Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Mike Bibby

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: Mike Bibby

    Originally posted by foretaz
    but really, the marginal production differences dont justify the bloated salary and contract.....
    And, on the other hand, I think you'd find a vast majority of Kings fans who would rather pay that "bloated salary and contract" than face losing Bibby. Stats, especially under the conditions the Kings have played the last year, don't tell the whole story.

    NBA basketball - taking my breath away since 1963.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Mike Bibby

      Originally posted by VF21
      And, on the other hand, I think you'd find a vast majority of Kings fans who would rather pay that "bloated salary and contract" than face losing Bibby. Stats, especially under the conditions the Kings have played the last year, don't tell the whole story.

      oh....i think im probably aware of that more than most...

      and i like bibby...like him alot, actually

      i think he is far more valuable to the kings than he would be to the pacers....

      and i certainly feel, given our teams makeup and our pg situation that the 6 million difference is better spent elsewhere...on this team...

      i will tell u that bibby is probably the most coveted piece u have on ur team by the league...but u already know that...i know ur aware of this, but i really cant see the pacers and kings doing a deal....i just dont think theres anything that either has that the other would be interested in, at least enuff to do the deal....i know some kings fans want artest....but i dont see anything the kings have that we would want, let alone that the kings would give up....

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Mike Bibby

        Originally posted by Kstat
        I could walk onto an NBA court, get a meaningless layup, walk off, and by 48-mpg stats, I'd win the MVP hands-down.
        Per-48 are only truly meaningful if the example player has played enough minutes per game to make them meaningful. Noone's talking about taking John Edwards production and multiplaying it by 12.

        Originally posted by Kstat
        Say Tinsley plays that extra 6 minutes per game. That's 240 extra minutes over the 40 games he played. Maybe he gets a little more tired every game, and hid FG% drops and his turnovers go up? Those stats don't account for that. Also, it's foolish to assume that even the most durable player is just as productive in the 40th minute as he is in the 4th minute.
        No offense, but that sounds like one big excuse to me.

        Ofcourse noones ever gonna play 48 minutes per game 9except for Wilt ofcourse), but it does give you an idea of how comparable players are in equal playing time.If you don't like oer-48's, than just divide the players stats by minutes and get per-minute efficency. Same difference.

        I'm confident Tinsley could average 38 minutes per game and be just as effective in each of those extra 6 minutes. However, he'll likely never get that chance, unless he's moved elsewhere, as the Pacers are a deep team that like to play their starters as few minutes as possible.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Mike Bibby

          Elite point guards make All-Star teams. There's a reason none of the trio of Bibby, Tinsley, or Billups has made an All-Star team - they're not elite. They're all second-tier point guards.

          Second-teir points guards aren't worth the kinda money Bibby is making.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Mike Bibby



            why do i sense something about championships and point guards coming up?

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Mike Bibby

              Originally posted by Naptown Seth
              Per-48 are only truly meaningful if the example player has played enough minutes per game to make them meaningful. Noone's talking about taking John Edwards production and multiplaying it by 12.


              No offense, but that sounds like one big excuse to me.

              Ofcourse noones ever gonna play 48 minutes per game 9except for Wilt ofcourse), but it does give you an idea of how comparable players are in equal playing time.If you don't like oer-48's, than just divide the players stats by minutes and get per-minute efficency. Same difference.
              not really, because either way, you don't take endurance into account.

              Ben Gordon's per-minute stats are through the roof. Yet he doesn't play huge minutes, because his production drops DRASTICALLY after a certain point.

              I'm confident Tinsley could average 38 minutes per game and be just as effective in each of those extra 6 minutes. However, he'll likely never get that chance, unless he's moved elsewhere, as the Pacers are a deep team that like to play their starters as few minutes as possible.
              If Tinsley were capable of playing 38 minutes a game, he's be playing 38 minutes a game. Anthony Johnson is ok, but in no way is he some sort of stud backup that demands Tinsley spend 1/3 of every game on the bench.

              If Bobby were on the Pacers, would he average more than 32 minutes a game? Put it this way: BIbby's lowst single-season MPG is still higher than Tinsley's HIGHEST MPG.

              And Bibby had the best backup PG in the NBA playing behind him.

              There's a reason Tinsley hasn't been able to average 33 minutes per game in a season, and it isn't because of the Pacers' incredible PG depth.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Mike Bibby

                Elite point guards make All-Star teams. There's a reason none of the trio of Bibby, Tinsley, or Billups has made an All-Star team - they're not elite. They're all second-tier point guards.


                Ok, I'm getting out of this conversation before it gets bloody.

                How a guy that was 1 quarter away from walking away with back-to-back finals MVPs isn't a top-tier player at his position is beyond me. I don't even want to hear the explanation for that.

                I would like to know this, however:

                What's your list of FIRST-tier PGs?

                And FYI: You can put BIllups on the 2006 all-star team right now. Unless he takes a complete nosedive, the coaches will be shamed into voting him in. Same thing with Bobby.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Mike Bibby

                  Originally posted by Kstat


                  Ok, I'm getting out of this conversation before it gets bloody.

                  How a guy that was 1 quarter away from walking away with back-to-back finals MVPs isn't a top-tier player at his position is beyond me. I don't even want to hear the explanation for that.
                  Being the #1 designated gunner on a team that wins based almost soley on team defense and rebounding, doesn't make you a great player. It makes you a very, very lucky player, but far from a great player.
                  Tell me, who was Chauncey Billups before he was carried to back-2-back Finals by Larry Brown, Ben Wallace, and the Pistons spectacular defense? Just another mediocre lottery talent.

                  Originally posted by Kstat
                  I would like to know this, however:

                  What's your list of FIRST-tier PGs?
                  Jason Kidd
                  Steve Nash
                  Allen Iverson
                  Baron Davis
                  Stephon Marbury
                  Steve Francis
                  Gilbert Arenas

                  Originally posted by Kstat
                  And FYI: You can put BIllups on the 2006 all-star team right now. Unless he takes a complete nosedive, the coaches will be shamed into voting him in. Same thing with Bobby.
                  I doubt it. Too much point guard depth in the East.
                  Kidd and Iverson are locks. And atleast 1 of the three of Arenas, Francis, and Marbury are likely to make it in. That leaves no room for the 16 ppg, 5 apg, 3 rpg, career 40% shooting Chaunce Billups

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Mike Bibby

                    lets look at your list of top-tier PGs:

                    Jason Kidd (the guy that Billups outscored 22-0 in game 7 last year)
                    Steve Nash (this from the same guy that complains that Bibby doesn't play D)
                    Allen Iverson (does he even count as a PG?)
                    Baron Davis (from the same guy that thinks Chauncey's FG% is too low)
                    Stephon Marbury ( )
                    Steve Francis ( the same guy whose own TEAM replaced at PG with Jameer Nelson halfway through last year )
                    Gilbert Arenas ( )

                    The best statistic: Billups has 1 more finals MVP and 1 more ring than all 7 of them combined.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • Re: Mike Bibby

                      Tell me, who was Chauncey Billups before he was carried to back-2-back Finals by Larry Brown, Ben Wallace, and the Pistons spectacular defense? Just another mediocre lottery talent.
                      .....he was the guy that was 6th behind 5 future or current hall of famers for most points (79) in games 6 and 7 of a playoff series ?

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: Mike Bibby

                        Originally posted by Kstat
                        lets look at your list of top-tier PGs:

                        Jason Kidd (the guy that Billups outscored 22-0 in game 7 last year)
                        Steve Nash (this from the same guy that complains that Bibby doesn't play D)
                        Allen Iverson (does he even count as a PG?)
                        Baron Davis (from the same guy that thinks Chauncey's FG% is too low)
                        Stephon Marbury ( )
                        Steve Francis ( the same guy whose own TEAM replaced at PG with Jameer Nelson halfway through last year )
                        Gilbert Arenas ( )

                        The best statistic: Billups has 1 more finals MVP and 1 more ring than all 7 of them combined.
                        Let's break it down:

                        Kidd is a far better passer and rebounder, and is a better defender. If you argue that Billups is better than Kidd than you're beyond a homer. He's been the #1 Player On A Finals Team

                        Nash is a better shooter, rebounder, and far better passer. There's a reason he was named MVP and Chauncey Billups wasn't even an All-Star reserve

                        Iversons a far better scorer, better passer, and equal defender and rebounder. He's been the #1 Player On A Finals Team

                        Baron Davis is a better scorer, rebounder, and passer.

                        Marbury's a better scorer and passer.

                        Francis is a better scorer, rebounder, and passer.

                        Arenas is a better scorer and slightly better rebounder.

                        Think about it this way - if playing with Larry Brown and the Pistons hall of fame-worthy defense can turn a career bench player like Chauncey Billups into a Finals MVP, what do you think it could do for the guys mentioned above? Turn them into top-25 players of all-time?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Mike Bibby

                          Originally posted by Naptown Seth
                          Think about it this way - if playing with Larry Brown and the Pistons hall of fame-worthy defense can turn a career bench player like Chauncey Billups into a Finals MVP, what do you think it could do for the guys mentioned above? Turn them into top-25 players of all-time?
                          Obviously, Marbury should average 30 and 10 this year, then, since without Larry Brown Chauncey is a scrub

                          BTW, what chauncey averaging on the pistons before larry brown was the coach? about the same scoring average he has now? ok then.

                          BTW, Billups for being such a "gunner," still had a higher playoff assist/turover ratio than anyone on your list in the playoffs.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • Re: Mike Bibby

                            Originally posted by Kstat
                            I could walk onto an NBA court, get a meaningless layup, walk off, and by 48-mpg stats, I'd win the MVP hands-down.

                            I wasn't trying to sneak by those stats, I simply don't believe in them.

                            There is nothing more meaningless and overrated in the NBA that per-minute stats. They don't take endurance into account, which happens to be one of Tinsley's main weaknesses.

                            Say Tinsley plays that extra 6 minutes per game. That's 240 extra minutes over the 40 games he played. Maybe he gets a little more tired every game, and hid FG% drops and his turnovers go up? Those stats don't account for that. Also, it's foolish to assume that even the most durable player is just as productive in the 40th minute as he is in the 4th minute.



                            Good. I'd hate to think that I'm debating a person who thinks he's wrong....
                            You can rant about endurance all you want, but if you are going to say Bibby is the better rebounder and passer by margins of .4 and .2. then you have to consider those six extra minutes. It's just common sense.


                            Reggie Evans averaged 9.3 rebounds in 24 minutes. Zach Randolph averaged 9.6 in 34 minutes. Are you really going to tell me Randolph is the better rebounder?
                            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Mike Bibby

                              Originally posted by Kstat


                              If Tinsley were capable of playing 38 minutes a game, he's be playing 38 minutes a game. Anthony Johnson is ok, but in no way is he some sort of stud backup that demands Tinsley spend 1/3 of every game on the bench.

                              If Bobby were on the Pacers, would he average more than 32 minutes a game? Put it this way: BIbby's lowst single-season MPG is still higher than Tinsley's HIGHEST MPG.

                              And Bibby had the best backup PG in the NBA playing behind him.

                              There's a reason Tinsley hasn't been able to average 33 minutes per game in a season, and it isn't because of the Pacers' incredible PG depth.
                              Playing low minutes doesn't always equal being out of shape. Sometimes guys just aren't on the court as much because they aren't complete players. Tinsley is great and all, but he still lets opposing PG's blow by him more often than not. That might fly with Adelman over in the King's system, but I don't blame Rick for wanting to play AJ more.
                              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Mike Bibby

                                Originally posted by Kstat
                                I could walk onto an NBA court, get a meaningless layup, walk off, and by 48-mpg stats, I'd win the MVP hands-down.

                                I wasn't trying to sneak by those stats, I simply don't believe in them.

                                There is nothing more meaningless and overrated in the NBA that per-minute stats. They don't take endurance into account, which happens to be one of Tinsley's main weaknesses.

                                Say Tinsley plays that extra 6 minutes per game. That's 240 extra minutes over the 40 games he played. Maybe he gets a little more tired every game, and hid FG% drops and his turnovers go up? Those stats don't account for that. Also, it's foolish to assume that even the most durable player is just as productive in the 40th minute as he is in the 4th minute.



                                Good. I'd hate to think that I'm debating a person who thinks he's wrong....

                                Bingo. I was trying to make this point a couple weeks ago in another thread when per 48 minutes came up. I only care about the stats that are recorded.

                                By theory, a guy could average 2 points in 2 minutes, and you could say "he'd average 48 points in 48 minutes."

                                If someone has to go to per 48 minute stats to make an argument, they don't have much of a case to begin with.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X