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

Foster's shooting

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

  • #46
    Re: Foster's shooting

    I understand wanting every player to be able to score if left open, but I don't agree that Jeff's FG % cost the team. He more then makes up for this with the additional possessions he gains the team in rebounding. How many shots does Jeff average anyway. Weather he goes 3 for 3 like tonight, or 0 for 3 doesn't mean as much Jax, or Al having a bad shooting night.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Foster's shooting

      Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
      None of the misses resulted in foul shots, be definition. If you're fouled while shooting it only counts as a FGA if you hit the shot.

      In other words, if a player misses a shot because he was fouled on the shot, it does not hurt his FG%.
      I figured that was the case. That is the way it was scored back in school. I had seen it mentioned in one of the posts, I could be wrong, and just threw the question in to see if I was correct. Of course, that makes those misses look even worse.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Foster's shooting

        Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
        Bobby Jones
        Kurt Rambis
        A.C Green
        Young Mchale
        Old Walton
        Horace Grant

        well maybe not Mchale and Walton
        You're not pointing those guys out as offensive liabilities, right? All of those guys had more O than Jeff does.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Foster's shooting

          I almost commented on Bobby Jones earlier today.

          He was regarded as the "defensive stopper" but he was double-digit scorer that shot > 55% for career numbers. He was not a liability on offense in any way.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Foster's shooting

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            The Pacers are averaging 95.8ppg this season. What do you think that number would be if Jeff made 55% of his field goals?

            Jeff has made 50 out of 108 attempts which gives him a 46.3 %. If he shot 55 %, that would mean he would have made 59 shots or an additional 18 points for the season. This would average out to .67 pts per game more. So the Pacers would be averaging 96.5 ppg instead of 95.8ppg. Wow!!!!

            It is actually a little less than that. On some occasions, Jeff gets two consecutive tip-ins which counts for 2 attempts. However, since they are on the same possession, you really can't count the two attempts, because they would still only account for two points whether he made it with one put back, two or three.

            Trying to lay any blame on losses for Foster's 46% instead of 55% is merely grabbing at straws and absolutely absurd!!!

            Now, if you took Jax's FGA's and multiplied them by a fair SG pct. of say 46%-50% or so instead of 40%, the points would be much more substantial. Another case, take JO's FGA's and multiply it by a good post player's pct. of 55% or so instead of his 47%, again the difference would be substantial.

            If you need me to ascertain how much higher our PPG would rise from our current 95.8 if their pct. increased in my aforementioned examples, please let me know. I'll be able to show you where some of our true problems lie.
            .

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Foster's shooting

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I've read this thread several times and I've been trying to decide whether I should respond and if so how should I respond.

              I want to ask a question.

              What do you think would be a good shooting percentage for Jeff - what should he be shooting?

              1) I would guess there is one shot attempt per game that is what I call a Hail Mary. The one where Jeff barely gets a fingertip on the ball (above, around, between, under two defenders) but Jeff is able to tip it towards the basket, but it really has no chance of going in. But maybe it hits the rim or glass and maybe either Jeff or some other Pacer is able to put it back in. So the Pacers score when otherwise they wouldn't.

              If we just throw that one attempt per game out, then Jeff is shooting 61% for the season.

              OK, so you think that is crazy - alright .

              2) what about the times Jeff has multiple tips, multiple shot attempts in a row. I would like to know what % of the time either Jeff eventually gets the ball in the basket or the Pacers score on the possession anyway. I'm sure it is a lot higher than 45%.


              I could go on and on with similar type of things, but let me stop right here and answer the question of "how many points is left on the floor every night because of Jeff. My answer - very few. If someone would go back and watch every minute Jeff has played and if they did a complete breakdown of his shots missed, and how often the Pacers scored on those possessions anyway and how many extra possesions Jeff has gotten for the team to begin with - Jeff shooting at 45% is a net plus for the Pacers offense. I'm not saying Jeff is a net plus for the Pacers defense or rebounding - we already know that - but Jeff is a net plus for the Pacers offense.

              Having said all that, Jeff should be shooting about 55% and I believe by the end of the season he will be. He's had a few "horrible" games recently, but that won't last.

              I do find it interesting that Jeff is being "graded" on his shooting. Are we going to start "grading" Tinsley on his shot blocking. I know that is a crazy comparison - but it is worth mentioning

              Your post makes some very valid points, however it'll probably be lost on the Foster bashers.

              Another point to consider is that Jeff probably keeps the ball alive an additional 4-5 times a game by tipping it out for another shot attempt. This stat does not show up anywhere in the box score. However, it provides additional points that we wouldn't have if not for the tip outs.

              It absolutely amazes me that anyone would harp on Jeff's shooting pct, with all the other things that he does that never shows up as stats. He probably sets more screens and picks than the rest of the players combined. How many clear shots and extra points do these picks account for with additional attempts?
              .

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Foster's shooting

                Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                We'll make a deal - we won't need to grade Jeff on his shooting when he has enough strength and discipline to control a rebound cleanly and pass it to somebody else.

                Why does he think he should attempt a putback anyway? He shoots a Stephen Jackson like percentage on so-called high percentage shots.

                For all the angst over Stephen Jackson shooting a low percentage on low-percentage shots (which I'm happy to complain about, of course), at least we can wish he'd attempt better shots. Jeff... well, he just needs to accept this limitation on his game and pass the ball.

                I think the shot charts would show us that Jeff's 8-to-10 foot jumper actually increases his FG% over his put-back %. Now that's scary, but I know I feel better with that shot than when I watch his put-back efforts.


                A lot of his put backs or tip in attempts, he doesn't have the position to actually control the ball. So, what would you have him do? Try to tip it in, or let the opposing team have it by standing there like some of his teammates do?
                .

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Foster's shooting

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Isn't it funny to see other people rushing to defend Foster on a legit stat issue. Now you know where I'm coming from with Jackson sometimes.

                  BTW, I hope you noticed that when I put a big chunk of blame on him (Jack) for blowing critical chances down the stretch vs the Jazz I was immediately labeled a Jackson hater. Pretty much sums up how insanely biased people can get.

                  Me, I'm equal opportunity complainer or supporter. I already noted that even for Jeff this is a terrible stretch of shooting. Normally he's a 50%+ guy.


                  As for the tip-ins and stuff, what about all the times he has been FED THE BALL at the rim and missed the shot. That's been part of the problem as well. The DEN game saw his stats padded out, and 2 of his rebounds there were actually tips by OTHER PLAYERS that he got credit for. (edit, incorrect credit given Jeff)

                  Frankly I don't feel wrong for expecting the big on the receiving end of a PnR that puts the ball in his hands at the rim to MAKE THE SHOT.

                  As for the "how much does it REALLY cost" angle, the point is easily made in defense of Jackson and Tinsley's shooting as well then. If Jack's FG% is good on just 1 more make per then it's only 2 points and that doesn't win games anymore than the extra point or two that Jeff loses with inside misses that need to go down at 55-60%


                  Back to Jeff. Just look at the Utah shot chart.
                  Disgusting. 3rd quarter, 2 shots at the rim, 2 misses, 2 offensive boards. Subtract the FGMiss from the O-reb. Now he's 0-1 with 4 total rebounds.

                  O-rebound on a Tins miss, fouled, 1-2 FTs. A legit chance at a 3pt play even, and certainly no better than an average outcome for the extra possession.

                  2 more O-boards, Tins misses layup off of first, Foster misses putback off the other.

                  The Utah tally for his 5 offensive boards, ONE POINT.

                  His other 2 points did come off FTs on his defensive board. But the bottom line is you had virtually nothing come from his offensive rebounding and no other offense from him at all. So what did he contribute? He gave up a possession on an offensive foul and gave up a FTA on a defensive lane violation (FT missed).

                  If he had just scored those 3 buckets inside he might have been looking at only 3 offensive boards, but a 3-3 night with 8 or 9 points (if he makes the and-1).

                  Tinsley is shooting better than Jeff this month, and actually lost 3.5% from his FG% with that 3-18 "gem" vs Utah. He was 42.4 coming into the game while Jeff was 36.3 before his 0-3. Jackson came in at 45.4 before going 3-10 vs Utah (and his 30-32 FTs has his PPS at a nice 1.29 for the month, Utah included).

                  The point remains that if you take away all the worthless rebounds that become no points due to his miss, or are falsely created by inside misses that should have just been made in the first place then what do you have? A 6 rpg guy getting 6 ppg on 50% shooting.

                  Not awful, but not what you'd like from the starting rebounding specialist PF/C. He's clearly had a bad month. It's okay to realize and admit this, doesn't make you a bad fan or a Jeff hater.

                  I think the team is playing much better ball with Jeff in the starting lineup. I just think he's been terrible with putbacks the last month or so, something he's had problems with in the past.



                  extra example - the NY game
                  1 o-board, missed layup (JO board and score)
                  1 o-board, missed layup (Marbury rebound)
                  1 o-board, kicks out and Pacers get no score on possession
                  1 o-board, missed layup (Pacers get team rebound, Saras 14s later makes shot)
                  1 o-board, pass and JO misses inside shot
                  1 o-board, missed layup (Foster then fouls, NY ball)
                  1 o-board, kicks out and Al later misses shot, no score for possession

                  So 7 offensive boards, 4 of which were wasted on missed putbacks, 3 others that become nothing. The 2 times his activity inside was in any way part of a score was when JO followed Foster's layup miss for a rebound and score and when the ball got tipped out for a team rebound and eventually became a Sarunas make.

                  Seth, why do you take two of the worst performances by Foster and dissect them so thoroughly? Because it fits your agenda? I could do the same for a few of his good performances and make him look like an all-star.
                  .

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Foster's shooting

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    Okay, in the Denver thread a few weeks ago some folks had a total meltdown when I questioned how useful Foster's 12 offensive boards were that night. I feel like I successfully defended the point when I went down the list of each of his credited O-boards for that game showing how often they were from his own misses or were just slaps at the ball rather than a true new possession.

                    So I'm browsing the stats today and looking at shooting for December. As I skim the numbers most things look as expected. I noticed that Jack's shot is coming around and with his FTs his PPS is one of the better totals for the team this month (good sign) and while looking at other decent minutes players I suddenly saw a Pacer with a SUB 1.00 PPS...less than 1 make per 2 shots (with no FTs at all).

                    Who was it? Jeff Foster. 0.96 PPS, 34% from the floor. Think about that. Review his shot charts. Jeff isn't shooting from JO spots, let alone from the outside like Al or Granger.

                    34% on an almost exclusive diet of inside passes and offensive rebound "putbacks" (if you can call slap shots a putback). Do you realize just how awful the 34% figure is for a rebound specialist PF? Guys like Dale would throw it down at 55% or better since almost everything was a dunk or layup.

                    His shooting makes Tinsley's December effort look good...and it's not. Both of them have been the kings of the blown 1 foot attempt.

                    Not sure what it means, I just know it sucks for Pacers fans. That's a lot of points being left on the floor every night that are very makeable.

                    Do you even realize, Seth, how just petty it truly is to harp on someone's shooting percentage who takes all of FOUR shot attempts a game. That is ludicrous! He makes almost half of his attempts and the most bunnies that he could be missing a game is TWO! You make it sound as if his misses are costing us games.

                    As I pointed out in another post, if he was shooting at 55%, we would be scoring 2/3 of a point more a game.

                    The guy takes 5% of the shot attempts and you want to pin something on him? Lame and ludicrous!
                    .

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Foster's shooting

                      Originally posted by Fool
                      I don't understand factoring out "Hail Mary" shot attempts. Those count as rebounds and so positively effect a statistical view of Foster. The fact that they weigh down his FG% would seem to be an evening out of the situation. After all, how useful is a "rebound" that can only be used for a "Hail Mary" attempt at a score? And I definately don't agree with simply reducing his FG attempts by one to account for them, especially since any made "Hail Mary"s are already factored positively into his FG% so just taking a shot attempt off his % is counting all his made ones and taking out all his missed ones (and probably a whole lot more since I doubt these "Hail Mary"s comprise 25% of his shot attempts).

                      As for the "what happens eventually" argument, how does that factor in? You already see his offensive rebound numbers and his fg% so you can have a perspective on how often he eventually gets the ball in the bucket (82games has his current "Tip Ins" e% at .364 and comprising 10% of his shot attempts). Is someone else getting a rebound off of a Foster miss supposed to count positively for Foster? Does it count positive for whoever shot the attempt that Foster rebounded in the first place?

                      I'm really dissapointed in the lack of "hoop in the driveway" jokes in here.

                      All this rhetoric over a player who takes the NINTH most FGA's on the team! I don't care how many offensive boards he's accredited with, the guy only shoots 4 times a game!
                      .

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Foster's shooting

                        Ok, I got tired reading all the posts bashing Foster for his "perceived" lack of a high shooting pct. of putting back attempts at point blank range. So, I'm going to quit answering each post and address them all.

                        Yes, Jeff misses a few put backs for whatever reason. Whether he tries to shoot too quickly or what, I don't know. However, a lot of his "shot attempts" are not truly that. Lots of times, he's just tipping the ball to keep it alive for one of his teammates. Just because they're close to the rim they count for shot attempts.

                        In addition, sometimes he'll tip the ball 2 or 3 times and make one of them. The most that could have come out of this situation is 2 points and 1 fta. However, he gets accredited for 2 or 3 shot attempts which is deceiving because it appears that he has blown a chance at two pts 1 or 2 of those attempts. Which is not true at all because the most points that could have been scored was 2 and 1 fta, but in the stat department it looks like he only made 2 points of a possible 6 points (3 attempts).

                        A post about a player who averages 4 shots a game proves someone has an agenda. He takes 5% of the available shots that the team totals.

                        He's missed a grand total of 58 shots this year or an average of 2 a game. Some of you guys make it seems that he's blowing tons of points, which is not remotely true. How in the hell can he be blowing so many points when he only misses two shots a game?

                        Now, there are a lot of players on the team who take many more shots than Jeff, that if they shot a few pct. points higher, it would truly make a difference in the outcome of the game. However, that's for another post. If I decide to continue to post here.
                        .

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Foster's shooting

                          Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                          Yeah, I had the pleasure of spending the evening on the Magnificent Mile, shopping. Good times.
                          Two questions:

                          Did you take your "Just Like You" doll?

                          Did you rate the $20 chicken finger dinner ?...........
                          PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Foster's shooting

                            Originally posted by Roferr View Post
                            A lot of his put backs or tip in attempts, he doesn't have the position to actually control the ball. So, what would you have him do? Try to tip it in, or let the opposing team have it by standing there like some of his teammates do?
                            Neither.

                            I think a Foster tip-in is such a low percentage play that I'd rather he tip the ball back to the perimeter where our guards can control it.

                            But Carlisle will never go for that, since he's so concerned with sending everybody back on defense in the first place, ignoring the opportunity for ORs.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Foster's shooting

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              The Pacers are averaging 95.8ppg this season. What do you think that number would be if Jeff made 55% of his field goals?
                              I'm surprised no one ran these numbers.

                              To answer your question - the Pacers would be averaging 96.4 points per game.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Foster's shooting

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                I'm surprised no one ran these numbers.

                                To answer your question - the Pacers would be averaging 96.4 points per game.

                                I ran the numbers. You must have missed them.
                                .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X