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

Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

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

  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

    Plus 1 from here. This argument about who will start or come off the bench is fun, but the real question will be not which player is better, but what role suits the TEAM"S needs the most. IMO, the choice of starters, backups and finishers will be Frank's call and may vary from matchup to matchup. I really expect to see Danny come off the bench in the early part of the season unless, as I've mentioned before, the trainers and coaches feel DG's knee will get stiff if he sits after the warm-ups and will be better if he starts playing right away.

    Comment


    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

      Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
      I would say that for a little while under JOB, Danny was a little one-dimensional. Maybe

      per http://www.basketball-reference.com/...l#all_per_game
      Danny's % of 3 point attempts
      08-09= 35%
      09-10= 38%
      10-11= 32%
      11-12= 34%

      FTA
      08-09= 6.8
      09-10= 6.8
      10-11= 6.1
      11-12= 5.1



      What do you see out of all that? It appears that 11-12 was a down year in everything for Danny overall. He turned it up in April:
      Month December 4 4 141 26 74 7 18 11 13 7 22 8 9 4 9 7 70 .351 .389 .846 35.1 17.5 5.5 2.0
      January 15 15 502 88 223 25 76 59 72 14 64 26 23 13 26 31 260 .395 .329 .819 33.5 17.3 4.3 1.7
      February 13 13 433 77 198 28 77 71 81 21 56 24 10 5 23 32 253 .389 .364 .877 33.3 19.5 4.3 1.8
      March 17 17 547 101 231 28 78 65 75 20 91 24 13 11 33 45 295 .437 .359 .867 32.1 17.4 5.4 1.4
      April 13 13 440 99 215 35 74 48 50 17 74 27 7 7 19 29 281 .460 .473 .960 33.8 21.6 5.7 2.1

      If we get anything close to 11-12 Danny this team is going to be scary. If we get Danny in January and February and he is taking the same amount of shots....we are in trouble. Inefficiency should not be tolerate. And that goes for Paul, Lance and Roy. There are too many weapons on this roster to harbor poor shooting.
      Danny got off to an extremely poor start in 11-12 as we incorporated new pieces into the team. Post ASB he played great and April of that season was some of the best bball he played (even received praise from Vnzla)

      What was scary was the fact that we still scored efficiently and had a very good winning percentage throughout the season. I fully expect DG to get off to a bit of a slow start--as should anyone else. But also like 11-12 I believe we will win at a high rate.

      FG% is just not one of this teams strong suits. Paul, Roy, Danny, and even a guy like Hill all could stand to shoot a better % from the floor. The fact we are such a good rebounding/defensive team will help with that. But I agree, guys should be able to shoot better than they have in the last 2 seasons.
      Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 09-26-2013, 04:52 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

        If Danny relies on 3's too much I am ok with it. Based on TS%, eFG%, and ORtg Danny Granger is on par with guys like Carmelo Anthony, Dwyane Wade, Paul Pierce, and Kobe Bryant. If he continues down his normal efficiency path, which is on par with some of the best scorers out there, I am not going to complain.

        By the way, I also looked at Reggie Miller compared to Durant and James as far as efficiency goes. Miller blows them out of the water. Miller had a Ortg of 121 for his career, with only two seasons below 118. Lebron for his career has a rating of 116, and Durant 114.

        Comment


        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post

          What was scary was the fact that we still scored efficiently and had a very good winning percentage throughout the season. I fully expect DG to get off to a bit of a slow start--as should anyone else. But also like 11-12 I believe we will win at a high rate.

          FG% is just not one of this teams string suita. Paul, Roy, Danny, and even a guy like Hill all could stand to shoot a better % from the floor. The fact we are such a good rebounding/defensive team will help with that. But I agree, guys should be able to shoot better than they have in the last 2 seasons.
          In 2011-2012 we were 23rd in Eff Fg% (22nd in 12-13 w/out Danny). It was not good enough. I don't think points per game is our teams strength, but percentage should be. Our offense efficiency was better with Granger in 11-12 than without in 12-13. But the bench was better (not by much) than last year.

          Pacing is important. And if we maintain efficiency (points per 100 percentage) and get a better percentages, then we will be unstoppable.

          It really feels like if anyone has anything negative against anyone, people jump on as if there is no need for it. I understand Paul George shot too many 3s. I understand that Danny doesn't shoot as many as Curry, Korver, etc. I never once said he was one dimensional.

          I did say:
          I would say that for a little while under JOB, Danny was a little one-dimensional. Maybe
          There were some shots that Danny took that I wish he hadn't. And maybe I remember those more because he played more and was a focal part of the team. He is not a James Posey. I know this. But I see Danny most effective when he has a balance attack. Which he is capable of doing. I will never forget the 10-11 win at home against the NYKs. Sure Tyler went off. But Danny hit a mid-post game winner. I was in the 4th row. Gave Roy a high 5. Called Amare soft.

          But I think we all can agree that sometimes Danny was content in shooting 3s. If you can't then you have amnesia.

          Comment


          • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            If Danny relies on 3's too much I am ok with it. Based on TS%, eFG%, and ORtg Danny Granger is on par with guys like Carmelo Anthony, Dwyane Wade, Paul Pierce, and Kobe Bryant.
            Danny's been a great soldier and he's a nice guy. Very likable. He's put his time in. Had a number of good years. But let's try to avoid comparing him to 4 hall of fame players. Instead, face up to what he is. A one time all-star selection who couldn't get minutes over Iguodala. I mean, we are talking a slight upgrade over Chuck Person. Maybe Kyle Korver with a little better defense, but not as good a shooter. Imagine the numbers Kyle would have racked up under JOb.

            Comment


            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

              I am sure that I have asked this before....but I will ask again.

              What advantage ( from an Contract POV ) over other Teams does the Pacers have in re-signing either Granger or Lance when they become Free Agents?

              I assume that they can offer a 5 year contract over a 4 year contract?

              I think that the Pacers can go over the LT to re-sign them....but since they won't....I don't think that matters.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                If Danny relies on 3's too much I am ok with it. Based on TS%, eFG%, and ORtg Danny Granger is on par with guys like Carmelo Anthony, Dwyane Wade, Paul Pierce, and Kobe Bryant.
                You can't argue with somebody that is making this kind of claims
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                  I know that it's all a matter of opinion......but is Granger's defense really that bad?

                  The knock on him was that he can be a near-elite level defender WHEN he wants to be....but I'm am guessing that implies that it means that most of the time...he doesn't defend on that level. So, when he doesn't choose to be a near-elite level Defender.....how good ( or bad ) is his defense?

                  Is it average?
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Danny's been a great soldier and he's a nice guy. Very likable. He's put his time in. Had a number of good years. But let's try to avoid comparing him to 4 hall of fame players. Instead, face up to what he is. A one time all-star selection who couldn't get minutes over Iguodala. I mean, we are talking a slight upgrade over Chuck Person. Maybe Kyle Korver with a little better defense, but not as good a shooter. Imagine the numbers Kyle would have racked up under JOb.
                    With this post, I'm debating with myself whether this post is an actual sequence of opinions or a massive troll. I'm going to assume opinion for the time being.

                    So Granger's better than Chuck Person but not as good as Korver? Even if you mean only offensively, that's an absurd statement. You would have a better time convincing me that Person was better than Granger than Korver. If Danny were a Kyle Korver-type player who only succeeded because of O'Brien, he would have dropped down to a Korver-esque 10 ppg when Vogel took over, no? And as far as not getting minutes over a top 3 perimeter defender in the NBA on the most dominant national team in the world specifically because his defense wasn't as good, I don't see where that's a knock. He's not some scrub.

                    Additionally, he wasn't comparing the Granger the basketball player to those hall of famers, he was comparing his offensive metrics. Offensive metrics tend to favor 3 point shooters, which is why in the part you purposely left out Reggie scores so high.
                    Time for a new sig.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Danny's been a great soldier and he's a nice guy. Very likable. He's put his time in. Had a number of good years. But let's try to avoid comparing him to 4 hall of fame players. Instead, face up to what he is. A one time all-star selection who couldn't get minutes over Iguodala. I mean, we are talking a slight upgrade over Chuck Person. Maybe Kyle Korver with a little better defense, but not as good a shooter. Imagine the numbers Kyle would have racked up under JOb.
                      Comparing them statistically in terms of one aspect of the game isn't the same as comparing them as complete players.

                      The fact that you think Granger is Kyle Korver with slightly better defense really tells me all I need to know about how qualified you are to judge Granger because you obviously were not paying attention to how he played for the past 8 years.

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      I know that it's all a matter of opinion......but is Granger's defense really that bad?

                      The knock on him was that he can be a near-elite level defender WHEN he wants to be....but I'm am guessing that implies that it means that most of the time...he doesn't defend on that level. So, when he doesn't choose to be a near-elite level Defender.....how good ( or bad ) is his defense?

                      Is it average?
                      Yeah, he is an average defender when he isn't putting in full effort. When he puts in full effort he is a pretty good defender, not great but better than most.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        I get the point, but I don't even think showing someone shoots mid30% of their shots as 3pters is showing them to be one dimensional. Kyle Korver, for example, relies on 3pt attempts 69% of the time. Of even Ryan Anderson, with 50% of his shots are 3s. Stephen Curry is at 43%. Klay Thompson is at 44%. JJ Redick 51%. Nic Batum 53%. The list goes on and on.

                        Yes, Danny relies on the 3 too much (he relies on it less than PG though) but I don't think it really crosses the line into the "one dimensional" territory.
                        Nic Batum is so lethal. He settles for 3s far to much though(although I would say a good majority of his 3s are good looks). He is at his best when he is play making he is a very good point forward when he wants to be. The only issue is the guy hates contact he is one player that I love but he frustrates the hell out of me. J.J and Nic Batum's games are pretty beautiful to watch offensively add in Nic's defense he is one of my favorite players in the league.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          I know that it's all a matter of opinion......but is Granger's defense really that bad?

                          The knock on him was that he can be a near-elite level defender WHEN he wants to be....but I'm am guessing that implies that it means that most of the time...he doesn't defend on that level. So, when he doesn't choose to be a near-elite level Defender.....how good ( or bad ) is his defense?

                          Is it average?
                          I think Granger can be a good to very good defender when he wants to be. Unfortunately, he hasn't wanted to be very often. The JOB leash gave him the freedom to lay off on defense in order to play better offense.

                          You'd think that he could simply just turn on the defense when it is needed. However, my observation is that bad habits formed by laying off the defensive side and made it difficult for him to turn on a dime and play great defense when the need arose.

                          I am hopeful that he can still improve. I saw a little bit of that in the 2011-12 season under Vogel when defense was emphasized and the culture had changed. He still had bad habits, though. But I'm hopeful the longer he is part of the new culture the better he will overcome the habits and play up to his defensive potential.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            A one-dimensional scorer who shoots from 3 (catch and shoot, or off the dribble) and midrange (catch and shoot, or off the dribble), can finish around the basket (catch and shoot, or off the dribble), can get to the FT line, and can score in the post. Right. One-dimensional.
                            When did Danny become a good midrange shooter, post player, and finisher? I'll give you FTs if you wanna count that as a dimension, but honestly, the way he gets his FTs never impressed me. I'm not sure charging into the paint with your head down helps the team all that much when your assist percentage hovers around 10. Anyway, people are getting hung up on my wording, and that's my fault I guess, but you get my point. Lance is a much more versatile offensive player.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              If Danny relies on 3's too much I am ok with it. Based on TS%, eFG%, and ORtg Danny Granger is on par with guys like Carmelo Anthony, Dwyane Wade, Paul Pierce, and Kobe Bryant. If he continues down his normal efficiency path, which is on par with some of the best scorers out there, I am not going to complain.

                              By the way, I also looked at Reggie Miller compared to Durant and James as far as efficiency goes. Miller blows them out of the water. Miller had a Ortg of 121 for his career, with only two seasons below 118. Lebron for his career has a rating of 116, and Durant 114.
                              A stat that puts Danny on par with Melo, Wade, Pierce and Kobe, in addition to ranking Reggie as being more efficient than Durant and Lebron, probably isn't a very useful statistic. There's a reason that these stats are relatively obscure.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                                With this post, I'm debating with myself whether this post is an actual sequence of opinions or a massive troll. I'm going to assume opinion for the time being.

                                So Granger's better than Chuck Person but not as good as Korver? Even if you mean only offensively, that's an absurd statement. You would have a better time convincing me that Person was better than Granger than Korver. If Danny were a Kyle Korver-type player who only succeeded because of O'Brien, he would have dropped down to a Korver-esque 10 ppg when Vogel took over, no? And as far as not getting minutes over a top 3 perimeter defender in the NBA on the most dominant national team in the world specifically because his defense wasn't as good, I don't see where that's a knock. He's not some scrub.

                                Additionally, he wasn't comparing the Granger the basketball player to those hall of famers, he was comparing his offensive metrics. Offensive metrics tend to favor 3 point shooters, which is why in the part you purposely left out Reggie scores so high.
                                Granger's numbers were very much inflated under JOb. Mike Dunleavy almost averaged 20ppg before he was injured. People were talking up MDJ as if he should be on the all-star team himself. Korver is a much better shooter and would have easily eclipsed 20ppg.

                                In 2012 under Vogel, Granger averaged 18ppg and his FG% was 41%. He had a solid green light on a young team and still couldn't crack 20ppg. Did you happen to know Granger only averaged 13ppg against the Heat in the playoffs of 2012....and somehow gets cred from that series.

                                With that said, sure, I will agree Granger is better than both Dun and Korver but the difference isn't that great. His only real advantage is that he's more physical. So perhaps he can contend on the boards and defend a little better.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X