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

Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

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

  • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Tomorrow? When we haven't heard anything about him in (correct me if I'm wrong) six days? I wouldn't bet on it.
    Remember that we never hear much about what is really going on. Trades, definitive recovery timeframes, etc.

    Also, we know that Danny will probably only play about 10-15 minutes in his first game back. It is a perfect opportunity to get him a few minutes and see how his knee reacts with two days rest afterward. The next game is Monday and the last game before the break is Wednesday. If all goes well, we would likely see Danny get a good 20 minutes in the second and third game back, with a little less rest. Then we give his knee a whole week to recover and do tests and see how he works through practice. I really don't think it's too soon. If he doesn't respond well to ten minutes, you just let him continue to rest for those extra 11 days.

    Plus, the Fieldhouse will be packed Friday night and it is the best opportunity we will have to give Granger the proper respect he deserves from our fanbase. His loyalty doesn't go unnoticed. Is he the same player he was athletically? No. Is he a better skilled, more efficient player, who is the heart and soul of what this team is? Absolutely. This is secondary to the health of his knee obviously, but the timing potential is too perfect and if I am the coach, I want my cornerstone player to get his due respect. Plus, his return gives a huge boost to our team's confidence and that kind of an ovation can go a long way towards improving the aura of our franchise.
    "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

    Comment


    • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

      Pacers are probably going to need a little pick-me-up for tomorrow. They're in prime position for a mental/phsyical/emotional let down.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

        Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
        * playing the 3 allows him to conserve energy because he doesn't chase quicker players around, and he doesn't have to fight threw nearly as many screens
        1. He guards the opposing teams best wing no matter what. He's guarded James Harden, Joe Johnson, Andre Iguodala (playing next to Galignari) JR Smith (w/o Melo) etc. This normally leaves Lance to guard a bigger SF which he has struggled with at times. So with Paul guardng the best perimeter player no matter what, you'll basically have Lance trying to guard a bigger SF just as much as you'd have Danny guarding a smaller, quicker opponent.

        2. It's not like teams don't run their SF's through screens as well. In fact we have seen it with some of our recent opponents (Kyle Korver, Luol Deng)

        Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
        playing the 3 allows him to use his speed and quickness advantage against nearly every player at his position
        Someone else already explained, but at the 2 Paul has a tremendous size/length advantage. At the 3 yes Paul has some speed and quickness advantages, but he doesn't exactly get most of his points from utilizing that advantage constantly. A lot of his points come from 3's, transition, and and pull up J's.

        Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
        playing the 3 allows him to rebound more
        He's averaging 2 rebs more per game this season. But he's also playing nearly 8 more minutes per game. So he's rebounding around the same rate.

        Just my opinion.

        Comment


        • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          Grady said today to expect him back Monday or Wednesday pretty much for sure.
          Hmm. Interesting. I'd like to hear a clip of that to read into his delivery/tone to try to gauge his confidence level on that. Hopefully he's right on.

          Comment


          • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

            We may indeed be better off with Danny coming off the bench, but remember when the whole objective of last summer was to keep an incredibly efficient offensive & defensive starting 5 together, while upgrading the bench? Do we give up on that goal that fast? If so, why? Our 2011-2012 starting 5 would now be better if DG is back to his normal self, due to PG's maturity & confidence and West's improved health, which overcomes Roy's struggles IMO. Then Lance alone upgrades the bench, if he plays starter's minutes, never mind the contributions of Mahinmi and OJ. I know a lot of people still envision lance as a point guard. Going back to the bench, he may even get a crack at that, on nights when Augustin isn't hitting his shots.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

              Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
              They don't get it Kstat. I've failed many times trying to explain why it's beneficial for Paul to play SF. All I hear hear is " it doesn't matter what position he plays because in our offensive scheme a wing's a wing." And while that may be true, they don't factor in the dozen or so other reasons Paul benefits from playing his natural position. I'll list a few that get overlooked:

              * playing the 3 allows him to conserve energy because he doesn't chase quicker players around, and he doesn't have to fight threw nearly as many screens

              * playing the 3 allows him to use his speed and quickness advantage against nearly every player at his position

              * playing the 3 allows him to rebound more

              * playing the 3 makes him an an above average ball handler and playmaker. At SG he's average

              I'll stop there. Funny thing is I called all this a year ago in one of my first posts. I said he'd defend, score, and rebound better at the 3 and got laughed at.It doesn't surprise me that some of those same people are now saying it's just a coincidence he broke out at the 3.
              Point 1: lance isn't any better at it.
              Points 2/4 are same arguement/concept and its invalid because he's not a primary ballhandler. And at SG, He's got a 2-7 inch height advantage every night.
              Point 3: why does his rebounding make a difference? Roy and David are fine, so is danny. You're knitpicking.

              Comment


              • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Pacers are probably going to need a little pick-me-up for tomorrow. They're in prime position for a mental/phsyical/emotional let down.

                Comment


                • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Nobody is suggesting for Rose to come off the bench because Rose doesn't have somebody playing at his position that is kicking a**, huge difference.
                  This is a little like the Steve Young/Joe Montana situation. Montana got hurt and played at an all pro level. Montana never got back in the lineup....... It would be best to just keep Granger out of PG's way and bring him off the bench. That would also be better for Lance and better for the team. This team can't play much better than it is already without Granger. Bringing him back in will only screw up the chemistry it took half a season to build. It is the wrong time for Granger....... ...

                  Comment


                  • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                    Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                    * playing the 3 allows him to conserve energy because he doesn't chase quicker players around, and he doesn't have to fight threw nearly as many screens
                    Where's it written that 2-guards use screens and small forwards don't? Also, I'm very intrigued by this "conserve energy" concept. One of the major knocks on Danny was that instead of going all-out on defense and offense, he would sometimes conserve energy on D in order to blaze a trail on O. That's a major critique. And now the worry is that Paul won't be able to do that enough?

                    Originally posted by CJ
                    * playing the 3 allows him to use his speed and quickness advantage against nearly every player at his position
                    Quickness is good, but height and power is great. Paul is fast enough to guard point guards, so he's definitely fast enough to guard shooting guards. But think about what it means to be able to shoot over every player that guards him.

                    * playing the 3 allows him to rebound more
                    Why? What about our system would make him rebound less playing next to Danny instead of Lance?

                    * playing the 3 makes him an an above average ball handler and playmaker. At SG he's average
                    But in either case, his actual ball-handling ability doesn't change. So is it just a matter of comparison, or what? Is it your position that he can take Deng off the dribble, but not Rip Hamilton? That he can take LeBron off the dribble, but not Wade?
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                      Good thread you guys. I don't understand the idea that Danny will have regressed. Other than conditioning, he should be about the same. I mean, he's never really relied on athleticism to compete. On D, he has always been laterally slow, making up for it with wiry strength and great timing. I think we will have to "hide" him on D just as much as we had to before the time off, meaning not much. Also, Danny will play over Lance without question at the end of games due to foul shooting. (Lance needs to pick it up from the line if he wants to consistently finish games in the playoffs.)

                      I think some of you are playing out the rest of the season and playoffs as if we'll be playing Miami in the last five minutes for the rest of the year. Guarding Bron and Wade will continue to be a ***** (for every team in the league). If we play the Bulls and PG has to cover Rose, we'll be glad to have Danny on Deng. Same with the Deron, Johnson, Wallace combo. Not to mention, if we play the Hawks, Danny's got David's back on Smith. (If you think we would lose to the Knicks because of the JR Smith matchup, holy ****, I'll take those odds.)

                      I'm surprised no one has mentioned leaving Lance in at the end of games and leaving Hill on the bench. (Not saying it should happen, but I could see the argument for it defensively as much as the Hibbert-less small lineup for offensive purposes.)
                      You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                        [QUOTE=Slick Pinkham;1581947]
                        He guards the best opposing wing, no matter what, so he is chasing exactly the same player around. Do we have to keep repeating this fact?
                        Point is he 's better at defending SFs . He won't be spending nearly as much time on the court guarding them when he's playing alongside Danny. So no he won't be guarding the same players. Danny can't keep up with very many 2 guards


                        playing the 2 allows him to use his huge length advantage, with no speed disadvantage either, against nearly every player at his position, whereas some 3s he has to guard are much heavier and stronger (see LBJ).
                        That's a very backwards way to develop a player. We shouldn't force our best player to learn how to play a power game when he's just now figuring out how to use his speed and quickness against guys his height. Why make him adjust when he's the our best player and All-Star? I want him to comfortable, and he's said himself he feels more comfortable at the 3 because of matcups. People seem to forget that.

                        [QUOTE]

                        His defensive rebounding numbers should be the same per-minute once Danny comes back, since (again) he is guarding and boxing out the opposition's best wing player, same as always. [/

                        Again, he'll be guarding SGs more often so not only will he be in worse rebounding positions, he won't able to keep the opposing SF off the boards.


                        Playing the 2 on offense should greatly help him as a passer and playmaker, with a huge size advantage over the man guarding him.
                        Disagree. One of these days maybe, but not right now. He's not a good enough post player.

                        I'll stop there too.
                        Please do.

                        Comment


                        • I really have nothing more to add here, except that I think I've gotten an extremely good feel for this team. I think last year's Danny granger , while being a better offensive player, is not nearly as well suited to play in the starting 5 as Stephenson. I think he will eventually start, and I think eventually that fact is going to bear out.

                          I have never had any love for lance Stephenson. That's not a secret. And I've always liked Danny granger.

                          And I think replacing him in the starting 5 for granger would be a mistake. I think nostalgia is clouding better judgement here.

                          If you're going to rely heavily on defense, you can't always compromise that because you found a better offensive player.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 02-07-2013, 06:09 PM.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                            It's not nostalgia clouding judgement it's just the numbers.

                            There are some that fantasize about the way the game should be played. And then those who simply require results. Those who fantasize think pointguards have to play like Chris Paul, Shooting guards must be ball dominant ball handlers, (scoring efficiency be damned), Small forwards are 6 foot 8 and taller (ability be damned), and so on.

                            Forget that the only rule that has ever been important is the results. That's it. Put the ball in the basket. If you have too tall wings that can defend and shoot anywhere on the court, it's probably better than one wing who can shoot and defend to go along with a guard who averages EIGHT POINTS A GAME.

                            It's a ridiculous agenda to support your basketball ideal. "Paul George's a small forward, that's why he's playing good." Or maybe he's just a 22 year old wing who's finally growing up? No imposssible. Wait let's ask him: Hey Paul, which do you prefer the 3 or the 2? "It doesn't matter." Oh it doesn't matter? But wait, you averaged a STUNNING .5 rebounds per 36 more this year rebounding than you did last year!!! (we know that massive improvement has nothing to do with a third year player improving) Obviously you won't be able to rebound at the two position, even though you've been defending two guards all season. (Forget that fact, this doesn't play along with my stupid narrative).

                            Fantasize all you want about how positions work in the NBA folks. The rest of us are going to watch Danny get healthy, start along the rest of his teammates and the Pacers will develop into a juggernaut offense. Oh and I'm going on a limb to suggest Lance doesn't suddenly regress to a non-contributor.

                            Comment


                            • Again, Im not the one with a dog in this fight. If it makes you feel better to accuse me of having some silly bias based on position terminology, so be it.

                              If I were shoehorning every player in the NBA by position (which is a hilarious accusation, given thy I've been here for 10 year), I would have a problem with George hill running the point. But that doesn't fit your little rant, so let's look past it.

                              Stats in this case don't lie, but the only stats you're looking at are individual points and rebounds. It much more
                              Complicated than that.
                              Last edited by Kstat; 02-07-2013, 06:38 PM.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                Again, Im not the one with a dog in this fight. If it makes you feel better to accuse me of having some silly bias based on position terminology, so be it.

                                If I were shoehorning every player in the NBA by position (which is a hilarious accusation, given thy I've been here for 10 year), I would have a problem with George hill running the point. But that doesn't fit your little rant, so let's look past it.

                                Stats in this case don't lie, but the only stats you're looking at are individual points and rebounds. It much more
                                Complicated than that.
                                No, I'm talking about last years top 10 offense. It worked. That simple.

                                If someone can prove how my idea is faulty that would be fine. No one has brought any evidence other than earnest pleas to believe in their vision of the NBA.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X