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

Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

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

  • #46
    Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

    Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
    It's absolutely amazing to me that anyone could have watched that playoff series and concluded that Granger outplayed Deng.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

      Originally posted by daschysta View Post
      Elaborate. They were directly matched up (actually granger was routinely double teamed while luol saw single coverage over and over again), rebounded at a superior rate (per minute) Shot drastically better, comfortably outscored luol and was the only consistant offensive player on a team that played the number one seed much more closely than they had any right to.

      The real question is how anyone can watch that playoff series and conclude that deng outplayed granger...

      I'm sure you realize that they were matched up head to head and granger was the one player on the entire pacers roster that performed well on the offensive side of the ball, and deng himself had a putrid offensive series...

      There really isn't a single objective measure that suggests granger didn't outplay deng in that series, and the only subjective one that suggests that is granger hatred.

      (that is unless you're placing the blame for our 8 seed losing to the one seed on granger or giving credit to luol for putting us away... Korver killed us more in relative terms than deng, and they have a guy named rose that is... pretty good...)

      Despite way more attention payed to him by chicago's defense than the other way around granger was significantly better than deng in basically every single way, and in less minutes.


      As for the list, danny had an off year. Personally he could have been as high as 40 or so, but he didn't have that amazing of a regular season last year. I think he's more efficient next year, and if some of our youth like George, Collison, Hill, and Hibbert/hans can take more of the offensive load off of him he can have a great bounce back season. Danny was easily top 30 in the NBA during his all-star season, and he can get back to that form, even if it doesn't mean being top five in scoring in the league again.
      I'm with you, watching that serious Deng looked more like Rush than a top 50 player in the league. Well neither Boozer or Noah played like top 50 players also, but they both got into the top 50 according to this list. I mean according to this list the Bulls had 4 players better than the Pacers best player, yet with just a few more balls bouncing our way each game it could have just as easily been the Pacers beating the Bulls instead of the Bulls beating the Pacers.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
        It's absolutely amazing to me that anyone could have watched that playoff series and concluded that Granger outplayed Deng.
        I seriously don't know what you're talking about. Granger was the only pacer doing anything offensively and lite up Deng.
        Last edited by righteouscool; 08-09-2011, 01:21 AM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          I won't argue with current placement based on Danny's poor year, but he's one decent season away from drastically climbing this list.
          He already had it in his All Star year. 26/5/2.7/1.5/1 on 45%/40% on a REALLY bad team was truly just outstanding. We'll never see another season like that from Danny. At least, I hope not. I don't want to say it's "easy" to put up those kind of numbers on a crap team because it's anything but, but it's a lot harder to keep doing it, as we've seen. I was saying it back then (I promise) that if Granger was going to be putting up 25+ a night then we'd never make the playoffs with him in that role. Statistically, if last year was poor, then that's two in a row.

          I by no means WANT to move Danny, but he's 28 now, he'll be in his 7th year (whenever it happens) next season. He more than likely is what he is at this point, if he doesn't expand his game and evolve into something other than just a shooter I'm more than open to moving him as grateful as I am for him becoming the "face of the franchise" during the lowest years of my cognizant fandom.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

            Originally posted by LetsTalkPacers View Post
            Seconded.

            Some people...

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

              I think some troll is getting a little bit jealous of Danny's performance in the Playoffs...

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

                Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                Elaborate.
                I will.

                Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                They were directly matched up (actually granger was routinely double teamed while luol saw single coverage over and over again), rebounded at a superior rate (per minute) Shot drastically better, comfortably outscored luol and was the only consistant offensive player on a team that played the number one seed much more closely than they had any right to.

                The real question is how anyone can watch that playoff series and conclude that deng outplayed granger...
                Woah, woah, woah. Granger was in no way, shape, or form, routinely double teamed. This is complete fabrication. There is absolutely no reason to double team Danny Granger. He is a jump shooter. Why would anyone ever double team a jump shooter who does very little when it comes to shot creation?

                Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                I'm sure you realize that they were matched up head to head and granger was the one player on the entire pacers roster that performed well on the offensive side of the ball, and deng himself had a putrid offensive series...
                Is that what happened? Did Deng tackle the job of defending "the only consistent offensive player on the team," while Granger got to spend the whole series defending a putrid offensive player?

                If that is the case, how was his series so putrid offensively if "the one player on the entire Pacers' roster that performed well on the offensive side of the ball" could only outscore him by 3 points per game?

                Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                There really isn't a single objective measure that suggests granger didn't outplay deng in that series, and the only subjective one that suggests that is granger hatred.
                There are many objective measures that suggest that Granger was outplayed in the series. I'll post all the numbers further down the list. Take a look at the +/- numbers, for instance. Even in our lone win, Granger was a negative by that metric.

                I wish NBA.com wouldn't have done away with the Stats Cube. That thing was perfect for this situation.

                Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                (that is unless you're placing the blame for our 8 seed losing to the one seed on granger or giving credit to luol for putting us away... Korver killed us more in relative terms than deng, and they have a guy named rose that is... pretty good...)
                No, I'm not placing the blame on Granger for us losing, and I'm not giving Deng credit for the Bulls closing out the series. The Bulls were a better team. They have 3 or 4 players better than our best player. We fared much better than I expected to.

                However, this retrospective romanticizing of the way the series went is ridiculous.

                I've seen numerous posts talking about how great Granger was in the series. He was ok. He was basically the same as he was during the regular season. I've seen posts talking about how great Hansbrough was during the playoffs. He was fantastic in Game 1, and pretty abysmal during the rest of the series. Really good 20% of the time, a detriment the rest of the time. Basically the same as he was during the regular season. I've seen several people mention Darren Collison "stepping up in the playoffs before he got hurt." I saw a player try to do too much, making huge mistakes at huge times. Basically the exact same thing he was doing during the regular season.

                The only player who I thought was significantly better in the playoffs was Paul George, and he was basically the worst offensive player in the whole series.

                Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                Despite way more attention payed to him by chicago's defense than the other way around granger was significantly better than deng in basically every single way, and in less minutes.
                He played less minutes, that's true, but shouldn't the "one player on the entire Pacers' roster who played well offensively" be playing more minutes than a guy having a "putrid offensive series?" Sure, Granger scored more, but Deng's overall impact was much greater beyond a simple look at points per game.

                Deng had more rebounds, more assists, more steals, and more blocks than Granger. He nearly doubled him in free throw attempts.

                THERE IS MORE TO BASKETBALL THAN HOW MANY POINTS EACH PLAYER SCORES!

                And yet, since that seems to be the only thing anyone cares about, Granger only scored 3 more points per game. As the "the one player on the entire Pacers' roster that performed well on the offensive side of the ball," compared to a guy having "a putrid offensive series."

                Something doesn't add up.

                Game 1:

                Granger: 40 min, 10-20 fgs, 4-8 3's, 0-0 ft, 1 orb, 5 drb, 6 trb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 1 blk, 1 to, 2 pf, -5 +/-, 24 pts

                Deng: 41 min, 7-13 fgs, 2-3 3's, 2-4 ft, 5 orb, 5 drb, 10 trb, 2 ast, 1 stl, 0 blk, 2 to, 3 pf, +10 +/-, 18 pts

                Bulls win 104-99

                Game 2:

                Granger: 35 min, 7-14 fgs, 0-2 3's, 5-6 ft, 1 orb, 1 drb, 2 trb, 4 ast, 3 stl, 0 blk, 1 to, 4 pf, -12 +/-, 19 pts

                Deng: 39 min, 3-13 fgs, 1-3 3's, 7-8 ft, 3 orb, 3 drb, 6 trb, 0 ast, 2 stl, 0 blk, 3 to, 1 pf, +13 +/-, 14 pts

                Bulls win 96-90

                Game 3:

                Granger: 35 min, 10-21 fgs, 1-5 3's, 0-0 ft, 2 orb, 2 drb, 4 trb, 2 ast, 2 stl, 0 blk, 1 to, 3 pf, -9 +/-, 21 pts

                Deng: 45 min, 8-19 fgs, 2-6 3's, 3-4 ft, 3 orb, 3 drb, 6 trb, 6 ast, 0 stl, 1 blk, 2 to, 3 pf, +9 +/-, 21 pts

                Bulls win 88-84

                Game 4:

                Granger: 38 min, 9-19 fgs, 0-4 3's, 6-7 ft, 1 orb, 9 drb, 10 trb, 4 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 1 to, 0 pf, -5 +/-, 24 pts

                Deng: 45 min, 5-14 fgs, 1-5 3's, 5-6 ft, 2 orb, 1 drb, 3 trb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 0 blk, 1 to, 3 pf, -1 +/-, 16 pts

                Pacers win 89-84

                Game 5:

                Granger: 37 min, 7-16 fgs, 3-4 3's, 3-3 ft, 1 orb, 5 drb, 6 trb, 3 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 3 to, 3 pf, -27 +/-, 20 pts

                Deng: 41 min, 7-14 fgs, 3-5 3's, 7-8 ft, 1 orb, 5 drb, 6 trb, 7 ast, 3 stl, 1 blk, 2 to, 1 pf, +31 +/-, 24 pts

                Bulls win 116-89


                Series Totals:

                Granger: 185 min, 43-90 fgs, 8-23 3's, 14-16 ft, 6 orb, 22 drb, 28 trb, 16 ast, 6 stl, 1 blk, 7 to, 12 pf, -58 +/-, 108 pts

                Deng: 211 min, 30-73 fgs, 9-22 3's, 24-30 ft, 14 orb, 17 drb, 31 trb, 18 ast, 7 stl, 2 blk, 10 to, 11 pf, +62 +/-, 93 pts

                Bulls win 4-1

                Series Averages:

                Granger: 37 min, 47.8% fgs, 34.8% 3's, 87.5% ft, 1.2 orb, 4.4 drb, 5.6 trb, 3.2 ast, 1.2 stl, 0.2 blk, 1.4 to, 2.4 pf, -11.6 +/-, 21.6 pts

                Deng: 42.2 min, 41.1% fgs, 41.1% 3's, 80.0 % ft, 2.8 orb, 3.4 drb, 6.2 trb, 3.6 ast, 1.4 stl, 0.4 blk, 2 to, 2.2 pf, +12.4 +/-, 18.6 pts

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

                  Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                  I think some troll is getting a little bit jealous of Danny's performance in the Playoffs...
                  Right that makes a ton of sense. Someone who doesn't play basketball is jealous of a player's performance in a playoff series.

                  Please define jealousy.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

                    Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                    I think some troll is getting a little bit jealous of Danny's performance in the Playoffs...
                    Trying to glean anything from that 5 game sample is meaningless but Danny's playoff performance is massively overrated.

                    At best, he played Deng to a standstill. But even that is probably a stretch.

                    I would wager that Deng's massively superior defense is worth enough to make up for 3 points a game.

                    Playoff series per game stats:

                    Pts:
                    Granger: 21.6
                    Deng: 18.6

                    Reb:
                    Granger: 5.6
                    Deng: 6.2

                    Ast:
                    Granger: 3.2
                    Deng: 3.6

                    Stl:
                    Granger: 1.2
                    Deng: 1.4

                    Blk:
                    Granger: 0.2
                    Deng: 0.4

                    Series +/-:
                    Obviously, game 5 is an outlier and should be taken as such. Game 4 is somewhat interesting though.

                    Game 1:
                    Granger: -5
                    Deng: +10

                    Game 2:
                    Granger: -12
                    Deng: +13

                    Game 3:
                    Granger: -9
                    Deng: +9

                    Game 4:
                    Granger: -5
                    Deng: -1

                    Game 5:
                    Granger: -27
                    Deng: +31
                    Last edited by BRushWithDeath; 08-09-2011, 09:10 AM. Reason: Or what he said as I was typing evidently.
                    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                    -Lance Stephenson

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

                      I think both of you aren't giving Danny enough credit for shooting 48% against the Bulls defense. Who exactly was Deng's "massively superior defense" shutting down in this series? Because against that "massively superior defense" Danny shot better and scored better than he did during the regular season.

                      I'm not saying Deng was terrible and he's a crucial part to the Bulls success, but to me it's not really up for debate who outplayed the other during that series. Granger was a pretty efficient scorer that series, and he rebounded and passed that ball better than he did during the regular season. Yeah, he gave up 18ppg to Deng as well, but Deng did that at a 41% shooting clip, so you tell me, who was playing better defense?

                      EDIT: As far as the +/- in game 4, give me a flippin' break anyone with a pair of functioning eyes knows we wouldn't have won that game without Danny's contributions.

                      Yes, Danny "only" out scored Deng by 3 PPG as both of you have made clear, but he also out shot Deng by 7%! And that is really the important statistic here.

                      Especially when both of you are claiming that Deng's defense had such a huge impact, but if he Danny was scoring MORE efficiently against him than he did during the regular season how good was his defense really? And if it wasn't his on ball defense that set him apart maybe he was a beast in the passing lanes, but Deng's 1.4 steals suggests not really...so yeah Deng is normally a better defender than Danny, but Danny pretty much had his way with Deng on the offensive side of the ball this series. And Deng was significantly less efficient in his scoring opportunities. If Danny was scoring 21 PPG, but shooting 41% in this series, then you guys could say that all Danny did was out score Deng by 3 PPG, but that's not really telling the whole truth in this case.
                      Last edited by Trader Joe; 08-09-2011, 09:32 AM.


                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        I think both of you aren't giving Danny enough credit for shooting 48% against the Bulls defense. Who exactly was Deng's "massively superior defense" shutting down in this series? Because against that "massively superior defense" Danny shot better and scored better than he did during the regular season.

                        I'm not saying Deng was terrible and he's a crucial part to the Bulls success, but to me it's not really up for debate who outplayed the other during that series. Granger was a pretty efficient scorer that series, and he rebounded and passed that ball better than he did during the regular season. Yeah, he gave up 18ppg to Deng as well, but Deng did that at a 41% shooting clip, so you tell me, who was playing better defense?
                        There's a whole lot more to defense than just what your direct counterpart does but that's neither here nor there.

                        I do think saying that Granger outplayed Deng in the series is wrong but if you want to, so be it. They were basically equal. That isn't an indictment of Granger. They are basically equal as players so it makes sense that they should play about equal in a series. But people getting up in arms over one unbiased sportswriter saying Deng is a slightly better player than Granger is absurd.
                        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                        -Lance Stephenson

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

                          To me it's not about the sports writer, as I don't really care about the list.

                          As far as Deng's supposedly huge defensive impact on this series, where did it occur?


                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

                            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                            And yet, since that seems to be the only thing anyone cares about, Granger only scored 3 more points per game. As the "the one player on the entire Pacers' roster that performed well on the offensive side of the ball," compared to a guy having "a putrid offensive series."

                            Something doesn't add up.
                            Yeah, the Bulls had the MVP of the league who was taking over the game at the end and hitting crucial baskets.

                            Danny is the only Pacer player who had a good series. Who else played well?


                            PG defended well, but he didn't really score. DC played well up until he got hurt. Roy? Not really. Tyler? A few games. The list just gets worse as we go down it.

                            Yet the Pacers gave the Bulls all they could handle. How?

                            If Deng outplayed the Pacers best player, and Rose clearly out played everyone, the series wouldn't have been as close as it was.

                            You're right. Something isn't adding up.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              Yes, Danny "only" out scored Deng by 3 PPG as both of you have made clear, but he also out shot Deng by 7%! And that is really the important statistic here.

                              Especially when both of you are claiming that Deng's defense had such a huge impact, but if he Danny was scoring MORE efficiently against him than he did during the regular season how good was his defense really? And if it wasn't his on ball defense that set him apart maybe he was a beast in the passing lanes, but Deng's 1.4 steals suggests not really...so yeah Deng is normally a better defender than Danny, but Danny pretty much had his way with Deng on the offensive side of the ball this series. And Deng was significantly less efficient in his scoring opportunities. If Danny was scoring 21 PPG, but shooting 41% in this series, then you guys could say that all Danny did was out score Deng by 3 PPG, but that's not really telling the whole truth in this case.
                              I never mentioned defense, take that up with BWD. I also never said that Deng outplayed Granger. I said it was astonishing that anyone could have watched that series and thought Granger outplayed Deng. They basically played each other to a draw.

                              However, it doesn't make any sense to pretend that because Granger shot 48% and Deng only shot 41% that somehow their efficiency was so different that Granger outplayed him. Saying that shooting percentage, alone, is the important statistic is a fallacy. You should consider that Deng attempted and made nearly twice as many free throws, and also shot a significantly higher percentage from the three point line.

                              Granger's field goal shooting percentage was significantly higher, but his overall efficiency? Not so.

                              Granger scored 1.20 points per shot.

                              Deng scored 1.27 points per shot.


                              Deng shot a lower percentage by 7 points, sure, and yet he was still the more efficient offensive player.
                              Last edited by Mackey_Rose; 08-09-2011, 02:45 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Danny Granger is the 51st best player in the NBA/SI.com

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                To me it's not about the sports writer, as I don't really care about the list.

                                As far as Deng's supposedly huge defensive impact on this series, where did it occur?
                                It doesn't take a huge defensive impact to make up for 3 points per game. I can't find the stats to back this up, so my recollection of it could be as off as everyone else's recollections of the playoff series (Granger greatly outplaying Deng, Hansbrough being clutch, Bogans being horrible, etc.) but Deng's fastbreak defense was as good as I've seen in a long time. We are a poor fastbreak team to begin with, but I distinctly remember Deng single handedly shutting down a few of our fastbreaks. I wish I could find the numbers but I imagine our fastbreaks were even worse in the playoffs than they were during the season. Deng played a big part in that.

                                Also, Granger was not a hugely more efficient scorer in the playoffs than he was during the season. He was basically the same. His true shooting percentage, which is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account 2-point field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws, was .554 in the regular season and .556 in the playoffs. He improved by .002.
                                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                                -Lance Stephenson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X