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

Interesting read: NBA centers playing fewer minutes

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

  • Interesting read: NBA centers playing fewer minutes

    sorry if this article from 2 days ago already posted-- if so please delete.

    http://www.hoopshype.com/columns/centers_hans.htm

    Starting centers merit more minutes
    by Dennis Hans / January 17, 2006

    “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.”

    That’s what NBA centers should be saying. In fact, they should be screaming it from the rooftops. But for whatever reasons, they can’t or won’t. That’s why I’ve formed the mentoring and advocacy organization Short People Helping Tall People. Our first goal is to gain for our vertically gifted friends a fair shake on the basketball court, and that means playing time (PT) comparable to that of shorter players.

    Compare the minutes per game and fouls per minutes of centers, with guards or forwards.

    The quality starters at guard and forward average 35 to 42 minutes. At center, the range is 25 to 36. A key factor slowing the development of young centers is the dark cloud of foul trouble, which hovers over every pivot man not named Ben Wallace. It puts them on the bench for long stretches, and it makes for other stretches of timid, cautious play, for they know that one false step or reach could produce a whistle that puts them right back on the pine.

    Tyson Chandler is a talented young center and terrific rebounder. Now in his fifth season, he has yet to average 30 minutes. He’s presently at 24.5, and he gets called for a foul every 7 minutes; for his career, it’s a foul every 8 minutes. Eddy Curry averages 26.1 minutes. For his career, he commits a foul every 7.8 minutes, and that’s without playing defense!

    It’s not just the kids who are affected. Shaquille O'Neal is averaging a career-low 28.3 minutes and a career-high of one foul every 7 minutes. Zydrunas Ilgauskas averages 30.0 and a foul every 7.5 minutes.

    As of Jan. 16, here are the centers who average more than 30 minutes: Brad Miller 37.0, Ben Wallace 36.5, PJ Brown 34.6, Yao Ming 34.0, Marcus Camby 33.6, Zaza Pachulia 31.9, Chris Kaman 31.7, Jamaal Magloire 31.3, Samuel Dalembert 30.4.

    Of those, probably only Miller, Wallace, Brown and Camby are playing as many minutes as their coach would like them to play.

    Here are some of the starting centers averaging under 30 minutes: Nenad Krstic 29.1, Mark Blount 29.3, Shaq 28.3, Kurt Thomas 27.3, Chris Mihm 26.9, Curry 26.1, Tony Battie 25.5, Joel Przybilla 25.4, Brendan Haywood 25.1, Lorenzen Wright 24.7, Chandler 24.5, Erick Dampier 24.5, Michael Olowokandi 24.0, Jarron Collins 23.3, Adonal Foyle 23.1, Radoslav Nesterovic 21.9, Jeff Foster 21.1.

    Several of those, we readily concede, are so-so players who would hurt their team if they averaged 36 minutes. But more than a few from that mixed bag should be in the 33-39 minutes range.

    Yao, who has spent most of his adult life in foul trouble, has managed to average a career-high 34 minutes this season. It should be a career low. A good young center like Yao should average at least 40. In the 2005 playoffs he averaged a paltry 31 – and a foul every 7 minutes. He and his first-round foe, Erick Dampier (who averaged but 24 minutes in his 13 playoff games, and a foul every 5.7 minutes), seemed to have two fouls apiece halfway through warmups.

    If you look at the solid starters at the other positions, you’ll see foul-per-minute rates far lower than for centers. You’ll find dozens of players who get whistled once every 12, 16 or even 20 minutes. Not only do these guys get to average, say, 38 minutes; for the most part those are 38 “free-and-easy” minutes. Little of their court time is spent walking on egg shells, where the next false step could produce a whistle that sends them to the bench.

    Let’s be clear: It’s a good thing that guards and forwards, in general, get loads of free-and-easy PT. Our goal is not to saddle them with foul trouble, but to sensibly alter certain rules so that it’s just as easy for quality centers – we’re not talking about stiffs, brutes and backups – to average 38 free-and-easy minutes.

    Several factors contribute to the modern center’s piney plight:

    - On defense, he must guard his own man, usually close to the basket where contact is a constant and the ref has just cause to blow the whistle at most any moment.

    - He is playing in the Stern Era, where flopping is considered a legitimate tactic rather than cheating, and where “dislodging” is illegal on paper but rarely enforced when the defender plays it straight by trying to retain his balance. Much of low-post play has little to do with basketball skills. Instead, it’s a mix of sumo-style banging and pro-wrestling theatrics, which makes it a guessing game for both refs and players. It also leads to extra whistles when refs try to clean up a mess that the league itself needs to address.

    - He is his team’s last line of defense for cutters and drivers. Depending on his coach, he may be under orders to deliberately foul the instant he senses he can’t prevent a certain deuce with a non-fouling play. The “No layups” and “Make him earn it at the line” philosophies, aside from being bad for the game, disproportionately impact centers.

    - The ban on perimeter hand-checking (a well-intentioned over-reaction to excessive holding, shoving and otherwise throttling of the very players fans pay to see), now in its second season, has increased the number of drives and the speed at which penetrators reach the basket area, which has led to more fouls for big men. The top nine players in free-throw attempts are all guards and small forwards; several are heading for career highs in this category.

    - He may play for one of the many coaches obsessed with preventing penetration and who require their big men to, whenever possible, turn dribble-drives and cuts to the basket into block/charge collisions. This makes for an extremely ugly game, as fans of the Bulls, Rockets, Grizzlies, Pacers, Knicks, etc., know. Block/charge demolition derbies generally mean foul trouble for bigs.

    - He must battle for rebounds and rebounding position under both baskets, further increasing the likelihood of fouls.

    - He’s frequently called on to set picks, which leads to an occasional foul (and usually a good call) even though it’s the center who gets run into. (Such whistles are even more frequent this season, as the NBA has made illegal screens one of its “points of emphasis.”) Sometimes he’ll get whistled because of a teammate’s poor decision, such as dribbling his man into the pick before the center has time to set his feet.

    - He may be carrying extra weight, and is therefore not as quick and agile as he could be and thus is more foul prone, because the coach wants him to be a “banger” who can resist the dislodging moves of Shaq, Jermaine O’Neal, Eddy Curry and others.

    In short, the modern center’s constant struggle to avoid foul trouble has little to do with him and a whole lot to do with his job requirements and the perverted nature of today’s game. But with four common sense changes we can dramatically increase PT for centers and improve the aesthetic appeal of the NBA game.

    1) Make non-brutal illegal screens a loss-of-possession violation, like traveling. Only dirty picks – sticking out an elbow, forearm or bony knee – will be a foul. Probably 90 percent of illegal screens fall into the non-dirty category.

    2) Quit treating intentional fouls as if they were non-intentional. Current penalties for the latter are fine; for the former, they are so weak that they function as rewards. Most intentional fouls – grabs by beaten or outmanned defenders to abort fast breaks or halfcourt drives; hugs and muggings to prevent layups and dunks – are based on the premise that the opposing team is less likely to score two points if they have to restart their offense by inbounding the ball or step to the line for a pair of free throws than if the fast break, drive or power move had continued. Only a league run by morons provides an incentive to deliberately foul. If we make the penalty an actual penalty – two points for the fouled player, and his team retains possession of the ball – refs will never have to invoke the rule because no one would be so stupid as to intentionally foul. We’ll have fewer stoppages of play, more fast breaks, less roughhousing, and fewer fouls, particularly by centers.

    3) Give each team one “foul coupon.” This can be cashed in at the scorer’s table at any time of the game to remove a foul from a player’s total. The foul still counts as a team foul, but instead of Shaq, Yao or even some little dude having to sit after his sixth, the coach can keep him in the game until he draws a seventh whistle. The coupon is a “use it or lose it” proposition; you can’t horde them so Shaq can commit 43 fouls in the season finale.

    4) Make it a loss-of-possession violation (not a foul) for a low-post player to back, buttwhack or low-shoulder his way into the lane. He can still enter the lane by spinning around his defender, swooping around him for a running hook, or facing up and going by the defender by pump-faking him off his feet or beating him with a quick first step. But his days of bullying his way into the lane or all the way to the hoop are over. In return, the defender can no longer lean on the posting player, which is just as well, because in the new NBA, with the accent on quickness and agility, an off-balance defender won’t stand a chance.

    With these changes, we’ll not only reduce the threat of foul trouble, we’ll remake center into a full-time basketball position, where quickness, creativity and skill, rather than brute strength or a gift for flopping, are paramount.

    Skinny skyscrapers such as Kevin Garnett and Chris Bosh could play center full-time without getting worn down, which would enable the league to rid itself of 40 or so big dudes who have no right to call themselves “professional athletes.” (Here at Short People Helping Tall People, we “tell it like it is” even when the truth hurts some of those we’re trying to help.) Also, a coach would be less hesitant to match his best against the other team’s best. That is, we’d get 40 minutes of Shaq vs. Camby or Amare Stoudemire vs. Tim Duncan, rather than mismatches concocted to avoid the catastrophe of having your best big man limited to 25 foul-plagued minutes.

    NBA fans of yesteryear are mighty glad they got to see Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell square off for 48 minutes in dozens of important games, rather than see Wilt guarded by a committee of sacrificial lambs (drawn from the likes of Tommy Heinsohn, Wayne Embry, Don Nelson, John Thompson, Bailey Howell and Willie Naulls) so that Russell could avoid foul trouble. It’s great for fans and great for the game when the greats go toe-to-toe – and both men know in advance that, as long as they play clean, chances are good they’ll put in 40 or more free-and-easy minutes.

    Quality centers must understand that they are all in the same boat and must work together. They must demand a system of rules that makes it as easy for them to average 36-42 minutes as it is for their shorter teammates.


    ---
    foul coupon?

    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

  • #2
    Re: Interesting read: NBA centers playing fewer minutes

    Originally posted by pacertom
    ---
    foul coupon?

    Indeed.

    In short, the modern center’s constant struggle to avoid foul trouble has little to do with him and a whole lot to do with his job requirements and the perverted nature of today’s game.
    Thats exactly wrong.

    Also, less minutes means more centers in the league (to fill the time) so the whole satirical opening is backwards as well.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Interesting read: NBA centers playing fewer minutes

      Weird read
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Interesting read: NBA centers playing fewer minutes

        good ideas

        besides the foul coupon thing, that was just sooo dumb.
        *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Interesting read: NBA centers playing fewer minutes

          Intentional fouls, huh?

          -Bball
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Interesting read: NBA centers playing fewer minutes

            I couldn't help notice that the one center who is leading the league in min. played at the center spot is.... well I'll get back to that.

            I also was flipping through todays paper & saw that an un-named all-star center was talking with the person in charge of the new Olympic team & then how that same un-named all-star center went out & laid down one dime short of a triple double.

            Hmmm.....All-star, Olympian....... Nope, not worth the money cause he doesn't play as many games a year as Jermaine O'Nea..... Oops sorry let me restate because he's played in more games.

            Ok he wasn't worth the money because he breaks down every year towards the playoffs & wasn't able to stay healthy like Jamaal Tins..... Well crap that didn't work either.

            Let me try again.

            There was no way we could keep him because he wasn't ever healthy like Jon Bend..... Ok, that one was to easy. Let's try something harder shall we.

            Un-Named all-star center could not be paid his money because he just wasn't as durable as good old dependable Jeff Fost.....What!!! you mean that he's even played more games the last two years than even Iron Man? Let me refigure this... Um well yea. Over the last two season Un-Named All-star center 93 games Jeff Foster 84 games. How can this be...

            Yes, I know who is about to get on here & dazzle us all with his wonderfull quote from a commentator but frankly I don't care.

            Basketball folks, between the lines, that's all that matters & this was the stupidest trade that was ever made.

            The entire debacle of Walsh being some form of sooth sayer rings hallow because of his extensions to Tinsley & Bender when both of those players had demonstrated poor health.

            Again all you will have (& you know who you are) is that Un-Named All-star player has had some physical breakdowns as the year has progressed.

            Yet on my side I have the following.

            1. ALL-STAR in two conferances

            2. Possible Olympian

            3. Leads entire NBA in min. played at the center spot

            4. Has played in more NBA games over the past three years than Jamaal Tinsley & Jon Bender combined. Yes, combined. All-star 165 games J.T. & J.B. 140

            5. Is more valuable than Ron Artest. This cannot be disputed.

            6. Do I even have to compare stats to our starting centers for the past two years?


            Like I said when the trade went down, if we were looking for a new center anytime before that 7 year timeline it was a massive failure on our part.

            We are now all praying to God that David Harrison can rapidly develop so that way in a year or two he will be ready. If un-named All-star were here David would be able to learn from him & then naturally progress & take over the starters spot in 3-4 years. As it is now he is going to sink or swim, which is not a bad thing btw.

            Ok, I will leave on this small note here.

            Horrible horrible trade, as we said then.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Interesting read: NBA centers playing fewer minutes

              Peck needs a beer.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Interesting read: NBA centers playing fewer minutes

                I love the fact that Brad has leap-froged the former Iron-Man Jeff Foster in games played the past two seasons, which include Miller's worst year in terms of total games played.

                Nice over-all summary.

                Comment

                Working...
                X