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

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    I'm thinking he lost a bet and had to come up with the most ludicrous posts possible. It's the only explanation for a normally level-headed poster suddenly veering off into crazy town.

    But I guess alcohol would do it too.
    My guess is that he's been convinced that Danny has a better skill set to fill out the starting lineup than does Lance, but he desperately wants Lance to develop into a second superstar for our team. When you're comparing a player who's put up multiple seasons of all-star worthy numbers, the only real way to compare them is to act like the all-star has absolutely no basketball skills whatsoever. I mean, if you were to believe everything written in the past few of his posts you would think Danny Granger has been in danger of falling out of the NBA for years now.

    I don't get it. If you really believe Lance is an all-star talent, why wouldn't you want Danny Granger to be in peak form? Because then you would have former or current all stars in Hibbert, West, Granger, George, and then your "future all star" in lance.
    Time for a new sig.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      Can you name 5 wings in the NBA that have been able to average over 25ppg in one season, over 24 in another, over 18 for their career AND averaged over 5 FTA a game in their career?

      I'm actually being serious too. I just don't think a guy can have those types of averages and NOT be able to dribble, drive, or score at a such a high clip esp without having a single season of averaging over 20 FGA a game. IF this is possible to do, Danny surely cannot be the ONLY player to have ever done so, right?
      There's actually a lot of people who meet the single season criteria in your first paragraph. Most of them also happen to be hall of famers or locks to be hall of famers.

      Link: Stats are fun!
      Time for a new sig.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
        There's actually a lot of people who meet the single season criteria in your first paragraph. Most of them also happen to be hall of famers or locks to be hall of famers.

        Link: Stats are fun!
        lol I didn't finish my question in my initial post, but have gone back and edited it. Lol thanks for looking out!

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          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.
          I could go into more depth about how Granger's scoring ability to this point in his career is on par with those players. Such as, in seasons with a usage rate over 20, excluding last year for obvious reasons, Granger's ppg to usage rate ratio is .811. Meaning for every percentage point of usage Danny scores .811 points. Meaning Wade's is .769, Kobe .799, Anthony .789, and Pierce .784. But hey, if you guys cannot separate the difference between doing one thing at an elite level from being an elite player that is your problem not mine.

          By the way Reggie averaged 18.2ppg on 12.6 shots per game. So it really shouldn't be surprising to see that Reggie matches or surpasses great scorers as he was one of the great scorers himself.
          Last edited by Eleazar; 09-27-2013, 09:15 AM.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Yes, that was a slap at bringing Kobe into any thread comparing Granger's game. I suppose I took that too far. But the reason his name popped up is because Granger lacks A LOT of basketball skills other than shooting. He can't dribble, can't drive, can't pass, can't see the floor. He's an average defensive SF at best. The bottom line here is that he's a lot closer to Korver than Kobe.
            So how in the world is he a 19pt career scorer, and how in the world did he average 26pts at one time? He had no offensive help, so if he was THAT bad offensively how could teams not stop him?

            This is why this conversation is 20 pages long, because the people arguing against Danny have taken the most extreme position possible, and tried to argue it with a straight face. This is getting absolutely ridiculous.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              I could go into more depth about how Granger's scoring ability to this point in his career is on par with those players. Such as, in seasons with a usage rate over 20, excluding last year for obvious reasons, Granger's ppg to usage rate ratio is .811. Meaning for every percentage point of usage Danny scores .811 points. Meaning Wade's is .769, Kobe .799, Anthony .789, and Pierce .784. But hey, if you guys cannot separate the difference between doing one thing at an elite level from being an elite player that is your problem not mine.

              By the way Reggie averaged 18.2ppg on 12.6 shots per game. So it really shouldn't be surprising to see that Reggie matches or surpasses great scorers as he was one of the great scorers himself.

              Danny's career eFG is 50.2%, while Michael Jordan's was 50.9%. Danny's career true shooting percentage is 56.3%, while Michael Jordan's was 56.9%.

              Incredible. Not only is Danny as efficient as the greats of his era, but he's also basically a clone of the greatest player of all time.

              So the question is, why does Danny lack the accomplishments of Kobe, Pierce, Wade, and Jordan despite having nearly identical obscure statistics?
              Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-27-2013, 09:29 AM.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                So how in the world is he a 19pt career scorer, and how in the world did he average 26pts at one time? He had no offensive help, so if he was THAT bad offensively how could teams not stop him?
                That's not true. When Danny averaged 26 PPG in 08-09, the Pacers were the fifth highest scoring offense in the entire league. They averaged 105.1 PPG.

                http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...game/year/2009

                That team certainly did not play winning basketball. They couldn't defend anyone and were as soft a team as I've ever seen. But they could score when they got hot. That's why they beat several good teams that season, such as the Lakers, Celtics, and Magic. They could occasionally outscore even the best teams in the NBA. Of course, their soft style of play meant that they also let bad teams outscore them throughout the season.

                Outside of Granger, five other players averaged over 13 PPG: Dunleavy (only played 18 games), Ford, Murphy, Daniels, and Jack.

                http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/2009.html

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  So the question is, why does Danny lack the accomplishments of Kobe, Pierce, Wade, and Jordan despite having nearly identical obscure statistics?
                  Because he had JOB as his coach? Because there was no one around him at any level at all near him?

                  Look, we get that a single statistic isn't the complete picture. But it means SOMETHING, so in order to refute it you can't just say it lies, you need to show WHY the statistic predicts one thing but the actual doesn't match. Another stat not covered in this one, perhaps (playing time, number of shots)? Something SPECIFIC that isn't statistically measurable (where the scoring took place, when, against whom, team style of play)?

                  Statistics are just math. They say what they say. INTERPRETING them is the hard part, but a good interpretation (including why a stat is bad or good) needs reasoning, not just instinct. Instinct can make you unsure of a stat but it isn't enough to explain anything about which ones are useful and which ones need more information.
                  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


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

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Danny's career eFG is 50.2%, while Michael Jordan's was 50.9%. Danny's career true shooting percentage is 56.3%, while Michael Jordan's was 56.9%.

                    Incredible. Not only is Danny as efficient as the greats of his era, but he's also basically a clone of the greatest player of all time.

                    So the question is why does Danny lack the accomplishments of Kobe, Pierce, Wade, and Jordan despite having nearly identical obscure statistics?
                    When did I ever compare Granger the player as a whole to Kobe the player as a whole? When tell me where I did that and your point will be proven. Or did I just compare one aspect of the game of basketball in response to another person's concern over Granger's ability to be an efficient scorer. So I brought up some common statistics, yes eFG%, TS%, and ORtg are common statistics not obscure ones, to show that Granger actually compares well in the area of efficiency. Last time I checked there was much more to the game of basketball than just scoring efficiency.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      When did I ever compare Granger the player as a whole to Kobe the player as a whole? When tell me where I did that and your point will be proven. Or did I just compare one aspect of the game of basketball in response to another person's concern over Granger's ability to be an efficient scorer. So I brought up some common statistics, yes eFG%, TS%, and ORtg are common statistics not obscure ones, to show that Granger actually compares well in the area of efficiency. Last time I checked there was much more to the game of basketball than just scoring efficiency.
                      Kyle Korver's career eFG% and TS% are higher than Granger, yet people got upset when BnG compared Granger to Korver.

                      It seems like the less a player is relied on, the higher their percentages are in these categories, especially if they make threes. Korver has never been the focal point of an offense like Granger, which means that he never shot/missed quite as many shots. Conversely, Granger has not routinely carried an offense like Kobe or Wade because he doesn't have the ability to do what they've done for so long. This allows Granger to be relatively close in these statistics because he doesn't miss near as many shots as Kobe.

                      These stats just aren't very useful. The worse the player, the more likely these stats are to help you. They give Korver higher stats than Granger, while giving Granger identical numbers to Jordan.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Kyle Korver's career eFG% and TS% are higher than Granger, yet people got upset when BnG compared Granger to Korver.

                        It seems like the less a player is relied on, the higher their percentages are in these categories, especially if they make threes. Korver has never been the focal point of an offense like Granger, which means that he never shot/missed quite as many shots. Conversely, Granger has not routinely carried an offense like Kobe or Wade because he doesn't have the ability to do what they've done for so long. This allows Granger to be relatively close in these statistics because he doesn't miss near as many shots as Kobe.

                        These stats just aren't very useful. The worse the player, the more likely these stats are to help you. They give Korver higher stats than Granger, while giving Granger identical numbers to Jordan.
                        You know people have measured efficiency and useage. On average it goes down .2 with a 1% increase in useage. I don't see why we can't take our big brains and apply it to Danny or Korver or whomever but if 2004/5 doesn't happen I think many of you would see Granger as less of Korver and more of a player he really is.
                        Last edited by Gamble1; 09-27-2013, 10:20 AM.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          Kyle Korver's career eFG% and TS% are higher than Granger, yet people got upset when BnG compared Granger to Korver.

                          It seems like the less a player is relied on, the higher their percentages are in these categories, especially if they make threes. Korver has never been the focal point of an offense like Granger, which means that he never shot/missed quite as many shots. Conversely, Granger has not routinely carried an offense like Kobe or Wade because he doesn't have the ability to do what they've done for so long. This allows Granger to be relatively close in these statistics because he doesn't miss near as many shots as Kobe.

                          These stats just aren't very useful. The worse the player, the more likely these stats are to help you. They give Korver higher stats than Granger, while giving Granger identical numbers to Jordan.
                          Yeah, everything I said went completely over your head.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Kyle Korver's career eFG% and TS% are higher than Granger, yet people got upset when BnG compared Granger to Korver.

                            It seems like the less a player is relied on, the higher their percentages are in these categories, especially if they make threes. Korver has never been the focal point of an offense like Granger, which means that he never shot/missed quite as many shots. Conversely, Granger has not routinely carried an offense like Kobe or Wade because he doesn't have the ability to do what they've done for so long. This allows Granger to be relatively close in these statistics because he doesn't miss near as many shots as Kobe.

                            These stats just aren't very useful. The worse the player, the more likely these stats are to help you. They give Korver higher stats than Granger, while giving Granger identical numbers to Jordan.
                            The problem with your argument is this: Eleazar is just comparing one aspect when it comes to other guys: the offensive efficiency. What you and the other guys are doing is comparing Danny and Korver being the same player, as a whole. In fact, it came to a point where his dribbling and passing is said to be poor that it's comparable to an average NCAA-level player. Baiting, eh?

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              Kyle Korver's career eFG% and TS% are higher than Granger, yet people got upset when BnG compared Granger to Korver.

                              It seems like the less a player is relied on, the higher their percentages are in these categories, especially if they make threes. Korver has never been the focal point of an offense like Granger, which means that he never shot/missed quite as many shots. Conversely, Granger has not routinely carried an offense like Kobe or Wade because he doesn't have the ability to do what they've done for so long. This allows Granger to be relatively close in these statistics because he doesn't miss near as many shots as Kobe.

                              These stats just aren't very useful. The worse the player, the more likely these stats are to help you. They give Korver higher stats than Granger, while giving Granger identical numbers to Jordan.
                              Thus, Kyle Korver is a superior player to Michael Jordan.

                              I'm actually with you on this one.

                              To be honest, I don't really like efficiency stats built around shot totals. I know they make Reggie look good, and thus we all like them, but the reality is that they're easily gamed by players shooting high numbers of three-pointers and (especially) free throws. If Reggie got fouled taking a shot and hit both free throws, then his PPS is artificially inflated because his "points" total went up but his "shot" total did not. According to that metric, a player could score, on a given night, 10 points on 2 shots. That's ridiculous. I'd be far happier if it was something more like "points per offensive attempt." That would drastically change Reggie's percentages (and Danny's, though not to the same degree) but wouldn't change Kobe's nearly as much.

                              So I don't put Danny in Kobe/Wade/Jordan area. Pierce is a closer comparison, and if Danny's knee heals and he has a long NBA career, I could see him approaching Pierce's body of work. The first three, not so much.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by 15th parallel View Post
                                The problem with your argument is this: Eleazar is just comparing one aspect when it comes to other guys: the offensive efficiency. What you and the other guys are doing is comparing Danny and Korver being the same player, as a whole. In fact, it came to a point where his dribbling and passing is said to be poor that it's comparable to an average NCAA-level player. Baiting, eh?
                                The argument is completely flawed on the basis of useage. This is why people say Tyson Chandler is better than Roy because they don't factor in how the stats are generated which goes back to Bills comment. You have to use your big brain to see how the stats paint the picture of the player and not factoring in useage is completely flawed and a rudimentary mistake.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X