Tweet
Can anyone post today's Insider? I'm really curious about the "Top 10 gunners" list. Six are amongst this season's free agents, and I'm wondering who the ROTY candidate amongst them may be (Sarunas?).
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.
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
-
-
Re: ESPN Insider request
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/colum...ohn&id=2143206
Six gunners among summer's free agents
By John Hollinger
ESPN Insider
Archive
Naming the game's best 3-point shooter isn't as easy as that little contest at All-Star Weekend would have us believe.
Take last season's Phoenix Suns, for instance. Joe Johnson shot 48 percent on 3-pointers last year, which would seem to make him one of the game's best. On the other hand, he didn't shoot that many on a per-minute basis (just two made 3s per 40 minutes). Was he really a better 3-point shooter than his teammate Quentin Richardson (the 3-point champ), who made a much larger number of attempts but shot a lower percentage? And is either that great, when one considers that neither had done much the year before?
To resolve these questions, I developed my "Top Gun" ranking of the game's 10 deadliest 3-point shooters. I wanted to find out which players had done the most to increase their team's scoring. And I wanted to find out at what rate their 3-point shooting helped the team, so I measured every player's output per 40 minutes of playing time.
For each player, I determined the number of points a team gained from a player's 3-point shooting expertise. To do this, I figured out the the difference between the player's shooting accuracy and what a mediocre (or "replacement level") player would shoot. I computed the "replacement level" figure by taking 90 percent of the league average in 3-point shooting, ending up with 32.0 percent in 2004-05.
Then I took the difference between the player's percentage and "replacement level" and multiplied it by the player's 3-point attempts. That resulted in the number of points the player added to (or subtracted from) his team's total with his 3-point shooting, compared to the "replacement level." Finally, I divided that result by the player's minutes and multiplied by 40. That produced a per-40-minute rating for the value of each player's 3-point shooting. (For instance, as shown in the chart below, the 3-point shooting of Damon Jones added .90 points per 40 minutes he played to the Miami Heat's scoring in 2004-05.)
However, the examples of Johnson and Richardson show that 3-point percentages aren't as consistent from year to year as some other numbers. Thus, I looked at two seasons' worth of data. I weighed the 2004-05 season twice as heavily as the 2003-04 season, although in the case of rookies I could use only the 2004-05 data. Once that was done, I had a final score for each player.
Before I introduce the top 10, let's discuss a few surprising names who didn't make the list. Reggie Miller, for instance, had a horrendous 3-point year last season, making only 32.2 percent. Steve Nash is a great shooter (41.8 percent career) but hasn't shot the long ball with nearly the frequency of many other top shooters, so he didn't qualify either. And Johnson, despite his 47 percent mark a year ago, didn't come close. His low frequency of '04-05 attempts and his inaccuracy in '03-04 combined to keep him well behind the leaders.
With that said, let's take a look at the top 10:
10. Mike Miller, Memphis Grizzlies
Miller has one of the most gorgeous strokes in basketball, but until last season he hadn't found the net particularly often. Miller made 43.3 percent in 2004-05, however, to rank fourth in the NBA. That helped make up for an unspectacular showing the previous year, when he barely made one 3-pointer a game while hitting at a 37 percent clip.
Continued...
9. Eric Piatkowski, Houston Rockets/Chicago Bulls
A lot of the players on this list aren't stars in the traditional sense, because they're guys who are in the league only because of their shooting. The Polish Rifle is a good example, hitting 42.5 percent from downtown last year but still rarely playing because his other weaknesses were so pronounced.
8. Ben Gordon, Chicago Bulls
The only rookie to make the list, Gordon was nearly as accurate on 3s (40.5 percent) as he was on 2s (41.4). Some might argue that Gordon should have been excluded from the study because he didn't have a two-year sample like the others, but based on his shooting exploits in college, his season hardly seems surprising. Incidentally, Gordon's inclusion bumped Jim Jackson out of the top 10.
7. Cuttino Mobley, Houston Rockets/Orlando Magic/Sacramento Kings (signed with Los Angeles Clippers)
Only two players finished in the top 10 in both 3-pointers per game and 3-point percentage last season. One was Damon Jones, and the other was Mobley. Mobley's 43.9 percent shooting ranked third in the NBA, while his 2.3 bombs per game rated 10th. He wasn't quite as strong in 2003-04, hitting 39.3 percent, but his long-range shooting ability will be a big boost to a Clippers team that was last in the NBA in 3-pointers.
6. Peja Stojakovic, Sacramento Kings
Peja shot the lights out in 2003-04, hitting 43.3 percent while raining in three a game, but couldn't keep up the pace in 2004-05. His numbers still were outstanding (40.2 percent, 2.6 triples per game), and he had the best 2003-04 of any player on this list. Last year's "slump" kept him out of the top five.
5. Wesley Person, Memphis Grizzlies/Portland Trail Blazers/Atlanta Hawks/Miami Heat/Denver Nuggets
Person is similar to Piatkowski -- a veteran, 6-foot-7 swingman bouncing around the league, but using his shooting to stay afloat. Person got especially hot when he went to Denver last season, hitting 48.5 percent, and that performance should earn him another contract for this season. His career 41.8 percent mark is the best of anyone's in the top 10.
4. Fred Hoiberg, Minnesota Timberwolves (now a free agent)
The Mayor led the NBA in 3-point shooting last season at 48.3 percent and was no slouch the year before (44.2 percent). If we were just looking at percentages, he'd be in the top spot, but because Hoiberg doesn't shoot the rock as often as the top three guys, he falls short. Hopefully we'll get to see his sweet stroke again -- his career is in question after offseason heart surgery.
3. Damon Jones, Milwaukee Bucks/Miami Heat (now a free agent)
Jones exploded onto the scene last season by leading the NBA in 3-pointers -- of course, that might have something to do with the fact that he played alongside Shaquille O'Neal, after signing with the Heat in the offseason. But Jones also earned plenty of those 3s on his own, shooting off the dribble in transition or coming off a high screen. He became the first player since Larry Bird to lead the league in 3-pointers while finishing in the top five in percentage (43.2 percent).
2. Donyell Marshall, Chicago Bulls/Toronto Raptors (signed with Cleveland Cavaliers)
Surprise, surprise. Though nominally a 6-9 power forward, Marshall has become an assassin from the corners. He hit 41.6 percent on 3s last season and set an NBA record with 12 bombs in a game. Believe it or not, Marshall had the best rate of made 3-pointers in the NBA last year, making 2.3 per game in just over 25 minutes of action. His offseason move to the shooting-starved Cavaliers should be a perfect match.
1. Kyle Korver, Philadelphia 76ers
He doesn't rank No.1 in either percentage or frequency, but over the two seasons Korver has been the most consistent (39.1 and 40.5 percent) while hitting at a prolific rate (one every 11.4 minutes in his two seasons). Overall, he ranked fifth in 2003-04 and sixth last season, which doesn't seem like it should add up to No. 1. But most 3-point shooters see their percentages go up and down like yo-yos, which is why several of the top players from 2003-04 (Brent Barry, Anthony Peeler, Rasual Butler) and 2004-05 (Joe Johnson, Eddie House) don't cut the mustard when we combine the two seasons.
Plus, Korver should continue to be among the most deadly shooters for some time. The results are based on his first two seasons in the league, but most players need a year or two of adjustment to get used to the NBA's longer 3-point line. If this is how Korver's "adjustment period" panned out, I can only imagine how many nets he'll be ripping in future seasons.
"TOP GUN" RATINGS (Points added per 40 min.) Player 2003-04 2004-05 Overall Kyle Korver .61 .71 .679 Donyell Marshall .34 .85 .678 Damon Jones .18 .90 .66 Fred Hoiberg .44 .74 .64 Wesley Person .39 .75 .63 Peja Stojakovic .73 .56 .62 Cuttino Mobley .34 .68 .57 Ben Gordon N/A .56 .56 Eric Piatkowski .18 .67 .51 Mike Miller .22 .64 .50
John Hollinger, author of "Pro Basketball Forecast 2005-06," writes for ESPN Insider.
NBA.com
NBA.com's Playoffs Coverage
Adjust Font Size:
House Name: Pacers
House Sigil:
House Words: "We Kneel To No King"
Re: ESPN Insider request
Thanks. I didn't realize that it was only last year's players that were counted.
Comment
Re: ESPN Insider request
I believe there should be a distinction made for what type of thre point shots a player gets. Are they stand still wide open threes like JJ and Damon Jones gets. or are they from coming off picks or screen and rolls like Reggie or Ray Alen.
In other words more value should be given for those who have to create their own three point shot vs those who stand and wait for a superstar on their team to get double teamed.Comment
Re: ESPN Insider request
Steve Kerr ?Originally posted by Unclebuck
Why Not Us ?
Comment
Re: ESPN Insider request
Kerr is a good example of whatI'm talking about
As I look at the list above. I would put Ben Gordon at the top of the list. He does not get his from double teams, Ben shoots his over often two defenders. There are times when he cannot be stopped. While a player like Damon Jones is living off Shaq.Comment
Re: ESPN Insider request
Damn Chicago has a tough team.
I'm telling ya, if things go right for them they will suprise people out there. If they can bring back a healthy Curry & Chandler then I don't discount them from any kind of deep playoff run.
I don't want to face them in the playoffs.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
Re: ESPN Insider request
Originally posted by Peck
If Curry and Chandler stay healthy and continue to improve the Bulls will be very tough. But even best case scenerio, I don't see them as good as the Pacers, Pistons or Heat. But they could be the 4th best team in the east, they will be fighting with the Nets, Wizards and maybe Cavs for the last homecourt spot in the 1st round.Comment
Re: ESPN Insider request
Weren't they 4th best last year?Originally posted by Unclebuck
I'm not sure we are that much better than they are. Even going position by position I don't know if we really are better than them as much as people think.
Hinrich vs. Tinsley I'll give the edge to the Tin man but ever so slightly
Deng vs. Jackson Again I'll give the very slight edge here to Jax
Artest vs Nocioni Artest gets the nod
O'Neal vs Davis O'Neal
Foster vs. Curry Eddy Curry hands down
Now go to the bench I'll take Ben Gordon vs. anyone we wanna put on him.
Tyson Chandler as the first big man may be better than Harrison (we'll see)
Duhon & Pargo are both decent players but not specatucular. Saras is probably better than both of them.
I think Carlisle & Skiles are equal when it comes to coaching.
Even though I gave the Pacers the advantage I'm telling you it's close, closer than the above shows.
Of course that all changes if David Harrison is ready, but then again he can change everything.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
Re: ESPN Insider request
Skiles is a good coach and all but....Originally posted by Peck
I am curious on what grounds would you base that Skiles is Carlisle's equal ?
Why Not Us ?
Comment
Re: ESPN Insider request
I have no idea what Hollinger stats mean. By the time I get halfway through his explination I've lost interest.
On Chicago I don't think they have enough experience to make a deep run. Great talent but young."They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.
"'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."Comment
Re: ESPN Insider request
I don't think Carlisle and Skiles are as close as you say. I would take Rick any day.Comment
Comment