As for loyalty, does that really exist anymore in the NBA? If we didn't pay Roy Hibbert, he would be a TrailBlazer IMO.

McKeyFan
08-24-2012, 07:38 AM
If the team believes for George to reach his potential he needs Danny out of the way then the blog makes sense.

To me, it doesn't make sense. (And you didn't say it, you were just naming a scenario.) So far, PG has had plenty of opportunities to step up and hasn't delivered that well. He's been clutch a couple of times, and not clutch several times.

I'm concerned. Then again, I was concerned about Hibbert that he couldn't develop into what we needed. So I could be wrong. It happened to me one other time in 1997.

McKeyFan
08-24-2012, 07:40 AM
Thats how PG plays today, but it might not be how he plays tomorrow. I think he will be a much more dynamic player this season. If he cleans up his handles, he will be a beast of an attacker. PG is still finding his way offensively. This year the picture should be clearer on what he will become.

Have we heard anywhere that he is working on his handles? Has anyone, he or a coach, pointed out that is what he really needs to get to the next level? I'm just wondering.

McKeyFan
08-24-2012, 07:44 AM
Same old speculation as before. Nothing's changed to make us want to move Granger more than in the past, I think.

I will say though, that if we can pull off an Iggy for Bynum type trade, then I think it would be a no-brainer. Obviously we're not targeting a C like Bynum, but if we can trade Granger for a max worthy PF or SG, then yeah. Low odds of that, but Philly did show that it could happen.

Let's not forget that we could trade for a top level point guard as well. Hill and Paul slide down to the 2 and 3.

McKeyFan
08-24-2012, 07:48 AM
Paul George has gotten elite player potential hype from many sources outside of the Pacers fan circle.

Exactly. That's why it might make sense to trade him while the hype still exists.

Unclebuck
08-24-2012, 08:04 AM
management will actively look to move Granger this upcoming season if not next offseason.


OK that is from the first paragraph of the blog. What upcoming off season. We are right in the kiddle of this offseason, so does he mean next year or this year.

After reading his first paragraph, I stopped reading

MillerTime
08-24-2012, 08:48 AM
Thanks Martin Knezevic

Doddage
08-24-2012, 08:55 AM
I actually think there's some truth to this. I think Donnie and KP will be different from Bird in that they won't hesitate to make trades. If Bird was still in charge, I don't see any way Granger would be traded unless we'd get a Dwight Howard-caliber player in return.

Ace E.Anderson
08-24-2012, 08:56 AM
Paul George is a 22 year old pro with 2 years of the highest level of professional basketball player under his belt. And he still can't dribble. I have no doubt he'll improve his handle. But I don't think it'll ever be to the point that you can rely on him as a break a guy down off the dribble and make something happen guy.

If you want me to be honest I think now's the time to trade PG and his "superstar potential." I don't see the top end most Pacers fans (want to) do. I just don't think he's as special as most of us want to think. Strong ball penetration stopper that can get out and run, knock down an open jumper, and do nothing with the ball in his hands. That's a quality player, but it's not a face of a franchise.

Has it gotten to the point in the league where a player is who he is at the age of 22? Like you, I don't think PG will ever be an elite ball handler, but you don't have to be in order to get to the basket. And it's not like PG can't dribble PERIOD. It's not like defenders are just ripping him everytime he attempts to make a dribble move. He has the ability to make moves and get to the basket. He honestly gets to the basket pretty well, he just needs to work on finishing harder at the rim, or drawing a foul.

The player you described is more of a Trevor Ariza type of guy, and PG is pretty much already as good as him. No I don't think he'll ever be a superstar. But if DG can score 20 ppg for most of his career, then I dont see why PG, who is easily more naturally talented than Danny ever was, couldn't do so as well

Pacerized
08-24-2012, 08:56 AM
"The Pacers have a lot of things they can accomplish with Grangerís money. The team still needs to improve their depth on the frontline to tangle with the rim-attacking Heat and the new Bynum-led Sixers. Power forward David West is on the decline (and will be a free agent next summer) while Tyler Hansbrough and Miles Plumlee are merely a step up from Jeff Pendergraph. Indiana lost Darren Collison this summer and replaced him withÖD.J. Augustin, hardly an upgrade. Then they lost Leandro Barbosa while netting the mercurial Gerald Green. Other than keeping Hibbert, itís been a very average summer in Indiana as they hope to grow from within. I agree, but you still need depth to get through an 82-game season and deep into the playoffs."

Considering what our F.O. did with the cap space we had this year, I don't want them freeing up anymore cap space.

BRushWithDeath
08-24-2012, 09:51 AM
management will actively look to move Granger this upcoming season if not next offseason.


OK that is from the first paragraph of the blog. What upcoming off season. We are right in the kiddle of this offseason, so does he mean next year or this year.

After reading his first paragraph, I stopped reading

He said upcoming season if not next offseason. Meaning either during the year or after. Odd way of saying it but not incorrect.

Maybe you should read it again.

Hicks
08-24-2012, 10:05 AM
If they do, I hope they trade him for an athletic defender/rebounder PF to place David West with once he leaves.

Major Cold
08-24-2012, 10:10 AM
If they do, I hope they trade him for an athletic defender/rebounder PF to place David West with once he leaves.
What PF blossoms this year to make said trade? Does Marrese Speights make the jump. Is a trade up to get Cody Zeller happen? What player really is a step up from Ian and is not high enough to trade Danny for?

Pacer Fan
08-24-2012, 10:14 AM
Jmo...Danny for EJ or ya gotta keep Danny. Can't trade PG cause his rookie contract. Would be totally wacky to trade PG.

Sparhawk
08-24-2012, 10:26 AM
Trading Granger makes sense, but not this season at least.

If PG grows anymore, there is no way he can stick at sg. Granger has been working on his handles every off season, and look how far he's come...not very. I think PG has a chance to have better handles than Granger, but he'll never be able to consistently get his own shot with dribble moves. I think you have to move him to SF eventually.

Again, I could see Granger getting moved, but only if it helps the team. However, who's going to give up someone really good for Granger? I'm not really seeing it. So while I can see Granger getting moved, I really believe he'll remain a Pacers. Hopefully, if he's retained after next season, he'll take a significant pay cut to stay with the Pacers.

Sparhawk
08-24-2012, 10:28 AM
Jmo...Danny for EJ or ya gotta keep Danny. Can't trade PG cause his rookie contract. Would be totally wacky to trade PG.

Yeah, pretty much. What else would you get for Granger? Honestly? I have no clue, but I don't see another team trading really good players for him. Maybe the Pacers could get lucky and he could be traded for Enes Kantor, Jan Vesley or Derrick Favors. It'd have to be young talent that haven't reached their peak yet.

beast23
08-24-2012, 10:46 AM
If the team believes for George to reach his potential he needs Danny out of the way then the blog makes sense.

I think the deal is that the blog makes sense IF George was well on his way to reaching his potential. Right now though, George remains just that... a very athletic player with potential.

If George does not begin making some headway toward reaching that potential on a much more consistent basis, then I believe there is a greater chance that the Pacers sell the hype of his potential to another team and trade George.

The point is that, just playing the odds, you don't trade your best player, even though he is stretching you salary-wise, just because you have another player that is showing some potential at the same position.

I think the odds would probably bear out that you find yourself 2 years down the road with your best player gone and suffering major regret from putting all your eggs into one basket (George).

To me, George needs to walk the walk from the first game all the way up to the trade deadline in order for Granger to be traded this season. Otherwise, trading Granger could prove to be a major, major mistake.

BRushWithDeath
08-24-2012, 11:16 AM
I think the odds would probably bear out that you find yourself 2 years down the road with your best player gone and suffering major regret from putting all your eggs into one basket (George).

To me, George needs to walk the walk from the first game all the way up to the trade deadline in order for Granger to be traded this season. Otherwise, trading Granger could prove to be a major, major mistake.

Trading George while his hype is still high makes some sense. But only if you're getting a player you think may be able to turn you into a legit contender. I think the hype on George is absurdly out of whack right now but you are better off keeping him and trading Granger unless the piece you get puts you over the top. If you trade Granger now, you're doing it only in the hope that it allows George's game to grow exponentially. I don't have a problem with this in a vacuum. If they feel that is the way to go, so be it. I personally don't see George ever having a better offensive game than Granger but we'll probably never find out while they're together. Truly, I would love to trade Granger because I don't see any potential for him to be a top-2 player on a championship team and at his price point, that's exactly what he has to be here. However, at this point, I've got to think that Granger's value is such that we're better off keeping him through this year at least. He'll have more value as an expiring contract than he does now as a player.

Ace E.Anderson
08-24-2012, 11:23 AM
Trading Granger makes sense, but not this season at least.

If PG grows anymore, there is no way he can stick at sg. Granger has been working on his handles every off season, and look how far he's come...not very. I think PG has a chance to have better handles than Granger, but he'll never be able to consistently get his own shot with dribble moves. I think you have to move him to SF eventually.

Again, I could see Granger getting moved, but only if it helps the team. However, who's going to give up someone really good for Granger? I'm not really seeing it. So while I can see Granger getting moved, I really believe he'll remain a Pacers. Hopefully, if he's retained after next season, he'll take a significant pay cut to stay with the Pacers.

It's not like PG needs to develop a killer crossover, or moves of that nature. When you're as tall and as athletic as Paul, you need to be able to make a move and aggressively attack the basket. He definitely needs to tighten his dribbles (which means be more secure with the ball) but he doesn't need to have a lot of "moves" in order to be able to get to the basket easily. He simply needs to finish A LOT better once he gets there. That's what I'm more concerned with, not his dribbling skills

MillerTime
08-24-2012, 11:24 AM
Jmo...Danny for EJ or ya gotta keep Danny. Can't trade PG cause his rookie contract. Would be totally wacky to trade PG.

I actually wouldnt mind a HEALTHY EJ. I doubt we'd get him for just Granger, we'd have to through in a pick or Hansborough

PR07
08-24-2012, 11:38 AM
It seems to me this author is simply taking a stab in the dark by connecting dots rather than having any actual inside information, contrary to what he says.

For one, this team already struggled to score points against a team like the Heat, so now we are going to trade one of our best scorers for frontcourt depth? I don't see it. The fact that Granger is stalling George's development is clearly overblown too. Paul George's handles and lack of strength are holding him back, not Granger.

BRushWithDeath
08-24-2012, 11:47 AM
I actually wouldnt mind a HEALTHY EJ. I doubt we'd get him for just Granger, we'd have to through in a pick or Hansborough

Granger, Hansbrough, and a pick isn't getting us Eric Gordon.

George, Hansbrough, and a pick might.

BRushWithDeath
08-24-2012, 11:50 AM
The fact that Granger is stalling George's development is clearly overblown too. Paul George's handles and lack of strength are holding him back, not Granger.

This is true in that sense that George's handles and lack of strength are holding him back. But put on the same floor as Granger and the issues are magnified. Because Granger's handles are nearly as bad. They're both catch and shoot guys. If we had an elite point guard, they'd probably be fine together.

Needless to say, we do not have an elite point guard.

So having two extremely poor ball handlers on the wings holds both of them back.

J7F
08-24-2012, 11:50 AM
I actually wouldnt mind a HEALTHY EJ. I doubt we'd get him for just Granger, we'd have to through in a pick or Hansborough

If we are underperforming and Gordon still looks healthy and unhappy about being a Hornet about half way through the season I could very much see this happening...

BRushWithDeath
08-24-2012, 11:52 AM
If we are underperforming and Gordon still looks healthy and unhappy about being a Hornet about half way through the season I could very much see this happening...

The only way this happens is if we are overperforming and Granger is a primary reason why.

HC
08-24-2012, 12:26 PM
What PF blossoms this year to make said trade? Does Marrese Speights make the jump. Is a trade up to get Cody Zeller happen? What player really is a step up from Ian and is not high enough to trade Danny for?

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x200/sjs8736/KrisHumphries.jpg

yoadknux
08-24-2012, 01:21 PM
Every year since his MIP year we have a blog guy who's saying "Granger will not be a Pacer next year"

Pacer Fan
08-24-2012, 01:51 PM
Granger, Hansbrough, and a pick isn't getting us Eric Gordon.

George, Hansbrough, and a pick might.

JMO, I think that Danny, Augustin and a 2014 1st for EJ and Warrick would be good for the Hornets. They don't need Hansbrough or Warrick. West then could be dealt for a better pg then Augustin, like Calderon. West and Plumlee for Calderon and Davis.

Hibbert / Mahinmi
Davis / Hans / Warrick
George / Green / Warrick
Gordon / Hill / Johnson
Calderon / Hill / Stephenson

J7F
08-24-2012, 02:20 PM
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x200/sjs8736/KrisHumphries.jpg

I dont see NJ going that route already having JJ and Wallace with no good b/u PF on the roster... Sure... Wallace has played admirably at the PF spot in the past but I doubt BKN would think that was ideal...

HC
08-24-2012, 02:34 PM
I dont see NJ going that route already having JJ and Wallace with no good b/u PF on the roster... Sure... Wallace has played admirably at the PF spot in the past but I doubt BKN would think that was ideal...

They took forever just getting a 1 year deal done with Hump, seems like they were content with what they have......or counting on Howard. Value wise though I think it is a good deal.

Goyle
08-24-2012, 03:05 PM
Y'all are gonna make me cry with this talk of Humphries for Granger.

HC
08-24-2012, 03:33 PM
Y'all are gonna make me cry with this talk of Humphries for Granger.

It's not really yall...its just me so you can be mad at me or whatever. Also, that is just a jumping point, there would be other pieced involved I'm sure. I also think you are placing too much value on DG. Not that I don't like him, but there isn't a much better player in the league with decent size that you are gonna get in return for him.

OlBlu
08-24-2012, 03:43 PM
JMO, I think that Danny, Augustin and a 2014 1st for EJ and Warrick would be good for the Hornets. They don't need Hansbrough or Warrick. West then could be dealt for a better pg then Augustin, like Calderon. West and Plumlee for Calderon and Davis.

Hibbert / Mahinmi
Davis / Hans / Warrick
George / Green / Warrick
Gordon / Hill / Johnson
Calderon / Hill / Stephenson


Enough of the Gordon posts!! He is from IU and their stinking program and he is too frail to play in the NBA.....:cool: ...

J7F
08-24-2012, 03:53 PM
The only way this happens is if we are overperforming and Granger is a primary reason why.

Did you mean underperforming? Or are you insinuating that NOH would only do that trade if Danny steps up his game?

xIndyFan
08-24-2012, 03:53 PM
Y'all are gonna make me cry with this talk of Humphries for Granger.

I'm with you. the off season is the silly season. :laugh:

BRushWithDeath
08-24-2012, 03:55 PM
Did you mean underperforming? Or are you insinuating that NOH would only do that trade if Danny steps up his game?

Very much so.

BRushWithDeath
08-24-2012, 03:56 PM
Enough of the Gordon posts!! He is from IU and their stinking program and he is too frail to play in the NBA.....:cool: ... Shift+R improves the quality of this image. CTRL+F5 reloads the whole page.

That's a good reason not to want him.

J7F
08-24-2012, 04:00 PM
They took forever just getting a 1 year deal done with Hump, seems like they were content with what they have......or counting on Howard. Value wise though I think it is a good deal.

Or they knew they had Hump in the bag...

Goyle
08-24-2012, 04:00 PM
It's not really yall...its just me so you can be mad at me or whatever. Also, that is just a jumping point, there would be other pieced involved I'm sure. I also think you are placing too much value on DG. Not that I don't like him, but there isn't a much better player in the league with decent size that you are gonna get in return for him.

I get that his value isn't high and we can't get much for him. But getting Humphries makes us a MUCH worse team now and not any better in the future. So what's the point?

Pacer Fan
08-24-2012, 04:03 PM
Enough of the Gordon posts!! He is from IU and their stinking program and he is too frail to play in the NBA.....:cool: ... Shift+R improves the quality of this image. CTRL+F5 reloads the whole page.

Yea, Yea, Yea...You have said this crap on here how many times? Nothing new here by your comment...stop trolling!

J7F
08-24-2012, 04:11 PM
Very much so.

I think that depends on just how unhappy Gordon acts there... And Danny is from NOLA which I would assume gives him some minor bonus points... Throw in a first and possibly Tyler and I think they'ld bite... I'm not advocating the trade necessarily... But it doesn't seem outlandish to me...

Pacerized
08-24-2012, 05:51 PM
I actually think there's some truth to this. I think Donnie and KP will be different from Bird in that they won't hesitate to make trades. If Bird was still in charge, I don't see any way Granger would be traded unless we'd get a Dwight Howard-caliber player in return.


DW and KP certainly weren't as aggressive as Bird was with their cap space this summer. At least Bird went after the best impact players available in Nene and West. I expected a more aggressive approach from KP and was disapointed. I really hope that's Bird is coming back and if he is I hope DW just keeps his chair warm and doesn't go after any trades. I have very little faith in DW after seeing him trade DC for a player that he didn't even have to trade anything for.

Naptown_Seth
08-24-2012, 06:18 PM
Exactly. That's why it might make sense to trade him while the hype still exists.
For someone else's player whose hype still exists?

Because why would someone trade us a known player just as good as Paul might become? I have a player who is a 9 and I trade him for a player that might become a 9? Why?

1) He's old, in which case does that really help the Pacers

2) It's a position of redundancy, ie George Hill for Leonard (although KL has potential to be better than Hill which helped push that deal, and the Pacers had redundancy at the wing too)

3) They don't like the player's chemistry

4) It's a player they can't resign

5) They are just dumb


Paul's "hype" value is viewed as potential by all those other teams too, so they aren't going to give up a known great player just for the heck of it. There has to be a reason they are willing to give up something good enough to be worth giving up on Paul's potential.

"Well, we have Deron Williams, but that Paul George is going to be special so lets do that trade". Seems unlikely to me.

OlBlu
08-24-2012, 06:35 PM
Yea, Yea, Yea...You have said this crap on here how many times? Nothing new here by your comment...stop trolling!

The troll is the guy who started begging for Gordon for the ten thousandth time....... I am sick of listening to Gordon crap. :cool: ...

vnzla81
08-24-2012, 06:42 PM
For someone else's player whose hype still exists?

Because why would someone trade us a known player just as good as Paul might become? I have a player who is a 9 and I trade him for a player that might become a 9? Why?

1) He's old, in which case does that really help the Pacers

2) It's a position of redundancy, ie George Hill for Leonard (although KL has potential to be better than Hill which helped push that deal, and the Pacers had redundancy at the wing too)

3) They don't like the player's chemistry

4) It's a player they can't resign

5) They are just dumb


Paul's "hype" value is viewed as potential by all those other teams too, so they aren't going to give up a known great player just for the heck of it. There has to be a reason they are willing to give up something good enough to be worth giving up on Paul's potential.

"Well, we have Deron Williams, but that Paul George is going to be special so lets do that trade". Seems unlikely to me.

Or the Hawks could say "hey we don't want to lose Josh Smith for nothing" and trade him for PG, or Milwaukee can say "hey we don't want to lose Monta for nothing" and trade for Paul George, I rather trade Danny in either scenario but at this point I think PG's value is higher than Danny's.

PR07
08-24-2012, 07:05 PM
If we trade Granger for Humphries, I've lost all confidence in management.

George and Granger can co-exist. I like George a lot more at the 2 than I do the 3 because he's a matchup nightmare there. Maybe one day it could possibly become an issue if George puts on some serious weight and loses some foot speed, but that hasn't occurred and likely won't for a few more seasons. I think people force the issue a little too much around here.

Pacer Fan
08-24-2012, 07:10 PM
The troll is the guy who started begging for Gordon for the ten thousandth time....... I am sick of listening to Gordon crap. :cool: ...

No, A troll is someone that reply's with pointless lines of crap like you do. What I typed was and is a option for the Pacers. If you are so sick of what is reality then maybe you should find another hobby!!

OlBlu
08-24-2012, 07:14 PM
No, A troll is someone that reply's with pointless lines of crap like you do. What I typed was and is a option for the Pacers. If you are so sick of what is reality then maybe you should find another hobby!!

No, you are the troll proposing endless trades that will never happen for an always injured Gordon. NO would not take what you offered and as a Pacers fan, I would not make that offer. I have come to the conclusion that Gordon is fast moving in to replace Granger and McRoberts as the most overhyped players that people want to have a Pacers connection. I hope it NEVER happens. We can do much better. In fact, we may already have better......:cool: ...

OlBlu
08-24-2012, 07:16 PM
If we trade Granger for Humphries, I've lost all confidence in management.

George and Granger can co-exist. I like George a lot more at the 2 than I do the 3 because he's a matchup nightmare there. Maybe one day it could possibly become an issue if George puts on some serious weight and loses some foot speed, but that hasn't occurred and likely won't for a few more seasons. I think people force the issue a little too much around here.

I don't think there will be any trade for Granger because his value has gone down steadily in the last few years.... I don't see anyone offering him a big contract with this one expires either. It might just br better to have Danny as a Pacer for life....:cool: ...

Pacer Fan
08-24-2012, 07:28 PM
No, you are the troll proposing endless trades that will never happen for an always injured Gordon. NO would not take what you offered and as a Pacers fan, I would not make that offer. I have come to the conclusion that Gordon is fast moving in to replace Granger and McRoberts as the most overhyped players that people want to have a Pacers connection. I hope it NEVER happens. We can do much better. In fact, we may already have better......:cool: ...

Let me tell you something. When I first got on here I had a bout over EJ with a few members. I never liked Gordon in high school nor IU. I can't stand IU. I am a Boilermaker all the way. But with this said I was proven wrong about EJ, not only by a few members here. But by Eric Gordon. I have watched much more talented players in high school and in college, but there is acouple things that EJ brings that many don't possess. Attitude and Will and he has what it takes to be a game changer. You want to dog him for his injuries and that's a valid argument. But, I don't think this will continue as a trend for him. You name 5 SG's in the league that is better at his position, now is it even possible to get any of those 5 that you think is better? I really don't see to many options out there.

If I was a fan for another team and lived in another state, I would still want EJ. If EJ was from another country and never played college ball, I'd still want EJ, so get off the homer crap and stop trolling the hate on EJ cause we all know what you think.

xBulletproof
08-24-2012, 07:41 PM
Or the Hawks could say "hey we don't want to lose Josh Smith for nothing" and trade him for PG, or Milwaukee can say "hey we don't want to lose Monta for nothing" and trade for Paul George, I rather trade Danny in either scenario but at this point I think PG's value is higher than Danny's.

So we can lose those guys for nothing instead?

Awesome plan.

OlBlu
08-24-2012, 07:50 PM
Let me tell you something. When I first got on here I had a bout over EJ with a few members. I never liked Gordon in high school nor IU. I can't stand IU. I am a Boilermaker all the way. But with this said I was proven wrong about EJ, not only by a few members here. But by Eric Gordon. I have watched much more talented players in high school and in college, but there is acouple things that EJ brings that many don't possess. Attitude and Will and he has what it takes to be a game changer. You want to dog him for his injuries and that's a valid argument. But, I don't think this will continue as a trend for him. You name 5 SG's in the league that is better at his position, now is it even possible to get any of those 5 that you think is better? I really don't see to many options out there.

If I was a fan for another team and lived in another state, I would still want EJ. If EJ was from another country and never played college ball, I'd still want EJ, so get off the homer crap and stop trolling the hate on EJ cause we all know what you think.

And we know what you think too as you say it over and over and over again and come up with ever more silly trades for a player who has done absolutley nothing in the NBA. If you want to do that, put in one of the dozens of Gordon threads and I'll never have to read it or feel like I should comment on it. You will find this amazing but I think PG is a better all around SG right now that Gordan and he stays on the court and he plays great defense and he has much more upside.....:cool: ...

Pacer Fan
08-24-2012, 07:54 PM
Or the Hawks could say "hey we don't want to lose Josh Smith for nothing" and trade him for PG, or Milwaukee can say "hey we don't want to lose Monta for nothing" and trade for Paul George, I rather trade Danny in either scenario but at this point I think PG's value is higher than Danny's.

Doesn't matter if Paul George value is higher then Danny Granger. If, Paul's value is higher right now it's only cause of his contract. Pacers can't afford to lose Paul cause he is had on the cheap. You don't pay 8.5 million more for a Monta Ellis when the Pacers are already on the verge of luxury tax. Also, I am a Monta fan as you should know and I wouldn't trade Granger for Ellis straight up! Again, some people under value our own players.

vnzla81
08-24-2012, 07:54 PM
So we can lose those guys for nothing instead?

Awesome plan.

Pacers are in a better level than Atlanta or Milwaukee, those teams are getting close to start rebuilding again.

Pacer Fan
08-24-2012, 08:02 PM
And we know what you think too as you say it over and over and over again and come up with ever more silly trades for a player who has done absolutley nothing in the NBA. If you want to do that, put in one of the dozens of Gordon threads and I'll never have to read it or feel like I should comment on it. You will find this amazing but I think PG is a better all around SG right now that Gordan and he stays on the court and he plays great defense and he has much more upside.....:cool: ...

Hmm, this thread is about Danny being traded and obviously all options are on the table for the FO. So, maybe you should just refrain from replying to statements about trade talks that involve EJ. As others may want to discuss this unlike you, you just want to hate, bash and troll with no real substance. Some would tell a person to p i s s o f f when one like yourself interferes with a discussion that is merely trolling, but here on PD, we are to be more civil.

BlueNGold
08-24-2012, 08:15 PM
This Eric Gordon stuff is funny. The last thing the Simons want after striking out with Jonathan Bender and paying 20M/yr to watch Jermaine O'Neal wear a dress suit more than his jersey...is to lineup for a smallish SG with a chronic injury history. It's not going to happen...and that's ok guys.

As for Danny, he does have good market value. I don't think he's on the decline at all. He's just not in a system where he's launching threes every time down the floor...so his numbers are down. Anyway, he plays well in tough games normally...and usually better in tough games.

If I were the Pacers though, I would work very hard to make a good trade where we get a bit younger player who can grow up with Paul...and who might fill a greater need. We have lots of wing players with Hill, George, Lance and Green. Those types are fairly easy to find. A greater need is the next starting PF for the Pacers. DWest may not be around that much longer and he's on the decline already. It really is time to look to the future.

HC
08-24-2012, 09:02 PM
I get that his value isn't high and we can't get much for him. But getting Humphries makes us a MUCH worse team now and not any better in the future. So what's the point?
Because he is a double double machine, and can defend. Not sure how he makes us much worse.

HC
08-24-2012, 09:06 PM
I'm with you. the off season is the silly season. :laugh:

If Danny is available....Good luck finding a team to give you much more than that in return. Danny is the 2nd or 3rd best player on most teams in the NBA.

OlBlu
08-24-2012, 09:12 PM
Hmm, this thread is about Danny being traded and obviously all options are on the table for the FO. So, maybe you should just refrain from replying to statements about trade talks that involve EJ. As others may want to discuss this unlike you, you just want to hate, bash and troll with no real substance. Some would tell a person to p i s s o f f when one like yourself interferes with a discussion that is merely trolling, but here on PD, we are to be more civil.

I think I have several people of PD who agree with me. Some of them have commented, why don't you take it up with them. Why don't you just refrain from starting a Gordon thread or turning so many threads into that and I wouldn't have to comment on how truly foolish you are.....:cool: ...

Ace E.Anderson
08-24-2012, 09:14 PM
If Danny is available....Good luck finding a team to give you much more than that in return. Danny is the 2nd or 3rd best player on most teams in the NBA.

2nd best on a lot of teams, 3rd best on a few.

And as far as trading for Hump, yeah we get a double double guy, but he'd back up West AND we lose a 20pt/gm scorer. Whether you like Danny or not he's easily our most consistent perimeter threat.

HC
08-24-2012, 09:16 PM
2nd best on a lot of teams, 3rd best on a few.

And as far as trading for Hump, yeah we get a double double guy, but he'd back up West AND we lose a 20pt/gm scorer. Whether you like Danny or not he's easily our most consistent perimeter threat.

Yeah we lose DG...hypothetically...like I said IF he is available like the blog states, I would rather have Hump than Tyler, Plum, or Green and West isnt going to be around forever. Also I would say DG is probably 2nd best on maybe half the teams, 3rd best on quite a few, and even 4th on a couple.

Ace E.Anderson
08-24-2012, 09:21 PM
I don't think there will be any trade for Granger because his value has gone down steadily in the last few years.... I don't see anyone offering him a big contract with this one expires either. It might just br better to have Danny as a Pacer for life....:cool: ...

If Danny finishes his contract and signs for a cheaper one, around 8mil a yr, I'd like the idea of him being a pacer for life. Eventually we could utilize him off the bench as a 6th man type. Hopefully we have a suitable replacement on the wing as a starter by then.

I'd just hate to trade him for scraps if we don't have to.

Pacerized
08-24-2012, 10:04 PM
If Danny finishes his contract and signs for a cheaper one, around 8mil a yr, I'd like the idea of him being a pacer for life. Eventually we could utilize him off the bench as a 6th man type. Hopefully we have a suitable replacement on the wing as a starter by then.

I'd just hate to trade him for scraps if we don't have to.

I'd say that's the kind of money both Granger and West might have to take. Both players still have a lot of good years left in them so it's not like it's panic time to move either player. So far PG hasn't proven to be worth that much money and even if he does we might still have the cap space to keep PG, Granger, and West when you consider the contracts of West and Granger going down.

vnzla81
08-24-2012, 10:12 PM
2nd best on a lot of teams, 3rd best on a few.

And as far as trading for Hump, yeah we get a double double guy, but he'd back up West AND we lose a 20pt/gm scorer. Whether you like Danny or not he's easily our most consistent perimeter threat.

He was 3rd or 4th best a lot of times last year, and anybody can replace the 18ppg provided by him, somebody has to score on an NBA team just because he averages 18ppg doesn't mean that he is as great as many of you think.

vnzla81
08-24-2012, 10:14 PM
If Danny finishes his contract and signs for a cheaper one, around 8mil a yr, I'd like the idea of him being a pacer for life. Eventually we could utilize him off the bench as a 6th man type. Hopefully we have a suitable replacement on the wing as a starter by then.

I'd just hate to trade him for scraps if we don't have to.

I don't see him staying through another rebuilding process.

Ace E.Anderson
08-24-2012, 10:23 PM
I don't see him staying through another rebuilding process.

Rebuilding? You think we'll be rebuilding in 3 yr?

Also it's not that easy to average 18-20 ppg. Yes i agree that SOMEONE has to score, but averaging 18-20 pts on a playoff team (5th best record i do believe) isnt easily replacable. Danny gets the other teams best perimiter defender every game. He's a good scorer, and has been through most of his career.

Obviously with a lot of "superteams" being created he was the 3rd or 4th best, but that's on the best teams in the league.

vnzla81
08-24-2012, 10:45 PM
Rebuilding? You think we'll be rebuilding in 3 yr?

Also it's not that easy to average 18-20 ppg. Yes i agree that SOMEONE has to score, but averaging 18-20 pts on a playoff team (5th best record i do believe) isnt easily replacable. Danny gets the other teams best perimiter defender every game. He's a good scorer, and has been through most of his career.

Obviously with a lot of "superteams" being created he was the 3rd or 4th best, but that's on the best teams in the league.

If the plan is to re-sign West and Danny until their wheels fall off I expect them to start rebuilding soon, unless Hibbert becomes Hakeem and PG becomes Tmac.

Pacer Fan
08-24-2012, 10:46 PM
I think I have several people of PD who agree with me. Some of them have commented, why don't you take it up with them. Why don't you just refrain from starting a Gordon thread or turning so many threads into that and I wouldn't have to comment on how truly foolish you are.....:cool: ...

I realize many will agree and disagree with me, but they usually bring something to the table, like Blue&Gold did earlier even though I disagree with him. As for you, you just slap stick people with no thought of your own... this is trolling and you have had many people on PD calling you a troll...:banghead: Can you not figure this out or you just do it as a rise (as in a troll)? Slammin people for their thought by calling them names is not a good way to communicate.

Also, I have only suggested a trade for EJ acouple times ever, so what you just said is outlandish and just not true!

CableKC
08-25-2012, 01:06 AM
I'm going to guess that the FO will continue to simply "gauge" interest in DG to see what they can get for him ( until this trade deadline ). Unless they get an offer that they cannot refuse....which I don't think is likely ( IMHO, Granger is worth more to us than he is to other Teams )....I don't think that they will really consider moving him until the 2013-2014 Offseason when he's an Expiring Contract.

I don't see the FO moving him at the 2013-2014 trade Deadline since making a major move like moving a key Player like Granger isn't good for a Playoff run.

The only way I can see them giving him an extension ( to keep him long term ) is IF we make it to the ECF this upcoming season AND give the Heat a real run for their $$$$....but I don't see that happening. Barring that from happening and given that he'll be a UFA after his current contract is up after the 2013-2014 season...I can see the FO moving him during the summer of 2013 so that they don't lose him for nothing while making room in the SalaryCap in the 2013-2014 offseason to address our PF rotation ( since West will likely be gone ). Hopefully, PG is ready to step up and take over by than so that Granger becomes expendable.

PaulGeorge
08-25-2012, 05:41 AM
Obviously Danny isn't going to finish his career here with PG lurking in the shadows. Donnie is back and KP is on his side. I think it's a foregone conclusion that Danny will be gone at some point. That may depend how well Paul starts off this season. If he has a strong start it will make it easier for the FO to pull the trigger and trade Danny. I just hope we can get a quality athletic PF for him. Which I believe we could. Then sign West to another deal so he can come off the bench and trade tyler.

OlBlu
08-25-2012, 11:05 AM
Obviously Danny isn't going to finish his career here with PG lurking in the shadows. Donnie is back and KP is on his side. I think it's a foregone conclusion that Danny will be gone at some point. That may depend how well Paul starts off this season. If he has a strong start it will make it easier for the FO to pull the trigger and trade Danny. I just hope we can get a quality athletic PF for him. Which I believe we could. Then sign West to another deal so he can come off the bench and trade tyler.

I am not sure you can. This has nothing to do with Danny but more to do with his contract. I think he has a negative trade value and I doubt you can get a first rounder for him, even one that would be low. If Danny leaves the team, I don't think he will be traded but his contract will be allowed to expire and he will sign a new, much lower contract with another team. You might trade him if you throw in first round draft picks and other players but those player would not be ones you would like to trade. I might be surprised. Bird pulled a miracle moving JO but a big man might be more in demand than Granger.....:cool: ...

OlBlu
08-25-2012, 11:10 AM
I realize many will agree and disagree with me, but they usually bring something to the table, like Blue&Gold did earlier even though I disagree with him. As for you, you just slap stick people with no thought of your own... this is trolling and you have had many people on PD calling you a troll...:banghead: Can you not figure this out or you just do it as a rise (as in a troll)? Slammin people for their thought by calling them names is not a good way to communicate.

Also, I have only suggested a trade for EJ acouple times ever, so what you just said is outlandish and just not true!


But you calling someone a troll is just peachy keen isn't it. I don't know how many post you have made about Gordon but I have seen hundreds of them here and they are just as silly as yours. You can't get it that the Pacers are not going to give up the ranch for someone who is so frail that he can never play a full season. I keep pointing that fact out to you and you just irnore it. There is a habit on the forum of people calling someone a troll when they disagree with them and can't make a sensible argument for what they have to say. You certainly fall within that catagory. Now, say whatever you want and shout to the world how much you want Gordon, I am done with this for now....:cool: ...

OlBlu
08-25-2012, 11:11 AM
If the plan is to re-sign West and Danny until their wheels fall off I expect them to start rebuilding soon, unless Hibbert becomes Hakeem and PG becomes Tmac.

I agree with this and your three year estimate for rebuilding is not so far fetched if they don't add some new starters......:cool: ...

OlBlu
08-25-2012, 11:14 AM
Rebuilding? You think we'll be rebuilding in 3 yr?

Also it's not that easy to average 18-20 ppg. Yes i agree that SOMEONE has to score, but averaging 18-20 pts on a playoff team (5th best record i do believe) isnt easily replacable. Danny gets the other teams best perimiter defender every game. He's a good scorer, and has been through most of his career.

Obviously with a lot of "superteams" being created he was the 3rd or 4th best, but that's on the best teams in the league.


Teams with bad management are constantly "rebuilding." The Knicks are always rebuilding. The Timberwolves are always rebuilding. The Clippers have been rebuilding for 25 years. Atlanta rebuilds often. It is the same in every sport. The haves keep on winning and the havenots keep on rebuilding......:cool: ...

OlBlu
08-25-2012, 11:15 AM
He was 3rd or 4th best a lot of times last year, and anybody can replace the 18ppg provided by him, somebody has to score on an NBA team just because he averages 18ppg doesn't mean that he is as great as many of you think.

Careful Vnzla, the mods are going to slap you around for that one. Even if you are absolutely correct. :cool: ...

BillS
08-25-2012, 11:42 AM
He was 3rd or 4th best a lot of times last year, and anybody can replace the 18ppg provided by him, somebody has to score on an NBA team just because he averages 18ppg doesn't mean that he is as great as many of you think.

18ppg players are a dime a dozen in your NBA? OK.


I don't see him staying through another rebuilding process.

Why? If he is such a fraud as a player who is going to sign him for anything, rebuilding or not? You think he'd take MLE to ride the bench somewhere?

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 11:44 AM
I'm no Granger fan and I would like to see him traded for good value. But even I will admit he is clearly the #2 player on this team...and he's the #1 player on offense. I like George Hill, but nobody else comes close to Danny's ability to convert shots in tough games while being defended.

Ace E.Anderson
08-25-2012, 11:50 AM
Teams with bad management are constantly "rebuilding." The Knicks are always rebuilding. The Timberwolves are always rebuilding. The Clippers have been rebuilding for 25 years. Atlanta rebuilds often. It is the same in every sport. The haves keep on winning and the havenots keep on rebuilding......:cool: ...

When one hears rebuilding they think of a team that is constantly out of the playoffs, looking at a high draft pick, etc. To think we'll go from 3rd in the east, to rebuilding in 2 years when most of our players have better years ahead of them (Hill, Hibbert, PG, all under 26 years old) without losing any of our key pieces is a little far-fetched in my eyes, but that's just me.

P.S. The Hawks just had the same core for years, so I don't think of them as constantly rebuilding. So maybe we just have a different idea of what rebuilding means.

OlBlu
08-25-2012, 12:01 PM
When one hears rebuilding they think of a team that is constantly out of the playoffs, looking at a high draft pick, etc. To think we'll go from 3rd in the east, to rebuilding in 2 years when most of our players have better years ahead of them (Hill, Hibbert, PG, all under 26 years old) without losing any of our key pieces is a little far-fetched in my eyes, but that's just me.

P.S. The Hawks just had the same core for years, so I don't think of them as constantly rebuilding. So maybe we just have a different idea of what rebuilding means.

That is usually the case. I agree with much of what you say but Hill, Hibbert and PG will not carry this team. Good replacements for West and Granger must be found and that will fall in the next three years. Replacing your leading scorer and a very good PF from the starting unit constitutes rebuilding in my mind. I think the Pacers may have peaked last year but I will be watching to see how they do. My reason for believing they will back up a bit is that the other teams improved their starters greatly while the Pacers improved their bench slightly. I picked them to go 48-34 and that is a good record. They could be a few games above that (very good) or under that which would still be good. I think they benefited form the shortened season and the schedule last year. They are built for the regular season and not the playoffs where the superstars start playing heavy minutes and the bench is less important.......:cool: ...

OlBlu
08-25-2012, 12:02 PM
I'm no Granger fan and I would like to see him traded for good value. But even I will admit he is clearly the #2 player on this team...and he's the #1 player on offense. I like George Hill, but nobody else comes close to Danny's ability to convert shots in tough games while being defended.

I think you are right on target. I would not want Granger to be traded unless we got great value for him. I like that you see he is now the #2 player on this team....:cool: ...

Eleazar
08-25-2012, 12:12 PM
If Danny is available....Good luck finding a team to give you much more than that in return. Danny is the 2nd or 3rd best player on most teams in the NBA.

You must not look at most teams rosters. By my count he would be the best or at least arguably the best player on 19 teams. In a league that consists of 30 teams, your statement just doesn't hold up.

vnzla81
08-25-2012, 12:31 PM
18ppg players are a dime a dozen in your NBA? OK.



Why? If he is such a fraud as a player who is going to sign him for anything, rebuilding or not? You think he'd take MLE to ride the bench somewhere?

Every team in the NBA has somebody that scores close to 18ppg, somebody has to score the points even the Bobcats need somebody to score, at this point in his career Danny is one of the worse players that score over 18ppg in the NBA , his efficienty is horrible.

And I've never say he is a "fraud" he is a good player but if you don't trade him for value at this moment and keep him, I don't think he would want to be a backup in a rebuilding team like the Pacers in 3 or 4 years.

If he is not a backup he is an starter and if he is an starter that means the Pacers are not that good.

vnzla81
08-25-2012, 12:37 PM
You must not look at most teams rosters. By my count he would be the best or at least arguably the best player on 19 teams. In a league that consists of 30 teams, your statement just doesn't hold up.

19 teams? I would like to see that list.

Eleazar
08-25-2012, 12:48 PM
19 teams? I would like to that list.

You also think Josh Smith is the greatest thing since sliced bread, so I'm not worried about what you think.

Ace E.Anderson
08-25-2012, 01:16 PM
Every team in the NBA has somebody that scores close to 18ppg, somebody has to score the points even the Bobcats need somebody to score, at this point in his career Danny is one of the worse players that score over 18ppg in the NBA , his efficienty is horrible.

And I've never say he is a "fraud" he is a good player but if you don't trade him for value at this moment and keep him, I don't think he would want to be a backup in a rebuilding team like the Pacers in 3 or 4 years.

If he is not a backup he is an starter and if he is an starter that means the Pacers are not that good.

One of the worst players that score over 18ppg?! You're just reaching now man.

There's a big difference between a player being the main scorer on the Bobcats or the Raptors, and being a scorer on a bonafide playoff team. Hell most of the players you think are better than Danny can barely average 18 ppg in a season, so if Danny is one of the worst players that score that much, those guys don't even qualify

McKeyFan
08-25-2012, 02:37 PM
You also think Josh Smith is the greatest thing since sliced bread, so I'm not worried about what you think.

Interpretation: Folks, I just got punked.

Eleazar
08-25-2012, 02:52 PM
Interpretation: Folks, I just got punked.


No, it means he isn't worth my time to say anything more than to point out how ridiculous he is.

Anyone can take a look at all the teams rosters, and I can guarantee the majority of people would say he would be the best player on at least half the teams in the league. With only a few exceptions like vnzla and olBlu who ignore facts to suit their idiotic opinions.

vnzla81
08-25-2012, 03:06 PM
You also think Josh Smith is the greatest thing since sliced bread, so I'm not worried about what you think.

Well I just wanted to see that list but if that is your attitude ..... :rolleyes:

OK so I'm going to do the list for you then to see if I find the 19 teams you are talking about:

Out of the 30 NBA teams, Miami,Boston,Atlanta,Philly,Denver,NY,Chicago,Detr oit,Washington,Cleveland,NO,Lakers,Clippers, Bucks, ,Brooklyn,Memphis,SA,OKC,Minny and Portland are teams that have at least one player better than Danny, leaving 10 teams including the Pacers.

And out of those 10 teams I'm including teams like Toronto and Sacramento even though they have at least one player that I consider better(Andre B and Tyreke).

So yep I don't see the 19 teams your are talking about :unimpress

vnzla81
08-25-2012, 03:28 PM
No, it means he isn't worth my time to say anything more than to point out how ridiculous he is.

Anyone can take a look at all the teams rosters, and I can guarantee the majority of people would say he would be the best player on at least half the teams in the league. With only a few exceptions like vnzla and olBlu who ignore facts to suit their idiotic opinions.

I wish I was the one ignoring the facts, must be hard to see anything through those blue and gold glasses it must be like 3D or something....

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 03:30 PM
No, it means he isn't worth my time to say anything more than to point out how ridiculous he is.

Anyone can take a look at all the teams rosters, and I can guarantee the majority of people would say he would be the best player on at least half the teams in the league. With only a few exceptions like vnzla and olBlu who ignore facts to suit their idiotic opinions.

Just looking at the East, here are some of the best players by team:

1)
Miami - LeBron James, DWade, Bosh
Chicago - Derrick Rose, Noah, Deng
New Jersey - Deron Williams, Joe Johnson
Cleveland - Kyrie Irving
Boston - Rondo, Pierce, Garnett
New York - Mello, Stoudemire
Philadelphia - Bynum
Milwaukee - Monta Ellis, Brandon Jennings

2)
Detroit - Greg Monroe
Atlanta - Josh Smith, Al Horford

3)
Charlotte - Gerald Henderson
Washington - John Wall
Toronto - Bargnani
Orlando - Winnie the Pooh

I think Danny fits in group #3 in terms of market value. Obviously, group #1 basically blows away Granger. An argument could be made that he's as good as Ellis, but I don't think that's true. Ellis is far more explosive offensively.

In group #2, if Atlanta is willing to trade Horford...or Detroit is willing to trade Monroe for Granger...somebody please get on the phone right now!!!

I suspect the only player we could acquire in these lists is Henderson. Wall is a highly valued young PG. Bargnani is a unique player who brings a different dimension to the court. IDK. I think Danny is near the bottom of the #1's in the Eastern Conference.

...btw, our depth and quality at each position is why we win games, not because we have one great individual player.

OlBlu
08-25-2012, 03:33 PM
You must not look at most teams rosters. By my count he would be the best or at least arguably the best player on 19 teams. In a league that consists of 30 teams, your statement just doesn't hold up.

It is perfectly fine to be enthusiastic but when you tell he would be the best player on 19 teams in the NBA, you have passed incredulity and gone to the completely absurd. There are many teams in the NBA where he would not even be a starter much less the best player......:cool: ...

OlBlu
08-25-2012, 03:34 PM
Just looking at the East, here are some of the best players by team:

1)
Miami - LeBron James, DWade, Bosh
Chicago - Derrick Rose, Noah, Deng
New Jersey - Deron Williams, Joe Johnson
Cleveland - Kyrie Irving
Boston - Rondo, Pierce, Garnett
New York - Mello, Stoudemire
Philadelphia - Bynum
Milwaukee - Monta Ellis, Brandon Jennings

2)
Detroit - Greg Monroe
Atlanta - Josh Smith, Al Horford

3)
Charlotte - Gerald Henderson
Washington - John Wall
Toronto - Bargnani
Orlando - Winnie the Pooh

I think Danny fits in group #3 in terms of market value. Obviously, group #1 basically blows away Granger. An argument could be made that he's as good as Ellis, but I don't think that's true. Ellis is far more explosive offensively.

In group #2, if Atlanta is willing to trade Horford...or Detroit is willing to trade Monroe for Granger...somebody please get on the phone right now!!!

I suspect the only player we could acquire in these lists is Henderson. Wall is a highly valued young PG. Bargnani is a unique player who brings a different dimension to the court. IDK. I think Danny is near the bottom of the #1's in the Eastern Conference.

...btw, our depth and quality at each position is why we win games, not because we have one great individual player.

Good post. You clearly won by KO......:cool: ...

OlBlu
08-25-2012, 03:36 PM
...btw, our depth and quality at each position is why we win games, not because we have one great individual player.[/QUOTE]


And that statement sums up why we won't win many if any playoff games. When the big guys turn the superstars loose for heavy minutes, the Pacers are out to lunch. They can build a nice season record with their depth but that won't mean anything when playoff time comes....:cool: ...

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 03:41 PM
...btw, our depth and quality at each position is why we win games, not because we have one great individual player.


And that statement sums up why we won't win many if any playoff games. When the big guys turn the superstars loose for heavy minutes, the Pacers are out to lunch. They can build a nice season record with their depth but that won't mean anything when playoff time comes....:cool: ...[/QUOTE]

I think the Pistons from about 10 years ago and the Pacers from the 1990's have a pretty good shot at beating superstars, but it takes a mature, tight-as-a-drum team. But it can be done. So, if this Pacer team matures and if they get enough star power out of Paul George along the lines it got from Reggie Miller...it has a chance. That's all though. I agree superstars win 90% of all championships if not more.

vnzla81
08-25-2012, 03:48 PM
Just looking at the East, here are some of the best players by team:

1)
Miami - LeBron James, DWade, Bosh
Chicago - Derrick Rose, Noah, Deng
New Jersey - Deron Williams, Joe Johnson
Cleveland - Kyrie Irving
Boston - Rondo, Pierce, Garnett
New York - Mello, Stoudemire
Philadelphia - Bynum
Milwaukee - Monta Ellis, Brandon Jennings

2)
Detroit - Greg Monroe
Atlanta - Josh Smith, Al Horford

3)
Charlotte - Gerald Henderson
Washington - John Wall
Toronto - Bargnani
Orlando - Winnie the Pooh

I think Danny fits in group #3 in terms of market value. Obviously, group #1 basically blows away Granger. An argument could be made that he's as good as Ellis, but I don't think that's true. Ellis is far more explosive offensively.

In group #2, if Atlanta is willing to trade Horford...or Detroit is willing to trade Monroe for Granger...somebody please get on the phone right now!!!

I suspect the only player we could acquire in these lists is Henderson. Wall is a highly valued young PG. Bargnani is a unique player who brings a different dimension to the court. IDK. I think Danny is near the bottom of the #1's in the Eastern Conference.

...btw, our depth and quality at each position is why we win games, not because we have one great individual player.

Nice post but Horford, Smith and Monroe have to be in number #1 for sure.

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 03:52 PM
Nice post but Horford, Smith and Monroe have to be in number #1 for sure.

I think it all comes down to whether you can acquire one of these players by parting with Granger. I think we would be hard pressed 80% of the time. The Pacers are a team and that's one thing I like about them. We don't have a "big two" or "big three". I agree with olBlu that the Pacers are not built to win championships. But that doesn't mean we don't have a shot. It's just not that easy when your best players were picked at #17. What we need is Paul George to blow up...else we are just pretending.

OlBlu
08-25-2012, 03:53 PM
And that statement sums up why we won't win many if any playoff games. When the big guys turn the superstars loose for heavy minutes, the Pacers are out to lunch. They can build a nice season record with their depth but that won't mean anything when playoff time comes....:cool: ...

I think the Pistons from about 10 years ago and the Pacers from the 1990's have a pretty good shot at beating superstars, but it takes a mature, tight-as-a-drum team. But it can be done. So, if this Pacer team matures and if they get enough star power out of Paul George along the lines it got from Reggie Miller...it has a chance. That's all though. I agree superstars win 90% of all championships if not more.[/QUOTE]


I agree with you that PG is the only Pacer on the roster who has a chance to be that kind of player. That is why I would not trade him even up for Gordon even if NO would consider it (which they would not)......:cool: ...

boombaby1987
08-25-2012, 03:56 PM
Just looking at the East, here are some of the best players by team:

1)
Miami - LeBron James, DWade, Bosh
Chicago - Derrick Rose, Noah, Deng
New Jersey - Deron Williams, Joe Johnson
Cleveland - Kyrie Irving
Boston - Rondo, Pierce, Garnett
New York - Mello, Stoudemire
Philadelphia - Bynum
Milwaukee - Monta Ellis, Brandon Jennings

2)
Detroit - Greg Monroe
Atlanta - Josh Smith, Al Horford

3)
Charlotte - Gerald Henderson
Washington - John Wall
Toronto - Bargnani
Orlando - Winnie the Pooh

I think Danny fits in group #3 in terms of market value. Obviously, group #1 basically blows away Granger. An argument could be made that he's as good as Ellis, but I don't think that's true. Ellis is far more explosive offensively.

In group #2, if Atlanta is willing to trade Horford...or Detroit is willing to trade Monroe for Granger...somebody please get on the phone right now!!!

I suspect the only player we could acquire in these lists is Henderson. Wall is a highly valued young PG. Bargnani is a unique player who brings a different dimension to the court. IDK. I think Danny is near the bottom of the #1's in the Eastern Conference.

...btw, our depth and quality at each position is why we win games, not because we have one great individual player.


Great post, I agree with most of it. I think Brandon Jennings being in the first tier is pretty ridiculous though. I think Ellis is in the second tier as well.

I would trade Granger for everyone on that list except Ellis, Jennings, Bargnani, Pooh, Henderson, Stoudemire(contract), Johnson(contract). So in my opinion that makes Granger roughly the 20th best player in the Eastern Conference.

Ace E.Anderson
08-25-2012, 04:28 PM
Just looking at the East, here are some of the best players by team:

1)
Miami - LeBron James, DWade, Bosh
Chicago - Derrick Rose, Noah, Deng
New Jersey - Deron Williams, Joe Johnson
Cleveland - Kyrie Irving
Boston - Rondo, Pierce, Garnett
New York - Mello, Stoudemire
Philadelphia - Bynum
Milwaukee - Monta Ellis, Brandon Jennings

2)
Detroit - Greg Monroe
Atlanta - Josh Smith, Al Horford

3)
Charlotte - Gerald Henderson
Washington - John Wall
Toronto - Bargnani
Orlando - Winnie the Pooh

I think Danny fits in group #3 in terms of market value. Obviously, group #1 basically blows away Granger. An argument could be made that he's as good as Ellis, but I don't think that's true. Ellis is far more explosive offensively.

In group #2, if Atlanta is willing to trade Horford...or Detroit is willing to trade Monroe for Granger...somebody please get on the phone right now!!!

I suspect the only player we could acquire in these lists is Henderson. Wall is a highly valued young PG. Bargnani is a unique player who brings a different dimension to the court. IDK. I think Danny is near the bottom of the #1's in the Eastern Conference.

...btw, our depth and quality at each position is why we win games, not because we have one great individual player.

The fact some think that Danny is the same level of player as Gerald Henderson is downright sad.

HC
08-25-2012, 05:57 PM
You must not look at most teams rosters. By my count he would be the best or at least arguably the best player on 19 teams. In a league that consists of 30 teams, your statement just doesn't hold up.

Actually I do, and I too would like to see your 19 team list. Dont' worry, I won't ridicule you for your opinions or question your basketball knowledge.

OlBlu
08-25-2012, 06:00 PM
Actually I do, and I too would like to see your 19 team list. Dont' worry, I won't ridicule you for your opinions or question your basketball knowledge.


Insults are not wanted nor are they welcome here on the Pacers Digest

OlBlu
08-25-2012, 06:04 PM
Great post, I agree with most of it. I think Brandon Jennings being in the first tier is pretty ridiculous though. I think Ellis is in the second tier as well.

I would trade Granger for everyone on that list except Ellis, Jennings, Bargnani, Pooh, Henderson, Stoudemire(contract), Johnson(contract). So in my opinion that makes Granger roughly the 20th best player in the Eastern Conference.

I would trade him even up for any of the players you mention. The fact that two of them have big contracts doesn't mean they are not better players. They certainly are. I would trade Granger for Ellis or Jennings in a heart beat. So, perhaps he is better than the mighty Pooh but it isn't clear.......:cool: ... So, in reality, just about every team has someone better than Granger on their roster and many of them have several player better than Granger......:cool: ...

Goyle
08-25-2012, 06:22 PM
Gerald Henderson: NBA Superstar

mattie
08-25-2012, 06:34 PM
Just looking at the East, here are some of the best players by team:

1)
Miami - LeBron James, DWade, Bosh
Chicago - Derrick Rose, Noah, Deng
New Jersey - Deron Williams, Joe Johnson
Cleveland - Kyrie Irving
Boston - Rondo, Pierce, Garnett
New York - Mello, Stoudemire
Philadelphia - Bynum
Milwaukee - Monta Ellis, Brandon Jennings

2)
Detroit - Greg Monroe
Atlanta - Josh Smith, Al Horford

3)
Charlotte - Gerald Henderson
Washington - John Wall
Toronto - Bargnani
Orlando - Winnie the Pooh

I think Danny fits in group #3 in terms of market value. Obviously, group #1 basically blows away Granger. An argument could be made that he's as good as Ellis, but I don't think that's true. Ellis is far more explosive offensively.

In group #2, if Atlanta is willing to trade Horford...or Detroit is willing to trade Monroe for Granger...somebody please get on the phone right now!!!

I suspect the only player we could acquire in these lists is Henderson. Wall is a highly valued young PG. Bargnani is a unique player who brings a different dimension to the court. IDK. I think Danny is near the bottom of the #1's in the Eastern Conference.

...btw, our depth and quality at each position is why we win games, not because we have one great individual player.

Haha, that's a pretty funny list.

I can't get over how bad that is. I mean if you were to compare Danny's peers in both JJ and Deng, it'd be hard looking at the numbers to come up with any other conclusion that Danny is better than both. He's an equal defender (actually JJ is a pretty damn good defender at times, so hard to answer that one completely) and he's a better more efficient scorer than both. No really.

But see that'd actually be a decent debate. The funny part is the idea that Monta Ellis, who sucks, and Brandon Jennings who sucks even more are better than Danny. I wouldn't even take Brandon Jennings over George Hill, who's not even a natural point guard. What a ridiculous list.

Stoudemire? He can't play any defense and at this point in his career his knees look like they've given out on him. But he's somehow better than Granger???

Anyhow just know this BnG, and I promise this with all my heart- (take this as constructive criticism) NO ONE who actually understands basketball would ever take that list you made seriously. No one.

Look at the guys who have all thanked your post and have agreed with you. That's your contingent. Those are the basketball minds who agree with you. Now I'm sure you'll come up with some response on how I just "don't understand." Yeah sure, whatever I don't care. I'm just telling you for your benefit. Your peers currently are VNZ and Olblu. lol

HC
08-25-2012, 07:00 PM
Haha, that's a pretty funny list.

I can't get over how bad that is. I mean if you were to compare Danny's peers in both JJ and Deng, it'd be hard looking at the numbers to come up with any other conclusion that Danny is better than both. He's an equal defender (actually JJ is a pretty damn good defender at times, so hard to answer that one completely) and he's a better more efficient scorer than both. No really.

But see that'd actually be a decent debate. The funny part is the idea that Monta Ellis, who sucks, and Brandon Jennings who sucks even more are better than Danny. I wouldn't even take Brandon Jennings over George Hill, who's not even a natural point guard. What a ridiculous list.

Stoudemire? He can't play any defense and at this point in his career his knees look like they've given out on him. But he's somehow better than Granger???

Anyhow just know this BnG, and I promise this with all my heart- (take this as constructive criticism) NO ONE who actually understands basketball would ever take that list you made seriously. No one.

Look at the guys who have all thanked your post and have agreed with you. That's your contingent. Those are the basketball minds who agree with you. Now I'm sure you'll come up with some response on how I just "don't understand." Yeah sure, whatever I don't care. I'm just telling you for your benefit. Your peers currently are VNZ and Olblu. lol

I really liked the first few points you made. The rest of it was just basically telling him he isn't entitled to his opinion.

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 07:21 PM
Haha, that's a pretty funny list.

I can't get over how bad that is. I mean if you were to compare Danny's peers in both JJ and Deng, it'd be hard looking at the numbers to come up with any other conclusion that Danny is better than both. He's an equal defender (actually JJ is a pretty damn good defender at times, so hard to answer that one completely) and he's a better more efficient scorer than both. No really.

But see that'd actually be a decent debate. The funny part is the idea that Monta Ellis, who sucks, and Brandon Jennings who sucks even more are better than Danny. I wouldn't even take Brandon Jennings over George Hill, who's not even a natural point guard. What a ridiculous list.

Stoudemire? He can't play any defense and at this point in his career his knees look like they've given out on him. But he's somehow better than Granger???

Anyhow just know this BnG, and I promise this with all my heart- (take this as constructive criticism) NO ONE who actually understands basketball would ever take that list you made seriously. No one.

Look at the guys who have all thanked your post and have agreed with you. That's your contingent. Those are the basketball minds who agree with you. Now I'm sure you'll come up with some response on how I just "don't understand." Yeah sure, whatever I don't care. I'm just telling you for your benefit. Your peers currently are VNZ and Olblu. lol

You misunderstand the grouping and you don't need to be so condescending. I'm not saying Danny isn't better than Deng. I'm saying Derrick Rose is and I simply added a few additional players to those teams to show just how much talent is out there. Try reading the context of the post before railing on someone. The point is, Danny is at the low end in the Eastern Conference for #1's. He's not even the #1 on the Pacers...so there's yet another team.

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 07:30 PM
Just to boil this down for those who like to take pot shots, who do you think from this list we could acquire for Granger? Keep in mind there were people claiming he was well into the top half of the league in terms of being a #1 player. I count only 4 out of 15 and that's giving the benefit of the doubt in a couple cases. It's not even a debate in the others.

Roy Hibbert - he counts too
LeBron James
Derrick Rose
Deron Williams
Kyrie Irving
Rondo
Mello
Bynum
Monta Ellis*
Greg Monroe
Al Horford
Gerald Henderson*
John Wall
Bargnani*
Orlando*

Edit: just to clarify this list...and no it's not perfect...these are the players I believe are the best on their respective teams in the Eastern Conference. Orlando I just left off really. I could have put put Winnie the Pooh, Buzz Lightyear or whoever...we all know Danny is better than anyone down there in Magic land. But what about the other players. Pretty stiff competition. Those with an * may be obtainable but not anyone else IMO.

mattie
08-25-2012, 07:38 PM
I really liked the first few points you made. The rest of it was just basically telling him he isn't entitled to his opinion.

No. It's quite popular on internet message boards to say, "it's just my opinion" as if that is all that matters. That is fine. Absolutely fine. There's just a lot of bad opinions out there.

mattie
08-25-2012, 07:40 PM
Just to boil this down for those who like to take pot shots, who do you think from this list we could acquire for Granger? Keep in mind there were people claiming he was well into the top half of the league in terms of being a #1 player. I count only 4 out of 15 and that's giving the benefit of the doubt in a couple cases. It's not even a debate in the others.

Roy Hibbert - he counts too
LeBron James
Derrick Rose
Deron Williams
Kyrie Irving
Rondo
Mello
Bynum
Monta Ellis*
Greg Monroe
Al Horford
Gerald Henderson*
John Wall
Bargnani*
Orlando*

Outside of LBJ, 'Melo Deron, and Rose, every player on that list could potentially be traded for with Granger as the main asset the Pacers would offer.

D-BONE
08-25-2012, 07:40 PM
I'll give Granger legit #1 status props when he earns it. Not there. Had a couple season in early JO'B statistically, but has not done that yet for us as a playoff team. That means regular season and playoff quality and consistency.

mattie
08-25-2012, 07:43 PM
You misunderstand the grouping and you don't need to be so condescending. I'm not saying Danny isn't better than Deng. I'm saying Derrick Rose is and I simply added a few additional players to those teams to show just how much talent is out there. Try reading the context of the post before railing on someone. The point is, Danny is at the low end in the Eastern Conference for #1's. He's not even the #1 on the Pacers...so there's yet another team.

I'm not trying to be condescending, just pointing out how ridiculous the post is. You can't consider guys who cannot score as high a volume or even as efficient as Granger on offense better players.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous that opinion is.

Glen Beck can get on the radio and say crazy ****. He has that right, but no one takes him serious. Get my point?

Edit - For the record I've obviously said my fair share of stupid comments, I just take care to adjust my view point if I realize everything I'm saying is just plain wrong.

Edit 2 - Lastly - I discourage anyone who wants to be lauded for sharing "just their opinion" when that opinion has evidence from every possible angle disputing it. Everyone WANTS to believe certain things. But we have to give that up if the facts refute everything we want to believe.

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 07:48 PM
Outside of LBJ, 'Melo and Rose, every player on that list could potentially be traded for with Granger as the main asset the Pacers would offer.

This is a cop-out. Of course we could acquire Horford if we gave them Granger and George Hill. BTW, Deron Williams is better than Mello. SF's are a dime a dozen.

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 07:50 PM
I'm not trying to be condescending, just pointing out how ridiculous the post is. You can't consider guys who cannot score as high a volume or even as efficient as Granger on offense better players.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous that opinion is.

Glen Beck can get on the radio and say crazy ****. He has that right, but no one takes him serious. Get my point?

Edit - For the record I've obviously said my fair share of stupid comments, I just take care to adjust my view point if I realize everything I'm saying is just plain wrong.

Edit 2 - Lastly - I discourage anyone who wants to be lauded for sharing "just their opinion" when that opinion has evidence from every possible angle disputing it. Everyone WANTS to believe certain things. But we have to give that up if the facts refute everything we want to believe.

smh

mattie
08-25-2012, 07:52 PM
This is a cop-out. Of course we could acquire Horford if we gave them Granger and George Hill. BTW, Deron Williams is better than Mello. SF's are a dime a dozen.

It's not a cop-out. It's just understanding how trades work in this league. No trade is ever straight up. There's always bits and pieces added to the puzzle depending on what direction each team involved in the trade is looking for.

I've expressed it before, but I don't even think the Pacers would have to give up Granger for Horford. I think they're looking to dump contracts, load up on picks and start over. That's just a guess, but they missed out on Howard, so they can only really start over since they really don't have much of a core right now.

Peck
08-25-2012, 07:54 PM
I think we all need to work on being a little more polite to one another.

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 07:54 PM
I think we all need to work on being a little more polite to one another.

Agreed. I feel like I was ambushed.

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 07:58 PM
I'll give Granger legit #1 status props when he earns it. Not there. Had a couple season in early JO'B statistically, but has not done that yet for us as a playoff team. That means regular season and playoff quality and consistency.

There we go. He's Robin on this team already and that's fine. He may be #3 if Paul reaches potential. That would be even better.

mattie
08-25-2012, 08:24 PM
Hey BnG hey my apologies, I came off like an ***. For that I apologize.

I think since I am so blunt, that it probably comes off like I'm assuming I'm coming from a position of superiority. Or something. I dunno. I'm not trust me, I'm quite aware that when I'm not being a dumba*ss (which is most of the time), I'm just a complete @ss in general.

So with that said, I just try to be more honest, than the less than honest (and quite common) "agree to disagree." When someone makes a ridiculous comment, including myself, I'd much prefer we point that out. That's not an attack on character. Just the truth.

I'll admit though that when you're writing, versus communicating verbally, it comes off much more dickish.

vnzla81
08-25-2012, 08:45 PM
Agreed. I feel like I was ambushed.

Now you know how I feel ;)

vnzla81
08-25-2012, 08:47 PM
I think we all need to work on being a little more polite to one another.

Dale Davis is overrated ............. :-p

Sandman21
08-25-2012, 08:50 PM
Dale Davis is overrated ............. :-p

:banhim:

Anthem
08-25-2012, 09:16 PM
Obviously, group #1 basically blows away Granger. An argument could be made that he's as good as Ellis, but I don't think that's true. Ellis is far more explosive offensively.

:laugh: Don't get me started. I'll bump post game threads, don't think I won't.

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 09:41 PM
:laugh: Don't get me started. I'll bump post game threads, don't think I won't.


Ok...I will take the one about Ellis back. I may be talking about the Ellis pre-injury. I don't need him to prove anything anyway.

Anthem
08-25-2012, 09:49 PM
Ok...I will take the one about Ellis back. I may be talking about the Ellis pre-injury. I don't need him to prove anything anyway.
:laugh: No worries. It's just that I beat that to death this past year.

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 10:03 PM
:laugh: No worries. It's just that I beat that to death this past year.

Not that I would be averse to debate the topic...even if I am debating uphill.

What's the difference between being guarded by Paul George and Mike Dunleavy or Carlos Delfino? Could it be that Danny dominated because of who guarded him vs who guarded Ellis?...where the Pacers sought to shutdown Ellis because the Pacers are a better team?

Apparently you've been over this and I'd like to here your response to that.

vnzla81
08-25-2012, 10:16 PM
Not that I would be averse to debate the topic...even if I am debating uphill.

What's the difference between being guarded by Paul George and Mike Dunleavy or Carlos Delfino? Could it be that Danny dominated because of who guarded him vs who guarded Ellis?...where the Pacers sought to shutdown Ellis because the Pacers are a better team?

Apparently you've been over this and I'd like to here your response to that.

Those facts that you are talking about are going to be ignored pretty soon just watch.

Pacerized
08-25-2012, 10:21 PM
I don't think that's a good way of looking at his talent level. Contract values, potential and youth have as much to do with a players trade value as talent. A less talented player on a rookie contract that has potential most likely will have more value then an older player who's on a higher contract. PG may have more trade value then Granger but Granger is still the better player right now. Monroe and John Wall are up and comers but neither player is as good as Granger yet. Even their numbers aren't as good playing on really bad teams. Granger would be putting up bigger numbers as he did in the past if he played for a team like the Wizards. I disagree with most of your prior list, Granger would be the best player on most NBA teams. He still isn't a top tier talent but there just aren't very many of those out there and many are on the same teams.



Just to boil this down for those who like to take pot shots, who do you think from this list we could acquire for Granger? Keep in mind there were people claiming he was well into the top half of the league in terms of being a #1 player. I count only 4 out of 15 and that's giving the benefit of the doubt in a couple cases. It's not even a debate in the others.

Roy Hibbert - he counts too
LeBron James
Derrick Rose
Deron Williams
Kyrie Irving
Rondo
Mello
Bynum
Monta Ellis*
Greg Monroe
Al Horford
Gerald Henderson*
John Wall
Bargnani*
Orlando*

Edit: just to clarify this list...and no it's not perfect...these are the players I believe are the best on their respective teams in the Eastern Conference. Orlando I just left off really. I could have put put Winnie the Pooh, Buzz Lightyear or whoever...we all know Danny is better than anyone down there in Magic land. But what about the other players. Pretty stiff competition. Those with an * may be obtainable but not anyone else IMO.

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 10:31 PM
Those facts that you are talking about are going to be ignored pretty soon just watch.

I don't think straight up box scores tell you much. Too much else is involved to measure two players.

Looking at their career stats, even with Ellis' injury, they are in the same neighborhood. Rather than say one is better than the other, the stats indicate:

Ellis wins with FG%, assists and steals.


Danny beats him on 3pt%, FT% and rebounds.

Honestly, I think this just comes down to Danny being the better shooter (particularly on the perimeter) and Ellis having the better handle and play-making skills. Ellis, because of his handle, can probably get his own shot better.

But most definitely, the Pacers shut down Ellis in the contests last year.

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 10:38 PM
I don't think that's a good way of looking at his talent level. Contract values, potential and youth have as much to do with a players trade value as talent. A less talented player on a rookie contract that has potential most likely will have more value then an older player who's on a higher contract. PG may have more trade value then Granger but Granger is still the better player right now. Monroe and John Wall are up and comers but neither player is as good as Granger yet. Even their numbers aren't as good playing on really bad teams. Granger would be putting up bigger numbers as he did in the past if he played for a team like the Wizards. I disagree with most of your prior list, Granger would be the best player on most NBA teams. He still isn't a top tier talent but there just aren't very many of those out there and many are on the same teams.

Ok, if you are correct...just looking at the EC...which of these players is Granger better than?

For you to be correct, he has to be better than at least one of them right now just looking at the EC:

Roy Hibbert
LeBron James
Derrick Rose
Deron Williams
Kyrie Irving
Rondo
Mello
Bynum

Edit: Heck, while I'm at it. Let's look at the whole NBA. Danny needs to be better than 3 of these guys as well.

Kevin Durant
Dwight Howard
Tim Duncan
Kevin Love
Chris Paul
Dirk Nowtizki
Blake Griffin
Rudy Gay
DeMarcus Cousins
LaMarcus Aldridge

Pacer Fan
08-25-2012, 11:00 PM
Just looking at the East, here are some of the best players by team:

1)
Miami - LeBron James, DWade, Bosh
Chicago - Derrick Rose, Noah, Deng
New Jersey - Deron Williams, Joe Johnson
Cleveland - Kyrie Irving
Boston - Rondo, Pierce, Garnett
New York - Mello, Stoudemire
Philadelphia - Bynum
Milwaukee - Monta Ellis, Brandon Jennings

2)
Detroit - Greg Monroe
Atlanta - Josh Smith, Al Horford

3)
Charlotte - Gerald Henderson
Washington - John Wall
Toronto - Bargnani
Orlando - Winnie the Pooh

I think Danny fits in group #3 in terms of market value. Obviously, group #1 basically blows away Granger. An argument could be made that he's as good as Ellis, but I don't think that's true. Ellis is far more explosive offensively.

In group #2, if Atlanta is willing to trade Horford...or Detroit is willing to trade Monroe for Granger...somebody please get on the phone right now!!!

I suspect the only player we could acquire in these lists is Henderson. Wall is a highly valued young PG. Bargnani is a unique player who brings a different dimension to the court. IDK. I think Danny is near the bottom of the #1's in the Eastern Conference.

I like your post, so I wanted to put my :twocents: I switched up a few, added and subtracted.

I'd have to put Danny in group 1) cause I think he would do more if he was asked to do so, but the Pacers obviously want him to play within the system which is contributing to his lower FGA the last 2 years.

Elite group)
Miami - LeBron James, DWade
Brooklyn - Deron Williams
Cleveland - Kyrie Irving (upswing)
Boston - Rondo

1)
Miami - Chris Bosh
Chicago - Derrick Rose (ACL), Noah
New York - Mello
Philadelphia - Bynum
Detroit - Greg Monroe (upswing)
Atlanta - Josh Smith
Milwaukee - Monta Ellis

2)
Milwaukee - Brandon Jennings
New York - Tyson Chandler, Stoudimire (knees, contract & down swing)
Boston - Pierce (old) Garnett (old)
Chicago - Deng
Brooklyn - Joe Johnson (contract)
Atlanta - Al Horford


3)
Washington - John Wall (upswing), Nene (:confused:)
Toronto - Bargnani
Brooklyn - Brook Lopez, Gerald Wallace
Cleveland - Anderson Varejao
Chicago - Carlos Boozer (he's like a box of chocolates)

BlueNGold
08-25-2012, 11:15 PM
Pacer Fan - I actually agree with your post for the most part. I think I confused some with the way I added a few extra names. What I was attempting to convey is that most teams in the NBA actually do have a franchise player better than Danny. I listed a few extra names like Deng, unfortunately, and that led some to think I placed him in the top tier. I tried to clarify, but apparently failed to do that. Anyway, I would say that Derrick Rose is still the better player unless he comes back a different player. I will give him that. Also, as much as I hate to say it, Carmello is significantly better than Granger. Bynum is better as well. Bosh is arguably better. JMHO.

Bball
08-26-2012, 12:12 AM
:laugh: Don't get me started. I'll bump post game threads, don't think I won't.

Where's Shade? Shade!? Shade!? Shade!?

Pacer Fan
08-26-2012, 12:33 AM
Pacer Fan - I actually agree with your post for the most part. I think I confused some with the way I added a few extra names. What I was attempting to convey is that most teams in the NBA actually do have a franchise player better than Danny. I listed a few extra names like Deng, unfortunately, and that led some to think I placed him in the top tier. I tried to clarify, but apparently failed to do that. Anyway, I would say that Derrick Rose is still the better player unless he comes back a different player. I will give him that. Also, as much as I hate to say it, Carmello is significantly better than Granger. Bynum is better as well. Bosh is arguably better. JMHO.

Yea, I understood where you was going with that, I just thought what you had posted puts true perspective of Danny's value as well. I have to say that I think Danny stacks up to Bynum and Bosh in a positional category. I think all 3 are in the upper tier of their position. As for Mello, he is better without a doubt, but wrong or right, I am one to think Danny is the better bang for the buck and as the Pacers will prolly never spend like NY is all the more reason to think this way. As I noted in my categories, I valued some players lower due to their bad contracts per production. If Rondo was getting 16 + mil, I would have not put him in the elite category, but at 11 mil per, wow, he is a steal.

graphic-er
08-26-2012, 02:43 AM
Lot of you are really underestimating Granger here. Even some saying he isn't even the best player on the Pacers? Who is a better player on this team? Hibbert? He can't play more than 30 Min. He disappeared in the 2 series had major match up advantages. David West? I wiil grant that West was a very good player for us, but realistically he did exactly what he was brought here to do, take pressure off Danny Granger. West was very efficient, but he wasn't being run as a #1 option either. #! options players are just not very efficient. Like it or not Danny Granger is the best player on this team. The only proof you need is the epic collapse this team suffered when Granger hurt his ankle against Miami.

Heisenberg
08-26-2012, 02:58 AM
Lot of you are really underestimating Granger here. Even some saying he isn't even the best player on the Pacers? Who is a better player on this team? Hibbert? He can't play more than 30 Min. He disappeared in the 2 series had major match up advantages. David West? I wiil grant that West was a very good player for us, but realistically he did exactly what he was brought here to do, take pressure off Danny Granger. West was very efficient, but he wasn't being run as a #1 option either. #! options players are just not very efficient. Like it or not Danny Granger is the best player on this team. The only proof you need is the epic collapse this team suffered when Granger hurt his ankle against Miami.I don't disagree that people are underrating Danny, we've seen every game of his for 7 years or whatever it's bound to happen, but West is the best player on the team. Guys forget, discount, whatever, that he was coming off a major knee injury. Then he got healthy(ier) and became extremely efficient, look at his April #s. West should be our go to guy from day one next year.

Peck
08-26-2012, 03:13 AM
I don't disagree that people are underrating Danny, we've seen every game of his for 7 years or whatever it's bound to happen, but West is the best player on the team. Guys forget, discount, whatever, that he was coming off a major knee injury. Then he got healthy(ier) and became extremely efficient, look at his April #s. West should be our go to guy from day one next year.

West may be our best offensive player (I am not even 100% sure about that but for arguments sake let's just say he is) but there is just no way he can be considered our best overall player due to the fact that he is a liabilty on defense. Very poor lateral movement & virtually no leaping ability.

Major Cold
08-26-2012, 07:47 AM
West may be our best offensive player (I am not even 100% sure about that but for arguments sake let's just say he is) but there is just no way he can be considered our best overall player due to the fact that he is a liabilty on defense. Very poor lateral movement & virtually no leaping ability.

I would actually agree with the statement "David West is the most important player on the team". Roy's improvement is partly credited to the fact that he has West on the floor. And with that his vocal leadership has been lacking since............Seriously when? Is David West the best vocal leader since Mark Jackson?

So while I agree that West is not the most skilled or diverse player. He is crucial to the success of the Pacers this season. Far more crucial than any other Pacer IMO.

BlueNGold
08-26-2012, 07:52 AM
Try taking Roy off this team and see what it does to our defense. I hope you all know it would be a layup and-one drill if it weren't for him. Defense is half of this game guys.

We have guys like West, Hibbert, George and Hill to shoot. None are good as Danny, but without Hibbert on defense we are really, really exposed. Tyler and DWest are not stopping anybody.

vnzla81
08-26-2012, 09:12 AM
A guy that averages 12 and 6 and plays no D is the Pacers best player? Lol.

vnzla81
08-26-2012, 09:34 AM
Lot of you are really underestimating Granger here. Even some saying he isn't even the best player on the Pacers? Who is a better player on this team? Hibbert? He can't play more than 30 Min. He disappeared in the 2 series had major match up advantages. David West? I wiil grant that West was a very good player for us, but realistically he did exactly what he was brought here to do, take pressure off Danny Granger. West was very efficient, but he wasn't being run as a #1 option either. #! options players are just not very efficient. Like it or not Danny Granger is the best player on this team. The only proof you need is the epic collapse this team suffered when Granger hurt his ankle against Miami.

Hibbert is the Pacers best player and the most important one.

CJ Jones
08-26-2012, 09:42 AM
Haha, that's a pretty funny list.

I can't get over how bad that is. I mean if you were to compare Danny's peers in both JJ and Deng, it'd be hard looking at the numbers to come up with any other conclusion that Danny is better than both. He's an equal defender (actually JJ is a pretty damn good defender at times, so hard to answer that one completely) and he's a better more efficient scorer than both. No really.


This is why it's pointless debating with mattie. Joe was an all star who had one of his best offensive seasons. His stats beat Danny's across the board. No reasonable person can look at these numbers and come to the conclusion that Joe had a worse year offensively, but somehow mattie does. He thinks he can just cherry pick a few of his favorite advanced stats (PER, ORtg, etc.) and with them prove without a doubt Danny was better. It makes absolutely no sense. There's more to the game then a few of his favorite statistics. It's annoying enough that he thinks his stats carry so much more weight then others, but then he goes on telling us that if we read the stats differently or have differing opinions than his, we're the dumbasses that don't understand the game. Kinda ironic don't cha think?

Here are some stats you should use to compare their offensive production long before Mattie's Fave Three.

usg% - Danny 25.9% / Joe 24.9%
FGA - Danny 16.4 / Joe 15.8
FG% - Danny .416 / Joe .454
3P% - Danny .381 / Joe .388
AST - Danny 1.9 / Joe 3.9
AST% - Danny 9.7% / Joe 19.7%
TOV% - Danny 9.3% / Joe 10.3%
TS% - Danny .542 / Joe .557
EFG% - Danny .481 / Joe .521 (EFG% > TS% imo but Joe still beats danny in both)

Sooo... who do you think's was the better offensive player last year, Joe or Danny?

graphic-er
08-26-2012, 10:02 AM
Hibbert is the Pacers best player and the most important one.


If Hibbert was the best player then he would have stepped it up once Granger went out in game 5 vs the Heat. Same with West. They are important players, but they are not the best players on this team. Nobody stepped it up, the entire team collapsed and got blown out.

vnzla81
08-26-2012, 10:16 AM
If Hibbert was the best player then he would have stepped it up once Granger went out in game 5 vs the Heat. Same with West. They are important players, but they are not the best players on this team. Nobody stepped it up, the entire team collapsed and got blown out.

The team was getting blown out with or without Danny, Lebron and Wade were playing out of their minds.

CJ Jones
08-26-2012, 10:46 AM
If Hibbert was the best player then he would have stepped it up once Granger went out in game 5 vs the Heat. Same with West. They are important players, but they are not the best players on this team. Nobody stepped it up, the entire team collapsed and got blown out.

Take a look at Danny's playoff stats... they're beyond terrible. Of course LeBron guarded him, but nearly half the games he had Turk or Q Rich guarding him. I honestly didn't realize how bad he played until I looked a few weeks after the season.

IMO Hibbert's the best overall player, and West is the most important player offensively. I expect big numbers from West this year as long as he can get the minutes and shots. He should be healthier, and I think the PG combination of Hill/DJ will be better for him than the Collison/Hill combo was.

Ace E.Anderson
08-26-2012, 11:16 AM
Take a look at Danny's playoff stats... they're beyond terrible. Of course LeBron guarded him, but nearly half the games he had Turk or Q Rich guarding him. I honestly didn't realize how bad he played until I looked a few weeks after the season.

IMO Hibbert's the best overall player, and West is the most important player offensively. I expect big numbers from West this year as long as he can get the minutes and shots. He should be healthier, and I think the PG combination of Hill/DJ will be better for him than the Collison/Hill combo was.

Look at Joe Johnson's playoff stats, they're even worse and he faced a much favorable matchup offensively.

1st round of the playoffs DG averaged 21ppg. Yeah that's so terrible.

Joe Johnson? 17.2

Now overall their playoff averages were the same at just above 17ppg. But Danny absolutely struggled with Bron guarding him.


Also let's not forget, DG had finally found his rhythm in March and April last year. He was playing some of his best ball until that ankle injury hit him. Though he scored well in that ORL series, I thought he had lost the rhythm he was playing at previously.

Ace E.Anderson
08-26-2012, 11:24 AM
The team was getting blown out with or without Danny, Lebron and Wade were playing out of their minds.

We only got blown out in one game though. Every other game was close throughout

mattie
08-26-2012, 11:49 AM
This is why it's pointless debating with mattie. Joe was an all star who had one of his best offensive seasons. His stats beat Danny's across the board. No reasonable person can look at these numbers and come to the conclusion that Joe had a worse year offensively, but somehow mattie does. He thinks he can just cherry pick a few of his favorite advanced stats (PER, ORtg, etc.) and with them prove without a doubt Danny was better. It makes absolutely no sense. There's more to the game then a few of his favorite statistics. It's annoying enough that he thinks his stats carry so much more weight then others, but then he goes on telling us that if we read the stats differently or have differing opinions than his, we're the dumbasses that don't understand the game. Kinda ironic don't cha think?

Here are some stats you should use to compare their offensive production long before Mattie's Fave Three.

usg% - Danny 25.9% / Joe 24.9%
FGA - Danny 16.4 / Joe 15.8
FG% - Danny .416 / Joe .454
3P% - Danny .381 / Joe .388
AST - Danny 1.9 / Joe 3.9
AST% - Danny 9.7% / Joe 19.7%
TOV% - Danny 9.3% / Joe 10.3%
TS% - Danny .542 / Joe .557
EFG% - Danny .481 / Joe .521 (EFG% > TS% imo but Joe still beats danny in both)

Sooo... who do you think's was the better offensive player last year, Joe or Danny?

Of course Joe had a better season last year. Joe probably had his second best season ever last year. But over their entire career, Danny has been a more efficient scorer.

If Joe is able to continue his production from last year than I would agree he's a better player but I highly doubt it. Next year we'll see Joe score his 18 at around a 51TS%. But you are right there is no doubt Joe was the better player last year.

imbtyler
08-26-2012, 12:12 PM
Continually for the record, I'd like to see Granger really step it up this season, as well as everyone else. But if a high-quality trade can be made, I think we should make it. I get this sinking feeling that Granger is holding back the rest of the team, and the last thing we need is an anchor.

For the off-topic discussions occurring, Granger may be our highest scorer, but I think we've reached the point that he's not our best player any longer. That title and responsibility has fallen onto Roy's very large shoulders. Granger could still be the best player on several teams, but even in a hypothetical (with no implication) Granger-for-Gordon situation, people would still consider Anthony Davis the best player on the team, and the number one option.

As far as "anyone can make up Danny's 18ppg" argument, this is actually a good call. I think, with the potential improvement by Roy, George, Paul, Lance, and additions of Gerald Green and DJ Augustin (and whomever we get in return for Danny), they could potentially make up for the losses of Dahntay, DC, Barbosa, and (in this scenario) Danny, as far as points-per-game averages go. That might be a stretch, but it could work.

Whatever happens, happens. Maybe it will work out. If it doesn't, then we're wrong, and there's nothing we can do about it. I'd like to see what happens, though.

mattie
08-26-2012, 12:16 PM
Just to add on:

The reason why I don't take the latest season as who Joe is as a player is out of his 13 seasons in the NBA, he's had 3 random seasons where he shot over .55 TS% (which is average really). Danny has shot over .55TS% 5 out of his 7 seasons in the NBA. I fully expect Danny to shoot around .55 TS% which is ok, (though he should be much better than that as good a shooter as he is) while Joe will regress to the mean.

There is no doubt someone who has shot .564 for his career is a more efficient scorer than someone who has shot a below average .529 for his career. :)

graphic-er
08-26-2012, 01:13 PM
The team was getting blown out with or without Danny, Lebron and Wade were playing out of their minds.

Absolutely not true, quit talking out of your pie hole. It was a 3 pt game when Granger got hurt with about 4 minutes left in the half. The team got absolutely demoralized after Lebron undercut him. They all collectively **** their pants at the same time.

vnzla81
08-26-2012, 01:16 PM
"The team got demoralized" :spitout:

CJ Jones
08-26-2012, 01:28 PM
Look at Joe Johnson's playoff stats, they're even worse and he faced a much favorable matchup offensively.

1st round of the playoffs DG averaged 21ppg. Yeah that's so terrible.

Joe Johnson? 17.2

How is facing Pierce, Pietrus and the Boston D a more favorable 1st round matchup then facing a Dwightless Orlando D?

Looking at the game logs it looks like Danny played well in 2 of the 5 games. Danny's poor play in game 1 was arguably the main reason we lost that game. If Danny played anywhere close to how he played in the first round of the Bulls series in 2011 we'd have swept them with ease.

Then he decides to not even show up for a very winnable game 1 in Miami...

CJ Jones
08-26-2012, 01:38 PM
[QUOTE=mattie;1496245]Of course Joe had a better season last year. Joe probably had his second best season ever last year. But over their entire career, Danny has been a more efficient scorer.

Okay i'll give you that, but you can't just dismiss the fact that Joe's twice the playmaker and ten times the ball handler.

graphic-er
08-26-2012, 01:40 PM
For the off-topic discussions occurring, Granger may be our highest scorer, but I think we've reached the point that he's not our best player any longer. That title and responsibility has fallen onto Roy's very large shoulders. Granger could still be the best player on several teams, but even in a hypothetical (with no implication) Granger-for-Gordon situation, people would still consider Anthony Davis the best player on the team, and the number one option.

As far as "anyone can make up Danny's 18ppg" argument, this is actually a good call. I think, with the potential improvement by Roy, George, Paul, Lance, and additions of Gerald Green and DJ Augustin (and whomever we get in return for Danny), they could potentially make up for the losses of Dahntay, DC, Barbosa, and (in this scenario) Danny, as far as points-per-game averages go. That might be a stretch, but it could work.


I don't think Davis will ever be a number 1 option on any team. Thats just not in his game.

2nd, this whole anybody could replace Danny's 18 per game is the most ridiculous idea that has been repeated over and over in this thread. It needs to stop. To score 18+ a game and be on a team with the 5th best record in the league, you have to be good. People say Granger needs to step it up because he once scored 25 per game on a really bad team, s0 should be able to replicate that performance if he was really good. That line of thinking is narrowmind. When Granger averaged 25 per game, Hibbert only averaged 7, guys like David West were only a pipe dream, we had a terrible offense. We now have a pretty decent offense where any of our 5 starters can get us 20+ a game on any given night. So Granger gets his balls busted around here because he isn't averaging +25 while all these other players on the team are talking a ton more shots then they used to. For Granger to average 24-25 per game he would need to take 6 more shots per game on average. If he took 6 more shots per game on average you would all call him a terrible ball hog. In his all-star year he took 19 per game to average 25. The year before his allstar game he took 15 to average 19pts. Last year he took 15 to average 18.7.

Granger has been very consistent in terms of shot attempts and production. Yet you all say he is on the downslide. It just not true.

ksuttonjr76
08-26-2012, 01:41 PM
Personally, I like having long wings on defense....Granger is going to be around for a while, unless Indiana is given a no-brainer trade. Everyone knows how often those occur.

As a side note, we shouldn't be that caught up in individual stats. Indiana is built to be and plays like a TEAM.

graphic-er
08-26-2012, 01:43 PM
"The team got demoralized" :spitout:

Which means you haven't got a leg to stand on in this argument anymore.

Ace E.Anderson
08-26-2012, 01:43 PM
Just to add on:

The reason why I don't take the latest season as who Joe is as a player is out of his 13 seasons in the NBA, he's had 3 random seasons where he shot over .55 TS% (which is average really). Danny has shot over .55TS% 5 out of his 7 seasons in the NBA. I fully expect Danny to shoot around .55 TS% which is ok, (though he should be much better than that as good a shooter as he is) while Joe will regress to the mean.

There is no doubt someone who has shot .564 for his career is a more efficient scorer than someone who has shot a below average .529 for his career. :)

Also, JJ was the 2nd nest player on the Hawks behind J Smith, and arguably the 3rd best behind a healthy Horford, so with those players around him you'd think it'd be easier to score efficiently due to the defense having to respect the other two.

It's no doubt JJ had a better season than Danny but without Horford on his team he still only averaged .3 ppg more than DG last yr.

CJ Jones
08-26-2012, 01:49 PM
Just to add on:


There is no doubt someone who has shot .564 for his career is a more efficient scorer than someone who has shot a below average .529 for his career. :)

I see you prefer TS% over eFG%. I'd rather look at eFG%, though... Danny .503 Joe .494. Better, yeah, but not by much. Not nearly enough to back up your view that Danny's been the superior offensive player throughout his career considering all of his limitations.

wintermute
08-26-2012, 02:16 PM
I see you prefer TS% over eFG%. I'd rather look at eFG%, though... Danny .503 Joe .494. Better, yeah, but not by much. Not nearly enough to back up your view that Danny's been the superior offensive player throughout his career considering all of his limitations.

I generally prefer TS% too. Means that Danny is getting to the line more, which is a good thing.

To me the similarities between Danny and JJ trump the small percentage differences in their stats. True, JJ is better in assists, but Danny trumps him in rebounds, FTAs, and blocks. Arguably JJ would be a better fit with the Pacers, since we lack playmaking, but they seem to be similar levels of talent. And I think that's more of a knock on JJ than a compliment to Danny.

OlBlu
08-26-2012, 02:17 PM
Try taking Roy off this team and see what it does to our defense. I hope you all know it would be a layup and-one drill if it weren't for him. Defense is half of this game guys.

We have guys like West, Hibbert, George and Hill to shoot. None are good as Danny, but without Hibbert on defense we are really, really exposed. Tyler and DWest are not stopping anybody.

Great post and we can add the Pacers as one of the teams in the East where Granger is not the best player. People tend to only look at scoring average and not defense (if they did just that, Granger would be eliminated) and rebounding. This team would come closer to winning without DG than Hibbert.....:cool:

Ace E.Anderson
08-26-2012, 02:17 PM
How is facing Pierce, Pietrus and the Boston D a more favorable 1st round matchup then facing a Dwightless Orlando D?

Looking at the game logs it looks like Danny played well in 2 of the 5 games. Danny's poor play in game 1 was arguably the main reason we lost that game. If Danny played anywhere close to how he played in the first round of the Bulls series in 2011 we'd have swept them with ease.

Then he decides to not even show up for a very winnable game 1 in Miami...

Pierce is not a very good defender anymore. His laterally quickness is all about gone. And Pietrus barely played in that series(16 mpg) and he is an overrated defender.

If you wanna say Danny didn't show up then you HAVE to say the same about JJ

Ace E.Anderson
08-26-2012, 02:19 PM
[QUOTE]

Okay i'll give you that, but you can't just dismiss the fact that Joe's twice the playmaker and ten times the ball handler.

Yet with those skills he can't score better or more efficiently?

OlBlu
08-26-2012, 05:03 PM
Insults are not wanted nor are they welcome here on the Pacers Digest

But it is perfectly OK for people to call me a troll, dense or hard headed. What I said here was not an insult and it was very mild compared to the names I get called every day. If you don't apply this standard to everyone, you are merely being a tool for the masses who don't like it when people disagree with them. So lets see you do this same thing to everyone who posts here or, you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.....:cool:

WhoLovesYaBaby?
08-26-2012, 05:41 PM
This has come up each of the last 3 seasons.

It would not surprise me to see him traded and it would not surprise me to see him not traded. There are sensible arguments both ways. At this point I am going to assume that the team is what we see right now. A couple of additions will be made eventually. But the core of the team is what we have on hand at the present. The real challenge to me is not who are they going to add to the team in the future but how much improvement are they going to see from what they have now.

imbtyler
08-26-2012, 05:43 PM
But it is perfectly OK for people to call me a troll, dense or hard headed. What I said here was not an insult and it was very mild compared to the names I get called every day. If you don't apply this standard to everyone, you are merely being a tool for the masses who don't like it when people disagree with them. So lets see you do this same thing to everyone who posts here or, you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.....:cool:

Yeh, Blu takes a lot of **** for being a troll (which he tends to be), but don't unnecessarily censor him. I've said a lot of **** and gotten away with it for the most part, being majorly censored only 2-4 times.

Also, you're next post will put you at 1600. Just letting you know.

I have a longer on-topic response, but I'll post that after this while I develop the internal organs of the post.

WhoLovesYaBaby?
08-26-2012, 05:44 PM
Just read the first post again. Someone's blog? And it only states that people close to the pacer FO are saying this? Yeah, not too credible.

And this is no slight to Heisneburg for posting it. He seems to have doubts also.

CJ Jones
08-26-2012, 06:03 PM
I generally prefer TS% too. Means that Danny is getting to the line more, which is a good thing.

It depends on the player. I have a hard time giving high usage players with single digit assist ratios much credit for their freet throw attempts (Gay, Granger). If they're not looking for their teammates it just looks like a selfish stat to me.


Yet with those skills he can't score better or more efficiently?

I didn't make my point clear apparently. Mattie believes Danny's a better offensive player because he scores slightly more efficient. I'm saying it's not all about scoring. Joe's ability to handle the ball and make plays makes his teammates better. It's not fair to dismiss Joes strengths and Danny's weakness when comparing the two.

imbtyler
08-26-2012, 06:23 PM
Who in the NBA has a need for a veteran SF who can contribute 18-24 points per game (besides, I guess, any team)? Or rather, who would be willing to take Granger? Would we have to package him with Hansbrough?

Hornets: Their small forward lineup looks pretty WAY young. Al-Farouq Aminu, Darius Miller, Lance Thomas (?), and Anthony Davis, if he dropped to the 3. Yes, of course, Eric Gordon could be sent in return, but I don't really see it happening. However, a lineup of Vasquez/Rivers/Granger/Davis/Lopez could work out, just like a lineup of Hill/Gordon/George/West/Hibbert doesn't look too bad either. Hornets would undoubtedly have interest, though, due to their lack of depth at SF.

Bobcats: Kidd-Gilchrist is expected to be Charlotte's savior at small forward. But with the likes of Matt Carroll, Gerald Henderson, Jamario Moon, and Reggie Williams behind/in front of him, they could use a veteran small forward to help control the rookies a little bit. I don't really think there's anyone on the Bobcats who I could realistically see working out for the Pacers. But as far as teams who have a need at small forward, the Bobcats are up there.

Cavaliers: Omri Casspi, Alonzo Gee, Luke Walton, Kelenna Azubuike, and CJ Miles can all play the 3 for Cleveland. But none of those names really stand out as a "starting forward". This is another case where the Cavs may not have anyone worth picking up in exchange for our long-term leader. But they're going to continue to not go any farther if their future rests on the shoulders of Kyrie Irving, Dion Waiters, Tristan Thompson, Anderson Varejao, Tyler Zeller, and a collection of lower-tier players. Luke Walton, Varejao, and Azubuike are the oldest players on the team at 32, 29, and 28, respectively. The average age of the rest of the team is mid-20's, but that does not directly translate into "experience".

I think you get where I'm going here. There are many teams leftover who could use a veteran small forward; instead of the empty hole or vast youth they have there instead. Remember that, just because one team (like the Bobcats) has nothing we would want in return, doesn't mean we can't get something else from a third team. The 76ers got Bynum from LA by giving Iguodala to Denver. Not all is lost, nor hopeless, nor impossible. If someone's going to get a decent return for Granger, I think Kevin Pritchard can do so.

Ace E.Anderson
08-26-2012, 06:35 PM
I didn't make my point clear apparently. Mattie believes Danny's a better offensive player because he scores slightly more efficient. I'm saying it's not all about scoring. Joe's ability to handle the ball and make plays makes his teammates better. It's not fair to dismiss Joes strengths and Danny's weakness when comparing the two.

I think the fact that JJ is a guard while Danny is a SF who can play stretch 4 should be considered too. Outside of Lebron and MAYBE KD, most natural forwards aren't very strong ball handlers or playmakers.

Most guards can handle and pass, while most forwards can post and rebound. Danny is a very very average rebounder but he's above average in the post, and is better on the inside; which is why he gets to the line more.. Their strengths and weaknesses are different but it also has to do with what positions they mostly play.

HC
08-26-2012, 09:21 PM
But it is perfectly OK for people to call me a troll, dense or hard headed. What I said here was not an insult and it was very mild compared to the names I get called every day. If you don't apply this standard to everyone, you are merely being a tool for the masses who don't like it when people disagree with them. So lets see you do this same thing to everyone who posts here or, you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.....:cool:

This is the first post that I have ever directed at you. Whatever it was you had to say towards me, I didn't see it, nor do I care. Your response was obviously ill mannered, and unwarranted considering that once again..I have not directed one single post at you. In the future, please refrain from making false accusations as I have never called you a troll, or even replied to one of your posts.

HC
08-26-2012, 09:23 PM
I think the fact that JJ is a guard while Danny is a SF who can play stretch 4 should be considered too. Outside of Lebron and MAYBE KD, most natural forwards aren't very strong ball handlers or playmakers.

Most guards can handle and pass, while most forwards can post and rebound. Danny is a very very average rebounder but he's above average in the post, and is better on the inside; which is why he gets to the line more.. Their strengths and weaknesses are different but it also has to do with what positions they mostly play.

IMO Danny is not good at getting to the line at all. He really needs to work on that I think.

Ace E.Anderson
08-26-2012, 09:42 PM
IMO Danny is not good at getting to the line at all. He really needs to work on that I think.

He averaged 5 FTA a game last yr, which was the lowest number in the last 4 years. Before last season he had averaged 6, 7,7 and 5. Not elite numbers but much better than JJ, which is who I was comparing him to when I made the statement.

BlueNGold
08-26-2012, 09:53 PM
IMO Danny is not good at getting to the line at all. He really needs to work on that I think.

Yes, I agree, but I think it's a hopeless cause to expect him to get much better in that area. The Danny you see today is a player who needs to catch and shoot and only occasionally drive. Danny is a great shooter. He's just a LOT better at shooting than converting after fouls because he cannot handle the ball...and that's not going to improve any more than it has already. ...and it has...but he has hit the ceiling.

wintermute
08-26-2012, 10:28 PM
He averaged 5 FTA a game last yr, which was the lowest number in the last 4 years. Before last season he had averaged 6, 7,7 and 5. Not elite numbers but much better than JJ, which is who I was comparing him to when I made the statement.

He might not look like a guy who gets to the line a lot, but the numbers say that he does it fairly well. To put Granger's numbers in perspective, last year's 4.7 FTA/g was tied with the likes of Monta Ellis and Tony Parker. His two 6.9 FTA/g seasons were very nice, finishing 13th and 14th in the league in those years. Not elite as Ace says but probably as close as you can get without being an athletic freak. Particularly impressive since he's more of a shooter than a slasher. Again, to put the numbers in perspective, Monta Ellis' best career FTA/g is 6.1, Joe Johnson's is 5.5, Rudy Gay's is 5.0. There's nothing wrong with Danny's ability to draw fouls, we just need him to get back his old form.

CJ Jones
08-27-2012, 01:44 AM
I think the fact that JJ is a guard while Danny is a SF who can play stretch 4 should be considered too. Outside of Lebron and MAYBE KD, most natural forwards aren't very strong ball handlers or playmakers.

I don't think this should this be considered when comparing their overall offensive game. Does it really matter what wing position they play offensively? The skills they bring to the table is all that matters to me.


Most guards can handle and pass, while most forwards can post and rebound. Danny is a very very average rebounder but he's above average in the post, and is better on the inside; which is why he gets to the line more.. Their strengths and weaknesses are different but it also has to do with what positions they mostly play.

I'd almost be willing to bet Joe's the better post player. Danny last year was 140th out of 150 qualified players in 2 pt shooting percentage. At this point Danny's a 2 dimensional offensive player... 3 pt shooter and foul drawer (if you consider that a dimension). Joe's a much more versatile player. He can do more things offensively, it's as simple as that, therefore he's the better all around offensive player IMO. I don't buy Danny's slightly more efficient scoring trumps Joe's superiority in the other tangible and intangible offensive categories.

We're getting way off topic from my original post, though. The moral of the story is it's lame for me to say my stats are better than yours because when it comes to stats there are no absolutes (especially advanced stats). They can be read differently by different people. Some put more stock in certain stats than others, and that's perfectly fine. We're all entitled to our opinions.

Ace E.Anderson
08-27-2012, 09:56 AM
I don't think this should this be considered when comparing their overall offensive game. Does it really matter what wing position they play offensively? The skills they bring to the table is all that matters to me.



I'd almost be willing to bet Joe's the better post player. Danny last year was 140th out of 150 qualified players in 2 pt shooting percentage. At this point Danny's a 2 dimensional offensive player... 3 pt shooter and foul drawer (if you consider that a dimension). Joe's a much more versatile player. He can do more things offensively, it's as simple as that, therefore he's the better all around offensive player. I don't buy Danny's slightly more efficient scoring trumps Joe's superiority in the other tangible and intangible offensive categories.

We're getting way off topic from my original post, though. The moral of the story is it's lame for me to say my stats are better than yours because when it comes to stats there are no absolutes (especially advanced stats). They can be read differently by different people. Some put more stock in certain stats than others, and that's perfectly fine. We're all entitled to our opinions.

JJ is going into the post against guards, while DG is posting forwards. Most 2-guards in the league now are between 6'3 and 6'6. JJ is 6'8 like 230 lol. But we could argue for days about these two I'm sure.

I agree with you 100%, different people have different opinions on ways to grade a player. I'm glad you can at least see that for the most part, DG and JJ are about the same level of player, just with different strengths and weaknesses. Most feel the grass is greener, and I guess I often feel the need to defend DG because he;s been a good soilder through most of his prime years.

vnzla81
08-27-2012, 11:44 AM
Lol at the comparison between Danny and JJ.

J7F
08-28-2012, 12:17 AM
Lol at the comparison between Danny and JJ.

Speaking of the grass is greener...

JJ is marginally better at best... Same goes for Josh Smith and maybe Monta at his best...

TOP
08-28-2012, 01:54 AM
I am not sure you can. This has nothing to do with Danny but more to do with his contract. I think he has a negative trade value and I doubt you can get a first rounder for him, even one that would be low. If Danny leaves the team, I don't think he will be traded but his contract will be allowed to expire and he will sign a new, much lower contract with another team. You might trade him if you throw in first round draft picks and other players but those player would not be ones you would like to trade. I might be surprised. Bird pulled a miracle moving JO but a big man might be more in demand than Granger.....:cool: ...

This is one of the most brain damaged things I've read in a while.

I do like how you kept saying "you" and not "we" though. Even you don't consider yourself part of the Pacers fanbase, good to know. Makes so much more sense.

TOP
08-28-2012, 01:55 AM
But it is perfectly OK for people to call me a troll, dense or hard headed. What I said here was not an insult and it was very mild compared to the names I get called every day. If you don't apply this standard to everyone, you are merely being a tool for the masses who don't like it when people disagree with them. So lets see you do this same thing to everyone who posts here or, you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.....:cool:

You have problems.

TOP
08-28-2012, 01:57 AM
Great post and we can add the Pacers as one of the teams in the East where Granger is not the best player. People tend to only look at scoring average and not defense (if they did just that, Granger would be eliminated) and rebounding. This team would come closer to winning without DG than Hibbert.....:cool:

Starting to wonder if you even watch Pacers games.

daschysta
08-28-2012, 03:27 AM
Olblu is really starting to go senile... There isn't liking Danny, which is understandable, and then there is being so dense that you're disconnected from reality in regards to him.

Can't get a first rounder? Negative trade value? I have to assume it is blatant trolling at this point, or such a profound ignorance that it is unbelievable.

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 09:07 AM
Speaking of the grass is greener...

JJ is marginally better at best... Same goes for Josh Smith and maybe Monta at his best...

So according to you JJ, Monta and Josh Smith(a triple double machine) are marginally better? :lmao: this is not a case of "the grass is greener" Danny is not even in the same level as those guys, stop it.

Pacerized
08-28-2012, 09:20 AM
So according to you JJ, Monta and Josh Smith(a triple double machine) are marginally better? :lmao: this is not a case of "the grass is greener" Danny is not even in the same level as those guys, stop it.

You're right in saying that Smith is a better player. Danny is a slightly better player then JJ or Monta. I sure wouldn't want him traded for either JJ or Monta. I could see someone disagreeing with that, but to say he isn't even on the same level goes beyond over stating your point. Why don't you just say Danny couldn't even make the roster on any other NBA team. I just can't relate to the lack of respect I see Danny getting on here.

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 09:32 AM
You're right in saying that Smith is a better player. Danny is a slightly better player then JJ or Monta. I sure wouldn't want him traded for either JJ or Monta. I could see someone disagreeing with that, but to say he isn't even on the same level goes beyond over stating your point. Why don't you just say Danny couldn't even make the roster on any other NBA team. I just can't relate to the lack of respect I see Danny getting on here.

It looks to me like you keep thinking about the "all star Danny", that guy has been gone for few years now, he was on the bottom in efficiently last year, he was lucky he had a good last month or we would have been last, why people don't want to see that? the guy is getting worse every year and that is expected from any player but acting like the guy has not lost an step is letting those blue and gold glasses get on the way.

By the way I expect him to decline this year and I'm going to still see people telling me how great he is and that his numbers are down because "he is taking one for the team but if he was with the Bobcats he could average 30ppg".

And regarding your comment on Danny been better than Monta and JJ lol, Danny wishes he was as good as those guys.

Ace E.Anderson
08-28-2012, 09:39 AM
So according to you JJ, Monta and Josh Smith(a triple double machine) are marginally better? :lmao: this is not a case of "the grass is greener" Danny is not even in the same level as those guys, stop it.

You say JJ is a better ball handler than DG, but DG is a better ball handler than Josh Smith. You say Josh Smith is a better defender than DG, but DG is a better defender than Monta. You say Monta is a better scorer than DG, but DG has always scored better than JJ (with the exception of last year where JJ scored .3 ppg more)

No matter WHO you're comparing DG to, you look at the other players strengths, but not their weaknesses while only focusing on DG's weaknesses. THAT'S the thing that kills me. If you think they're better, that's fine. Different people look for different things in a player. But to say they aren't on the same level, is absolutely ridiculous. We're not talking about superstars here, these are all 2nd-3rd tier players that are the best players on good teams and the 2nd or 3rd best player on a championship level team.


P.S you're triple double "machine" has 2 in his entire 8 year career. Not exactly racking them up is he

BillS
08-28-2012, 09:40 AM
Olblu is really starting to go senile
:
:
such a profound ignorance that it is unbelievable.

OK, guys, this is exactly what you complain about Ol' Blu about. I would normally delete it as admin or PM, but it's time people realize that origination or retaliation doesn't matter, we need to be treating each other with some respect.

OK?

Pacerized
08-28-2012, 10:02 AM
It looks to me like you keep thinking about the "all star Danny", that guy has been gone for few years now, he was on the bottom in efficiently last year, he was lucky he had a good last month or we would have been last, why people don't want to see that? the guy is getting worse every year and that is expected from any player but acting like the guy has not lost an step is letting those blue and gold glasses get on the way.

By the way I expect him to decline this year and I'm going to still see people telling me how great he is and that his numbers are down because "he is taking one for the team but if he was with the Bobcats he could average 30ppg".

And regarding your comment on Danny been better than Monta and JJ lol, Danny wishes he was as good as those guys.

Just the "LOL" part of your comment alone shows a lack of respect for Danny as a player and a Pacer.

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 10:21 AM
You say JJ is a better ball handler than DG, but DG is a better ball handler than Josh Smith. You say Josh Smith is a better defender than DG, but DG is a better defender than Monta. You say Monta is a better scorer than DG, but DG has always scored better than JJ (with the exception of last year where JJ scored .3 ppg more)

No matter WHO you're comparing DG to, you look at the other players strengths, but not their weaknesses while only focusing on DG's weaknesses. THAT'S the thing that kills me. If you think they're better, that's fine. Different people look for different things in a player. But to say they aren't on the same level, is absolutely ridiculous. We're not talking about superstars here, these are all 2nd-3rd tier players that are the best players on good teams and the 2nd or 3rd best player on a championship level team.


P.S you're triple double "machine" has 2 in his entire 8 year career. Not exactly racking them up is he

When I compare players I compare the whole package and what they bring to the table, the "efficiency" and the "whole package" from each one of those 3 players mentioned is better than Danny Granger, only people in PD say that someway somehow Danny is equal to JJ that's it's just homerism, everybody in the NBA knows JJ is a way better player than Danny and is not even close.

The same goes to Josh Smith 18.8ppg 9.6rpg 3.9apg 1.7bpg and great defense blows out of the water Danny's numbers, it's a joke that people even consider them on the same planet, is not even close, I think you guys are trolling on this one.

Monta is the only comparison that is kind of close but as I have explained for a long time, Monta brings more to the table than Danny, not only that but he makes less money than Danny giving the Pacers flexibility to use that money for something else.

Here are the NBA players efficiency numbers by the way:

Josh Smith ranks 12 overall, Monta Ellis ranks 49, Joe Johnson 55 and Danny Granger 63, and Danny would have been worse if it was not for that last month miracle run.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?season=22011&league=00&conf=OVERALL&qualified=N&position=0&splitType=9&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=&pager.offset=50

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 10:23 AM
Just the "LOL" part of your comment alone shows a lack of respect for Danny as a player and a Pacer.

"Lack of respect"? who are we talking about? the Pope? the bible? stop it!!

Ace E.Anderson
08-28-2012, 10:45 AM
When I compare players I compare the whole package and what they bring to the table, the "efficiency" and the "whole package" from each one of those 3 players mentioned is better than Danny Granger, only people in PD say that someway somehow Danny is equal to JJ that's it's just homerism, everybody in the NBA knows JJ is a way better player than Danny and is not even close.

The same goes to Josh Smith 18.8ppg 9.6rpg 3.9apg 1.7bpg and great defense blows out of the water Danny's numbers, it's a joke that people even consider them on the same planet, is not even close, I think you guys are trolling on this one.

Monta is the only comparison that is kind of close but as I have explained for a long time, Monta brings more to the table than Danny, not only that but he makes less money than Danny giving the Pacers flexibility to use that money for something else.

Here are the NBA players efficiency numbers by the way:

Josh Smith ranks 12 overall, Monta Ellis ranks 49, Joe Johnson 55 and Danny Granger 63, and Danny would have been worse if it was not for that last month miracle run.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?season=22011&league=00&conf=OVERALL&qualified=N&position=0&splitType=9&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=&pager.offset=50

In what way is it homerism though? What has JJ ever done in his career that Danny hasn't? Danny has averaged more points for most of their seasons. Yes you use efficiency as a way to grade a player, but that's far from the only way to grade a player. Maybe JJ can be a little more efficient because he's playing with Josh Smith, who according to you, is one of the best players in the league. If JJ is constantly playing 2nd string to Josh Smith, no wonder he's able to be so efficient. DG has been the best player on the Pacers for a long long time. Most players that aren't superstar level players aren't going to be extremely efficient while being the number one option on a team with lesser players.

Josh Smith is very good, and he is undeniably better than Danny. BUT, he's not Lebron, Kobe, nor any other superstar caliber player. He, for all of his talent, has only been to the 2nd round of the playoffs, just like Danny. So the gap isn't NEARLY as large as you like to make it seem.

If you want to compare players and everything they bring to the table, then there is just no way you can say JJ is light years ahead of Danny.

In games head 2 head, their numbers are virtually the same (outside of wins because the Hawks owned the pacers a lot of times)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=grangda01&p2=johnsjo02

In their careers, Danny has put up better numbers, while Joe has played on better teams.

Danny: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/grangda01.html#per_game::none

Joe: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsjo02.html#per_game::none (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsjo02.html#per_game::none)

Also if you want to use efficiency rating: Roy Hibbert, is better than all of these guys cept Josh Smith :D. So I don't think the efficiency rating is the BEST judge of talent.

Naptown_Seth
08-28-2012, 10:58 AM
So we can lose those guys for nothing instead?

Awesome plan.
Plus his logic would work just as well with ANY player. He set the bar at "better than NOTHING".

Well sure, if the Hawks look at it as being either Josh leaves for nothing or Josh for Paul George, then of course they do that deal. And by some miracle no other NBA team gives them a call and says "well if your standard is 'nothing', we can beat that too".

And I love the "well they would resign in Indy because you know, the Pacers aren't in rebuild mode" on a website normally filled with "no stars want to sign here" comments. I mean I don't buy into that view, but I do think the Pacers would be at risk to trade a developing starter for a guy who could easily sign with another team in the offseason.

You can't brush that stuff off with "oh, the Pacers would work it out and get them signed" as if it's not a massive factor in why the other team is sending high value proven talent for Paul and his potential.


The Pacers aren't really sitting in a position of redundancy at this point so they are going to take a loss in one area regardless of the deal. At best you decide that there is less value in the SG defensive length of Paul than in the playmaking of a smaller SG, and you move Danny or Paul to gamble on that theory. And that's pretty freaking risky to me.

BillS
08-28-2012, 10:58 AM
only people in PD say that someway somehow Danny is equal to JJ that's it's just homerism, everybody in the NBA knows JJ is a way better player than Danny and is not even close.
:
:
:
Joe Johnson 55 and Danny Granger 63, and Danny would have been worse if it was not for that last month miracle run.

So, what point in the efficiency rankings is the dropoff from "comparable" to "ridiculous to contemplate"? 55-56? 55-57? 55-58? 55-59? 55-60? 55-61? 55-62? Or only 55-63? Seems to me that a difference of 8 positions - a difference of .8 in this efficiency number and less than the difference between JJ and Monta - is well within the "comparable" range, not some sort of "no-brainer homers only" comparison. By your comparison, Monta is so far above JJ as to be "ridiculous to contemplate".

You claim that DG's stats are skewed by some sort of "miracle" last month, but it could reasonably also be inferred that the extended start-of-the-season slump skewed the numbers DOWN.

As others have said, you're entitled to your (well-known) opinion, but to constantly imply that anyone who doesn't share that opinion is ignoring facts or is blind to flaws is not reasonable.

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 11:04 AM
I have been on the record saying that Roy is the Pacers best player, efficiency shows that he is "the best player" on the team and yes he is more efficient than Monta or JJ, he is also waaaay more efficient than Granger.

Naptown_Seth
08-28-2012, 11:07 AM
One thing about most of the commonly available "advanced" metrics - they are just combos of the same old basic stats where someone is just providing a weighting to some aspect that's viewed as important. So efficiency, win shares, usage, etc carry a false sense of insight, when for the most part they tell no more of the story than FGA, eFG (or TS), AST, REB, TO, STL and BLK do.

I don't say this to dismiss stats or to take a stand in a Player A vs Player B debate, just noting the somewhat redundant nature of the advanced stats at BBall-Ref (and elsewhere).


I do prefer stats rated per minute for totals, either p36 or the % values BBRef has available, but only to normalize for playing time.

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 11:07 AM
Plus his logic would work just as well with ANY player. He set the bar at "better than NOTHING".

Well sure, if the Hawks look at it as being either Josh leaves for nothing or Josh for Paul George, then of course they do that deal. And by some miracle no other NBA team gives them a call and says "well if your standard is 'nothing', we can beat that too".

And I love the "well they would resign in Indy because you know, the Pacers aren't in rebuild mode" on a website normally filled with "no stars want to sign here" comments. I mean I don't buy into that view, but I do think the Pacers would be at risk to trade a developing starter for a guy who could easily sign with another team in the offseason.

You can't brush that stuff off with "oh, the Pacers would work it out and get them signed" as if it's not a massive factor in why the other team is sending high value proven talent for Paul and his potential.


The Pacers aren't really sitting in a position of redundancy at this point so they are going to take a loss in one area regardless of the deal. At best you decide that there is less value in the SG defensive length of Paul than in the playmaking of a smaller SG, and you move Danny or Paul to gamble on that theory. And that's pretty freaking risky to me.

Yep the lest seat and do nothing approach is better.....

BillS
08-28-2012, 11:09 AM
I have been on the record saying that Roy is the Pacers best player, efficiency shows that he is "the best player" on the team and yes he is more efficient than Monta or JJ, he is also waaaay more efficient than Granger.

So I guess here is the main question - do you truly believe that efficiency is the only measure of a player and that any other stat or observation can't compare at all?

For example, if Roy can't get the ball his efficiency is useless to the Pacers. If (for the sake of argument) the reason he can't get the ball is a positioning or rebounding problem, that isn't the fault of the rest of the team. Efficiency isn't going to reflect that at all.

If Danny has to take bad shots because the coach expects it (the knock on JOB all those years), is that a Danny efficiency problem or a coaching problem? You yourself have claimed VERY strongly the latter - does that not get taken into account, or is the proof of the pudding a single shortened season with no real training camp or organized off-season?

Again, your conclusion is yours to make, but that doesn't mean people reaching a different conclusion using different criteria are being ridiculous or blind.

Since86
08-28-2012, 11:11 AM
I have been on the record saying that Roy is the Pacers best player, efficiency shows that he is "the best player" on the team and yes he is more efficient than Monta or JJ, he is also waawaay more efficient than Granger.


:laugh: Only Vnlza thinks that 53.9ts% (Roy) is waaaay more efficient than 54.2ts% (Danny). Only Vnzla thinks that 49.7efg% (Roy) is waaaay more efficient than 48.1efg% (Danny)


EDIT: And it should be pointed out that Danny's numbers are career lows while Roy's numbers are career highs.

Since86
08-28-2012, 11:11 AM
Again, your conclusion is yours to make, but that doesn't mean people reaching a different conclusion using different criteria are being ridiculous or blind.


He's not even using his own criteria.

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 11:12 AM
So, what point in the efficiency rankings is the dropoff from "comparable" to "ridiculous to contemplate"? 55-56? 55-57? 55-58? 55-59? 55-60? 55-61? 55-62? Or only 55-63? Seems to me that a difference of 8 positions - a difference of .8 in this efficiency number and less than the difference between JJ and Monta - is well within the "comparable" range, not some sort of "no-brainer homers only" comparison. By your comparison, Monta is so far above JJ as to be "ridiculous to contemplate".

You claim that DG's stats are skewed by some sort of "miracle" last month, but it could reasonably also be inferred that the extended start-of-the-season slump skewed the numbers DOWN.

As others have said, you're entitled to your (well-known) opinion, but to constantly imply that anyone who doesn't share that opinion is ignoring facts or is blind to flaws is not reasonable.

I might imply that some people are blinded by the blue and gold glasses but at least I'm not calling people haters or trolls and you know I don't mean you.

By the way I used efficiently as a tool to show what I'm talking about, don't think I'm using it as "the tool".

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 11:13 AM
:laugh: Only Vnlza thinks that 53.9ts% (Roy) is waaaay more efficient than 54.2ts% (Danny). Only Vnzla thinks that 49.7efg% (Roy) is waaaay more efficient than 48.1efg% (Danny)

That's not what I said but ok laugh all you want I guess......

Since86
08-28-2012, 11:15 AM
That's not what I said but ok laugh all you want I guess......

Then what efficiency ratings are you talking about? Instead of just throwing a claim out against the wall to see if it sticks, actually back up your claim with something.

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 11:22 AM
Then what efficiency ratings are you talking about? Instead of just throwing a claim out against the wall to see if it sticks, actually back up your claim with something.

Why should I even bother to argue with you if I know you are not looking to have a conversation? sorry but is not going to happen :unimpress

WhoLovesYaBaby?
08-28-2012, 11:24 AM
Olblu is really starting to go senile... There isn't liking Danny, which is understandable, and then there is being so dense that you're disconnected from reality in regards to him.

Can't get a first rounder? Negative trade value? I have to assume it is blatant trolling at this point, or such a profound ignorance that it is unbelievable.

He's giving his opinion. No better or worse than yours or mine. It isn't trolling until he attacks someone else. Ignore him if you don't like what he says and he needs to do the same. All of this Jr. High girl sniping is cluttering up the threads.

Since86
08-28-2012, 11:28 AM
Why should I even bother to argue with you if I know you are not looking to have a conversation? sorry but is not going to happen :unimpress

I'm not looking for a conversation or argument, I'm looking for you to actually back up your claims instead of hinging your arguments around calling people homers for disagreeing with you.

You've spent the last 5 pages arguing about this, and when I ask you to provide sources suddenly you've hit your wall.

No need to continue the argument. Your unwillingness to even attempt to provide backup for your claims says enough.

BillS
08-28-2012, 11:38 AM
I'm not looking for a conversation or argument, I'm looking for you to actually back up your claims instead of hinging your arguments around calling people homers for disagreeing with you.

You've spent the last 5 pages arguing about this, and when I ask you to provide sources suddenly you've hit your wall.

No need to continue the argument. Your unwillingness to even attempt to provide backup for your claims says enough.

He posted a link to the site with the efficiency numbers he is using:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?season=22011&league=00&conf=OVERALL&qualified=N&position=0&splitType=9&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=&pager.offset=50

Since86
08-28-2012, 11:43 AM
He posted a link to the site with the efficiency numbers he is using:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?season=22011&league=00&conf=OVERALL&qualified=N&position=0&splitType=9&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=&pager.offset=50

Which shows there's less difference of efficiency between Danny and Roy than there is between #1 LeBron and #2 Kevin Love.

BillS
08-28-2012, 11:56 AM
Which shows there's less difference of efficiency between Danny and Roy than there is between #1 LeBron and #2 Kevin Love.

Well, yeah, kind of the same as my point about the difference between JJ/Danny and JJ/Monta, but you can't say he didn't show you where he got his numbers.

Tom White
08-28-2012, 12:01 PM
I would trade him even up for any of the players you mention. The fact that two of them have big contracts doesn't mean they are not better players. They certainly are. I would trade Granger for Ellis or Jennings in a heart beat. So, perhaps he is better than the mighty Pooh but it isn't clear.......:cool: ... So, in reality, just about every team has someone better than Granger on their roster and many of them have several player better than Granger......:cool: ...

Well, at least he has never had his head stuck in a honey jar. At least not that has been made public.

Tom White
08-28-2012, 12:05 PM
Outside of LBJ, 'Melo Deron, and Rose, every player on that list could potentially be traded for with Granger as the main asset the Pacers would offer.

I think he is talking about 1-for-1 trades (not considering salary matching), not trades that are Granger + whomever for another player.

wintermute
08-28-2012, 12:16 PM
Since86, the "efficiency" rating that vnzla81 posted has nothing to do with shooting efficiency.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/efficiency.html

It's a combo stat used by NBA.com, as opposed to the PER used by Hollinger/ESPN. The 2 stats have a similar concept actually, but use slightly different formulas. As a result, they share a lot of the same weaknesses.

Btw, if you compare last season's PER, Danny actually had a better season that Monta or JJ, which goes back to BillS's point that the statistical difference among them is quite small - small enough that a change in formula changes the rankings.

And oh, Troy Murphy used to post out of this world EFF numbers. Just sayin' ;)

Kid Minneapolis
08-28-2012, 12:22 PM
Yea, all stats aside, just observing all those players, there is no way I'd label JJ or Monta as "clearly" better than Granger, if at all. I'd say "marginal" is accurate. I might say JJ 2-3 years ago was a more polished offensive player than Danny, but now it's pretty much a wash. JJ is 31 now and slowing down. Monta has some impressive offensive skills, but has a lot of holes in his game, too. Glaring ones. Danny is the better defender, of those three, anyway.

J7F
08-28-2012, 12:35 PM
VNZLA - I would like to challenge you to go to other message boards and ask people if they think Danny, Monta, JJ, and Josh Smith are on the same level or not... And please post links to your results... I think you would find this is base NBA knowledge... Not just seen through blue and gold colored lenses...

And I know this holds very little weight but check their 2K ratings... They are all absolutely on the same level... Annual fringe all-stars... They are all jockeying for the final slots on All-star teams...

Hicks
08-28-2012, 12:35 PM
http://thejosevilson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/tom-hardy-as-bane-in-the-dark-knight-rises-1024x435.jpg

"Irrationality and deception. Powerful agents... to the uninitiated. But we are initiated, aren't we?" - PacerfanBane

This is approximately the 3,536,226,236th time I've seen the "I'll prove my bias is the truth by picking and choosing my statistics" method to 'win an argument' in my time here.

I'm not falling for it.

If I'm expected to weigh in, just put me down for "We ought to appreciate Danny Granger if for nothing else than from the perspective of who he is/was at a time when we needed someone like him to be the face of this franchise."

Peck
08-28-2012, 01:14 PM
The supreme irony in all of this is that if it weren't for the blatant anti Granger fans on here nobody on this board would be calling Danny Granger a great player.

That's what's always killed me whenever we discuss this topic. The anti Granger fans are so anti Granger that they cause people to defend Granger at a level higher than they actually think of him.

I'm one of the bigger Granger supporters on here & even I would not tell you that the guy is anything more than a very good and talented basketball player. He is not super star player (if by super star you mean LeBron, Bryant, etc.) he would not even be in that second group of star players (Mello, Paul, D. Williams, etc.)

I guess where the great disagreement comes from is that I do think that he falls into the third level of player but I'm willing to say he is at or around the bottom of those players. So yes I do think he is lumped into the group with Gay, Iggy, JJ, etc.

Now it is pretty well known around here that I don't always take the Pacers side of things. I think I made myself pretty clear over the years about Jim O'Brien & Jermaine O'Neal and I'm not even as thrilled with David West as some of you are (I don't dislike him at all but I do hate his defense) so when I say that I don't think Granger is a bad player or that I don't think he is worse than JJ, Gay, Iggy, Deng, etc. does that make me a homer who only sees things through blue & gold glasses?

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 01:29 PM
The supreme irony in all of this is that if it weren't for the blatant anti Granger fans on here nobody on this board would be calling Danny Granger a great player.

That's what's always killed me whenever we discuss this topic. The anti Granger fans are so anti Granger that they cause people to defend Granger at a level higher than they actually think of him.

I'm one of the bigger Granger supporters on here & even I would not tell you that the guy is anything more than a very good and talented basketball player. He is not super star player (if by super star you mean LeBron, Bryant, etc.) he would not even be in that second group of star players (Mello, Paul, D. Williams, etc.)

I guess where the great disagreement comes from is that I do think that he falls into the third level of player but I'm willing to say he is at or around the bottom of those players. So yes I do think he is lumped into the group with Gay, Iggy, JJ, etc.

Now it is pretty well known around here that I don't always take the Pacers side of things. I think I made myself pretty clear over the years about Jim O'Brien & Jermaine O'Neal and I'm not even as thrilled with David West as some of you are (I don't dislike him at all but I do hate his defense) so when I say that I don't think Granger is a bad player or that I don't think he is worse than JJ, Gay, Iggy, Deng, etc. does that make me a homer who only sees things through blue & gold glasses?

And because somebody says that Danny is not as good as JJ,JS or Monta doesn't mean that person think he is garbage either.

If I remember correctly some people here thought he was(is) as good as Reggie at the same age if that's not overrating him I don't know what to tell you.

To me Danny is falling into the same place guys like Richard Jefferson and Rashard Lewis has fallen, previous all stars that have lost an step and people still believe they can play at the same level they once did.


By the way this is not the first time somebody overrates Danny or you forgot the Danny/Melo thread were people thought they were in the same level lol.

Peck
08-28-2012, 01:34 PM
And because somebody says that Danny is not as good as JJ,JS or Monta doesn't mean that person think he is garbage either.

If I remember correctly some people here thought he was(is) as good as Reggie at the same age if that's not overrating him I don't know what to tell you.

To me Danny is falling into the same place guys like Richard Jefferson and Rashard Lewis has fallen, previous all stars that have lost an step and people still believe they can play at the same level they once did.

Is it possible that Danny has lost a step? Sure

Is it also possible that Danny took a step back to allow the rest of the team to move forward?

Now let's see how you answer that.

Also yes I am the one who compared him to Reggie and I still stand by that. During the regular season they are remarkably similar, I just thought Danny would be able to pick it up during the playoffs and he didn't. Now he did last season vs. the Bulls even you have admitted that in the past.

But yes I do consider his servies vs. the Magic a dissapointment and I don't think anyone will fault him for not excelling vs. LeBron James.

Kid Minneapolis
08-28-2012, 01:45 PM
To me Danny is falling into the same place guys like Richard Jefferson and Rashard Lewis has fallen, previous all stars that have lost an step and people still believe they can play at the same level they once did.

Richard Jefferson and Rashard Lewis were never the leaders of their respected teams. Danny was/is.

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 01:57 PM
Is it possible that Danny has lost a step? Sure

Is it also possible that Danny took a step back to allow the rest of the team to move forward?

Now let's see how you answer that.

Also yes I am the one who compared him to Reggie and I still stand by that. During the regular season they are remarkably similar, I just thought Danny would be able to pick it up during the playoffs and he didn't. Now he did last season vs. the Bulls even you have admitted that in the past.

But yes I do consider his servies vs. the Magic a dissapointment and I don't think anyone will fault him for not excelling vs. LeBron James.

I think he lost an step and I don't believe "he is taking one for the team" as many believe here, last years team was the best team he ever had around and instead of getting better he got worse, like I said before if it wasn't because of his great last month his numbers would have been even worse, before that he was on the bottom in the NBA.

And yes I agree with you about his play against Orlando and I expected him to at least be decent against Lebron but he was not even close to decent(I know some people are going to come up with some numbers but I watched the games and he wasn't great), to be the great player many say he is he was a disappointment all year last year but one month, why are people ignoring that?

Danny is a good player but I'm pretty sure that if he didn't have the Pacers uniform on many here would think he is garbage, I understand we are in a Pacers side so of course some people are going to see it through the blue and gold glasses and are going to disagree with me not matter what, my point is that many here overrate Danny the same way people overrated Dunleavy and the same way people overrated DC.

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 02:01 PM
Richard Jefferson and Rashard Lewis were never the leaders of their respected teams. Danny was/is.

I'm talking about the game of Basketball and their abilities I don't give a damn about their leadership abilities.

Major Cold
08-28-2012, 02:19 PM
I'm talking about the game of Basketball and their abilities I don't give a damn about their leadership abilities.
And if you think that Danny's ability is equal to Rashard Lewis, then you don't know damn about Rashard Lewis.

Kid Minneapolis
08-28-2012, 02:24 PM
I'm talking about the game of Basketball and their abilities I don't give a damn about their leadership abilities.

Yea, you wouldn't give a damn about leadership abilities, lol...

Hint: basketball abilities *include* leadership. Not just putting a f'n basketball through a hoop.

BillS
08-28-2012, 02:24 PM
I know some people are going to come up with some numbers but I watched the games and he wasn't great

And this is where people get frustrated with your arguments. You use numbers unless the numbers disagree with your conclusions, in which case you throw the numbers out and say "well, I watched the games and I disagree". You need to really define which numbers are valid and which ones aren't rather than define the situations in which the numbers match your conclusion and the situations in which they do not.

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 02:34 PM
And if you think that Danny's ability is equal to Rashard Lewis, then you don't know damn about Rashard Lewis.

Not to the Rashard Lewis of today but the the Rashard Lewis of years ago? hell yes.

Major Cold
08-28-2012, 02:38 PM
Not to the Rashard Lewis of today but the the Rashard Lewis of years ago? hell yes.
Oh...well. Maybe. I don't disagree enough to garner the dialogue of stating why I disagree.

So Carry-on.

vnzla81
08-28-2012, 02:39 PM
And this is where people get frustrated with your arguments. You use numbers unless the numbers disagree with your conclusions, in which case you throw the numbers out and say "well, I watched the games and I disagree". You need to really define which numbers are valid and which ones aren't rather than define the situations in which the numbers match your conclusion and the situations in which they do not.

I used numbers but as I told you I didn't say they were the tool and regarding those comments I expect somebody to tell me that Danny wasn't that bad because he averaged X amount of numbers and that those numbers were just as good as Reggie's in his second time of the playoffs or something like that.

CJ Jones
08-28-2012, 02:56 PM
[

"Irrationality and deception. Powerful agents... to the uninitiated. But we are initiated, aren't we?" - PacerfanBane

This is approximately the 3,536,226,236th time I've seen the "I'll prove my bias is the truth by picking and choosing my statistics" method to 'win an argument' in my time here.

I'm not falling for it.

If I'm expected to weigh in, just put me down for "We ought to appreciate Danny Granger if for nothing else than from the perspective of who he is/was at a time when we needed someone like him to be the face of this franchise."

I thanked you for the first part of your post, but I hope your not implying that if we don't like Danny's game we don't appreciate who he is/was. He's been a good soldier, I just don't like the way he plays sometimes. I do appreciate him for what he's done for the organization, though.

CJ Jones
08-28-2012, 03:23 PM
Since86, the "efficiency" rating that vnzla81 posted has nothing to do with shooting efficiency.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/efficiency.html

It's a combo stat used by NBA.com, as opposed to the PER used by Hollinger/ESPN. The 2 stats have a similar concept actually, but use slightly different formulas. As a result, they share a lot of the same weaknesses.

Btw, if you compare last season's PER, Danny actually had a better season that Monta or JJ, which goes back to BillS's point that the statistical difference among them is quite small - small enough that a change in formula changes the rankings.

And oh, Troy Murphy used to post out of this world EFF numbers. Just sayin' ;)

This is why PER's so silly to me. It rates Danny higher than JJ after one of JJ's best seasons and arguably Danny's worst. IMO it overrates the heck out of Danny and always has.

Then it doesn't even have Rondo ranked in the top 20 amongst PGs which is mind numbing...

Kid Minneapolis
08-28-2012, 03:28 PM
Because Rondo's game is not stat-based. PER is completely stat based. PER doesn't measure a player's ability to set up other players and execute an offense and impact defense. It only measures tangible quantifiable stats.



TS%: True Shooting Percentage - what a player's shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throws and 3-pointers. True Shooting Percentage = Total points / [(FGA + (0.44 x FTA)]
AST: Assist Ratio - the percentage of a player's possessions that ends in an assist. Assist Ratio = (Assists x 100) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44) + Assists + Turnovers]
TO: Turnover Ratio - the percentage of a player's possessions that end in a turnover. Turnover Ratio = (Turnover x 100) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44) + Assists + Turnovers]
USG: Usage Rate - the number of possessions a player uses per 40 minutes. Usage Rate = {[FGA + (FT Att. x 0.44) + (Ast x 0.33) + TO] x 40 x League Pace} divided by (Minutes x Team Pace)
ORR: Offensive rebound rate
DRR: Defensive rebound rate
REBR: Rebound Rate - the percentage of missed shots that a player rebounds. Rebound Rate = (100 x (Rebounds x Team Minutes)) divided by [Player Minutes x (Team Rebounds + Opponent Rebounds)]
PER: Player Efficiency Rating is the overall rating of a player's per-minute statistical production. The league average is 15.00 every season.
VA: Value Added - the estimated number of points a player adds to a team’s season total above what a 'replacement player' (for instance, the 12th man on the roster) would produce. Value Added = ([Minutes * (PER - PRL)] / 67). PRL (Position Replacement Level) = 11.5 for power forwards, 11.0 for point guards, 10.6 for centers, 10.5 for shooting guards and small forwards
EWA: Estimated Wins Added - Value Added divided by 30, giving the estimated number of wins a player adds to a team’s season total above what a 'replacement player' would produce.
Player Efficiency Rating (PER) League average: 15.0

Since86
08-28-2012, 03:41 PM
This is why PER's so silly to me. It rates Danny higher than JJ after one of JJ's best seasons and arguably Danny's worst. IMO it overrates the heck out of Danny and always has.

Then it doesn't even have Rondo ranked in the top 20 amongst PGs which is mind numbing...

Huh? How in the world can a stat overrate one particular player?

beast23
08-28-2012, 04:02 PM
And this is where people get frustrated with your arguments. You use numbers unless the numbers disagree with your conclusions, in which case you throw the numbers out and say "well, I watched the games and I disagree". You need to really define which numbers are valid and which ones aren't rather than define the situations in which the numbers match your conclusion and the situations in which they do not.
The other point to be made about disregarding non-supporting stats and going with the "well, I watched the games and I disagree" argument is that it discounts the fact that "all of us watched the games, too" and we still come up with honest differences from Vlnza's point of view.

Does Vlnza believe that his abilities to break down players and teams are superior to the abilities of all of the rest of us? Some of us, maybe... all of us, no way.

The deal is that one's POV in breaking down a player and putting a value on the what that player brings to the table differs greatly because we all have different preferences in how we like to see the game played, what we believe should be provided to the team from each position on the floor and so forth. Some of us, including myself, put far more emphasis on the synergy of the five players on the floor at one time than on the accomplishments of any one player.

That likely means that some of us 'honestly' value so players more than others on this forum do because of our differing beliefs. However, when I experience someone who tends to take the negative aspects of any one player to extremes, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the individual simply hates the player much more than they dislike how the player plays the game.

As an example, those that have followed my posting through the years could reasonable conclude that I had/have an intense dislike of Jalen Rose and Jamaal Tinsley. And no matter what positives either could bring to the court, that dislike for them could certainly cloud my perspective.