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

George Hil a MIP candidate?

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

  • George Hil a MIP candidate?

    http://nba.si.com/2013/01/02/oklahom...?sct=uk_t11_a5

    With the biggest disappointments in the NBA this season already packaged and delivered, it’s time that we reflect on a topic more fitting of the new calendar year: self-improvement. Here’s a look at 12 players with pronounced improvements in their games.

    FIRST TEAM

    Serge Ibaka, Oklahoma City Thunder: If Kendrick Perkins is to blame for the Thunder’s overly conventional lineups with two court-clogging big men, Ibaka could rightly be credited for some of the team’s push-back solvency. If nothing else, Perkins’ very presence has forced Ibaka to stretch his game over the past few seasons, and this season we’ve begun to see the considerable payoff from that evolution.

    Such dividends begin with Ibaka’s vast improvement as a spot-up shooter — an area in which he has quietly done solid work for the last few seasons. But the difference between Ibaka’s meek effectiveness last season (46 percent on 2.6 long two-point attempts per game, according to Hoopdata) and this season’s confident hoisting (50 percent on 4.5 attempts) is stark. Those mid-range looks have become shots that both Ibaka and his teammates fully expect him to take and make, to the point that he receives an earful from Russell Westbrook if he shows even the slightest hesitation in pulling the trigger. That consistent vote of confidence has helped Ibaka to become a more dynamic player.

    There’s nothing sexy about converting long twos, and with how often the Thunder score at the rim, get to the free-throw line and convert their three-point tries, Ibaka’s intermediate looks might not seem preferable by comparison. That said, his mid-range attempts — born of ball reversals and dribble-drive playmaking — represent the Thunder’s capitalization of a slim but useful moment in time. Oklahoma City can’t get every shot from the most efficient zones on the floor, just as it can’t conclude every possession with a quality attempt for Kevin Durant. But OKC continues to build on its already brilliant offense by turning every advantage into a point of profit. The room offered to Ibaka on the perimeter has become one such advantage, and, given an offense rich with shot creation, an added bit of flexibility.

    (Plus, Ibaka has periodically put the ball on the floor after making a mid-range catch in order to draw a foul or finish emphatically at the rim. That’s an entirely new wrinkle to his game, and one that’s altogether frightening. Can you imagine what it might ultimately mean for the Thunder offense if those burst drives were to become a more dependable part Ibaka’s repertoire?)

    George Hill, Indiana Pacers: On a superficial level, it would be easy to call Hill’s improvements (+1.9 points, +1.1 assists per-36 minutes relative to last season) modest. But the fifth-year guard has matured into a calming influence after years of inconsistent play both on and off the ball. Hill has become a lifeline for a Pacers team that’s otherwise starved for competent point guard play, and brought the NBA’s 29th-ranked offense to league-average scoring levels whenever he’s on the floor. Bolster those credentials with Hill’s always solid defense, and he begins to resemble a primordial Chauncey Billups — flexible defensively, characteristically unafraid and coming into his own as both a spot scorer and low-risk caretaker.

    Kemba Walker, Charlotte Bobcats: Young NBA players are expected to improve, but I wasn’t totally convinced that Walker was capable of his current level of performance at all, much less in Year 2. Where many saw a natural leader and a former college standout, I saw only a quick guard who would likely struggle with the size and speed of NBA defenders, and an offense-first player reliant on pull-up jumpers. To me, that seemed to be the résumé of a decent backup, but hardly the kind of description befitting a lead guard.

    But Walker has redefined his NBA potential in my mind by improving in so many phases of the game so quickly, a development that can only be attributed to his willingness to work on better understanding this caliber of opponent and the nuances of the game in general. Many have praised Walker’s composure in years past, but the way he now approaches his role and his skill set are fundamentally more intelligent. His quickness is deployed with more control, his shot selection is far more measured and he’s already displaying an impressive ability to manipulate defenders in order to create offense. Walker seems likely to always skew toward the score-first mold, but that itself isn’t a demerit so much as a stylistic footnote; as long as the Bobcats account for Walker’s style of play in their team construction, his passing limitations needn’t hold back the development of their offense.

    Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City Thunder: I’ve already discussed Durant’s growth at length in this space, but somehow KD has only been better since then. Self-actualization was clearly on Durant’s to-do list, and his progress as a defender and ball-handler make that goal seem like a summer project rather than a lifelong endeavor. He was great as a focused scorer, but Durant’s dedication to basketball completion has elevated him as a candidate to be the league’s finest.

    Chandler Parsons, Houston Rockets: A boost in playing time has helped Parsons’ per-game numbers, but beyond those statistical boosts is a fantastic role player who has bettered himself on a per-minute and per-possession level. He passes wonderfully, his cutting instincts are uncanny and he’s been a solid defender on and off the ball. He has a complete package of complementary skills, and this season has added a concentrated dose of scoring to his already valuable profile.

    Parsons was a particularly shaky shooter in his rookie season, and though he’s increased his accuracy from beyond the three-point line by only about three percentage points (from 33.7 to 36.5), his consistency from that range is markedly improved. Whereas last season his feast-or-famine jumper sent many misses crashing on the far side of the backboard or whiffing the basket entirely, Parsons’ more controlled stroke now holds the potential for even further improvement. One can see a similar refinement across Parsons’ entire offensive game, a development that has enabled the Rockets to thrive behind his dynamic complement to James Harden’s pick-and-roll genius and Jeremy Lin’s frenzied dribble-driving.


    Jimmer Fredette is boasting impressive per-36 minute averages in his second season (22 points, 3.8 assists). (Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

    RESERVES

    Jason Kidd, New York Knicks: To say that Kidd was washed up a season ago wasn’t some premature eulogy for a player in decline — it was the undeniable truth to anyone who watched him play in Dallas. Kidd’s playmaking style has always been a bit risky, but the return on his passing investments grew increasingly meager as the mental errors piled up.

    But Knicks coach Mike Woodson was able to turn one of the greatest point guards of all time into a fascinating standstill shooting guard. As a functional 2, Kidd could benefit from open three-pointers (of which he’s making 43 percent) while also using his natural creativity to jazz up New York’s swing-passing game. Kidd still participates in the standard side-to-side passing that occurs whenever a defense gets too stretched, but in a split second, the 39-year-old can also read the floor for more interesting alternatives. He might fake the pass and take the shot himself after reading the close-out patterns of the defense. He might thread a feed inside to an inexplicably open Tyson Chandler. He might even put the ball on the floor once in awhile, just for kicks. Kidd has been put in a position where he can read the floor without having the pressure that comes with being a team’s primary creator, and that redistribution of his individual skills has breathed new life into a career that was looking downright funereal.

    Jimmer Fredette, Sacramento Kings: SB Nation’s Tom Ziller was all over the Jimmer-as-MIP angle on Monday, and the second-year guard deserves to be in the conversation for the award. Improvement may be assumed for young players, but Fredette has jumped from rookie incompetence into a showing as one of the league’s most potent bench scorers — a rare bright spot in Sacramento’s most recent flop of a season, and a leap that was completely unexpected given all that we saw of Jimmer the first time around. Who knows what the future holds for Fredette in terms of his optimal role and consistent defensive concessions, but he’s succeeding as an offensive player.

    Blake Griffin, Los Angeles Clippers: Most NBA fans seem to regard Griffin’s current season with pessimism, but I see an all-around superior player who is improving each of his greatest weaknesses. Defensive positioning was a big issue for Griffin in his first two seasons, but he and frontcourt mate DeAndre Jordan have been in the right place at the right time more reliably this year. Free-throw shooting is still a bit of an issue, but Griffin has at least jumped to 62 percent from 52 percent a season ago. The expansion of Griffin’s mid-range game is a work in progress, but a smoother form and a greater willingness to shoot jumpers has led Griffin to make a career-high 41 percent (nearing David West and Zach Randolph territory) on long two-pointers, per Hoopdata. And that’s coupled with Griffin’s still-impressive scoring on a deeper Clippers team, his quality defensive rebounding, elite passing skills for his position and effective-as-ever face-up game. Where’s the alleged regression?

    Kobe Bryant, Los Angeles Lakers: A 34-year-old guard in his 17th year is having the best offensive season of his career because of a conscious change in his possession usage. What a wonderful coda for an already outstanding career.

    Corey Brewer, Denver Nuggets: Brewer has always had value as a high-energy cutter and defender, but he had such an inconsistent shot that opponents could disregard him whenever he retreated to the corners. That doesn’t theoretically matter much to a high-motor player like Brewer, but it does inconvenience his team’s offense. As much as we praise those who move without the ball, there are times when wing players need to space the floor from the weak side or at least not muddle up the strong-side action with a random baseline cut, and it’s in that area of the game that Brewer had previously struggled. His effort and value were obvious, but offenses can only afford so many range-less players while still preserving the necessary driving lanes and post-up space.

    Brewer, 26, is still no marksman, but by converting long-range shots at a league-average rate (a career-high 34.8 percent), he has dramatically improved his utility. As a result, the Nuggets are able to take full advantage of Brewer’s scrambling, long-armed defense and open-court sprinting without much concern for what happens when he catches the ball in the corners.

    Eric Bledsoe, Los Angeles Clippers: We knew of the torment that Bledsoe could cause opposing ball-handlers, and we even had a glimpse of his incredible off-ball potential while playing with Chris Paul in the 2012 playoffs. But the 23-year-old has played the part of a fully functional reserve point guard for the most exciting second unit in the league this season, complete with an improving set shot and some slick pick-and-roll play. At some point the Clippers will need to consider whether Bledsoe is a luxury they can really afford, but for now he’s a fantastic change-of-pace player with emerging skills as a playmaker.

    J.J. Hickson, Portland Trail Blazers: Hickson doesn’t make all that much sense as a part of Portland’s rebuilding core, but that hasn’t stopped the fifth-year veteran from having a career year as a center placeholder. Though playing alongside LaMarcus Aldridge apparently yields the opportunity for any eager center to get their fill of rebounds, Hickson has surpassed any reasonable expectation by doing elite-level work on the glass. Reggie Evans and Anderson Varejao are the only players in the league to post a higher total rebounding percentage than Hickson, and it’s by his efforts alone that Portland is even remotely passable in any rebounding department. Hickson has had flashes of this kind of productivity before (most notably in 2010-11, in his last season as a Cavalier), but the consistency of this rebounding surge offers his game a new credibility.
    Sittin on top of the world!

  • #2
    Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

    I love the Billups comparisons. He's absolutely having a similar role on this team. Not sure if I'd give him the MiP. That might have to go to James Harden.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

      Hill has become a lifeline for a Pacers team that’s otherwise starved for competent point guard play, and brought the NBA’s 29th-ranked offense to league-average scoring levels whenever he’s on the floor.
      The major supporting evidence for Hill seems to be this. But if you looked it up I'm sure the exact same thing would be true of Stephenson, George and West. If any George on our team should be considered for most improved, it should be Paul. I thought Hill showed a lot of this last season, but when given a stable starting position just felt much more comfortable doing it all the time.
      Time for a new sig.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

        He should be getting more attention, but he won't because his numbers aren't that much higher. Leadership and clutch play aren't something award voters take into account for MIP.

        I love the Billups/Hill comparison too, check out 2012 Hill and 2004 Billups, its crazy how similar the numbers are.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

          Originally posted by Goyle View Post
          He should be getting more attention, but he won't because his numbers aren't that much higher. Leadership and clutch play aren't something award voters take into account for MIP.
          This. They could almost eliminate the vote and just go by pure statistical difference, as that is the only thing the voters seem to look at.
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

            I'm not sure Hill is even close to our most improved player. I would say both Lance and PG24 are more improved. Hill has certainly become more consistent though.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

              Originally posted by mattie View Post
              I love the Billups comparisons. He's absolutely having a similar role on this team. Not sure if I'd give him the MiP. That might have to go to James Harden.
              I don't think Harden has improved much, he just went from 3rd option to 1st option. Of course your numbers will go up. But has his overall play? Ehh.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

                Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
                I'm not sure Hill is even close to our most improved player. I would say both Lance and PG24 are more improved. Hill has certainly become more consistent though.
                I don't know that Lance is that much improved but the fact is that he has gotten the opportunity to show what he can do......

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

                  Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                  I don't know that Lance is that much improved but the fact is that he has gotten the opportunity to show what he can do......
                  His defense is 1000x better than it was last year, as well as his decision making. If you say he isn't improved more than just opportunity, you are looking through blinders.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

                    Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
                    His defense is 1000x better than it was last year, as well as his decision making. If you say he isn't improved more than just opportunity, you are looking through blinders.
                    I will take your word for it. I just never saw enough of him before this year to really have an opinion on what he was..... I do know people said he came in and couldn't guard a fence post but he seems to be a pretty good defender now.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

                      I dont know that Harden improved as mush as he just got a bigger role. Same talent, IMO.
                      If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

                      @LetsTalkPacers

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

                        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                        I will take your word for it. I just never saw enough of him before this year to really have an opinion on what he was..... I do know people said he came in and couldn't guard a fence post but he seems to be a pretty good defender now.
                        I'm sure others will chime in and offer up some stats, but he is no longer a liability on defense nor does he make you cringe (as much) from playground passes. And his shot is much improved as well. I'd say he has improved a lot from last year.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

                          I remember when I compared Hill to Billups last year and people ridiculed me for it, I'm glad to be right again
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

                            If Hill is getting consideration now, I think it will become even more so after Granger returns to the lineup. I think that Hill's assist numbers should increase, maybe even quite a bit, with Granger on the floor. Even if not, the overall team scoring should be much better, which will reflect well on Hill.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: George Hil a MIP candidate?

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              I remember when I compared Hill to Billups last year and people ridiculed me for it, I'm glad to be right again
                              I remember those comparisons from in the past and though I didn't remember who brought them up I'm pretty sure that lots of people agreed that was a good comparison.
                              Time for a new sig.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X