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 aamcguy View Post
    Lance is more likely to get it to them, but when he's camped at the 3 point line watching the other 4 starters run the offense
    He probably shouldn't be.

    He needs to have more touches. Bird likely sees this if he is being cited as calling for Lance at point guard.
    "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

      Not to mention that DG isn't a one dimensional scorer. He scores in the post, mid range, from 3 and at the FT line. He's not some glorified Kyle Korver who only shoots 3s as some would suggest.

      And I don't think anyone believes we got to the ECF (not the finals CJ) in spite of Lance. Some just feel we may have faired better with last years team makeup with the addition of Danny in Lances place in certain instances.

      As Peck has said a million times, appreciating Danny and pointing out ways he has and can help this team isn't meant to downgrade the contributions Lance or any other player brings to the team. I think the disconnect is that some believe Lances contributions were greater than what other posters believe they were. And you could say the same thing regarding Danny as well.
      Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 09-26-2013, 09:02 AM. Reason: Typing from my phone!

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
        He probably shouldn't be.

        He needs to have more touches. Bird likely sees this if he is being cited as calling for Lance at point guard.
        Has there been a different article with his quote or is this based on the Kravitz article?

        If that's what you're referring to, Bird was paraphrased and not cited. It makes a big difference especially when you have reporters trying to stir up storylines. Furthermore, he was paraphrased to be the point guard leading the second unit, which I am in favor of.
        Time for a new sig.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          Has there been a different article with his quote or is this based on the Kravitz article?

          If that's what you're referring to, Bird was paraphrased and not cited. It makes a big difference especially when you have reporters trying to stir up storylines. Furthermore, he was paraphrased to be the point guard leading the second unit, which I am in favor of.
          Why the conspiracy theory regarding Kravitz citation? Are you saying it is far-fetched that Bird would consider Lance good at point guard—something that you yourself think he might be good at in the second unit?
          "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 CJ Jones View Post
            One-dimensional scorer. He's great at what he does, shoot, but he's below average in other offensive areas IMO. Lance is a better ball handler, passer, better in transition, better in the paint, more creative.
            I like how you created this list of things that Lance is better than Danny at, trying to show that Lance isn't the one dimensional scorer that Danny is, and then your list is made up of things that aren't scoring attributes. Shows just how flimsy this "Danny is one dimensional, but Lance is multi-dimensional!" line of thinking actually is.
            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 McKeyFan View Post
              Why the conspiracy theory regarding Kravitz citation? Are you saying it is far-fetched that Bird would consider Lance good at point guard—something that you yourself think he might be good at in the second unit?
              Because there is a long way from saying Bird thinks Lance would be good at point guard and that this means Lance WILL be starting at point guard. I'm sure Bird thinks a lot of things about a lot of players, but in all honesty if somehow he wants to impose those thoughts on the coaching staff (which, for the record, I do NOT think he wants to do) he'd better get his rear end down onto the bench as head coach. Otherwise, let Vogel do his job. I am very confident in the things I've heard about why Vogel doesn't think Lance would make a very good PG, and until I hear differently from those same sources (or see Lance starting at PG in other than an emergency sense) I'm not inclined to change my mind.
              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 McKeyFan View Post
                Why the conspiracy theory regarding Kravitz citation? Are you saying it is far-fetched that Bird would consider Lance good at point guard—something that you yourself think he might be good at in the second unit?
                It's not a conspiracy theory. It's just that we don't know what Bird said. Bird could have told Kravitz that Lance would be the leader of the second unit for example. Someone who thinks Lance could be a PG would probably take that as he'll be the backup PG, while somebody who doesn't would take it as he would be the 6th man.

                Or he could have said that he would be the primary playmaker/ballhandler off the bench. Some would interpret that to mean point guard, while others would take that to mean scoring guard.

                The problem is, we just don't know. Not only is it not in quotes, but it is not even the primary point of the sentence (Granger starting is, which feeds into the next paragraph). A writer usually is more liberal with points that aren't driving the article, and that could easily be an example of such a point.

                That doesn't mean that Bird thinks he's not a PG. Bird could very well mean exactly what is reported in the article. But the way it's written means we can't be anywhere close to sure. We need more evidence to really know what Bird's thinking, especially because we have external evidence that would indicate differently (Bird specifically referring to Watson as an upgrade at PG at his press conference and alluding to his replacing Augustin, the fact that the Pacers chose to sign 3 PG's other than Lance on a roster of only 13 players instead of signing an extra wing).

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                  Why the conspiracy theory regarding Kravitz citation? Are you saying it is far-fetched that Bird would consider Lance good at point guard—something that you yourself think he might be good at in the second unit?
                  No conspiracy theory, but my doubt comes from the fact that it's not a citation. A citation would be an explicit quote. There was no formal quotation of Bird on that matter, just an opinion Kravitz attributed to Larry Bird. Kravitz could have got Bird's meaning exactly correct, misinterpreted him, or asked a general question and extrapolated Bird's response to a specific instance. You can't really know without seeing the quote.

                  Already we've gone from "Bird made no bones about it: He likes his team best with Granger starting and Lance Stephenson leading the second unit as a point guard" to your "Bird calling for Lance at point guard." I do think it's possible Bird expressed that opinion, but it's impossible to tell what he eventually wants out of Lance. Does he want him to learn to be a point guard to take over the starting role in the future with either Hill or Granger leaving town? Does he just think he's our best backup point guard but ultimately sees him as our future starting SG? Does he envision him as a sixth man who can ultimately come in and play at 3 positions? I think it can be used as minor support at face value, but really nothing else.

                  I will say that I'm safe in agreeing with you that I want Lance playing more with the ball in his hands. Playing off the ball is not where he is best. But at least until he proves otherwise, I think both Hill and George are better options for ballhandler than lance.
                  Last edited by aamcguy; 09-26-2013, 09:55 AM.
                  Time for a new sig.

                  Comment


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

                    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.

                    Comment


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

                      Since JOB left Granger is less one dimensional than ever before. But you have to admit he jacks up too many threes still, just like Paul.

                      Comment


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

                        Yeah, they both do. Doesn't make either of them one-dimensional, though, if that was anyone's argument.

                        Comment


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

                          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.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Major Cold View Post

                            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.
                            Considering Granger was the only real outside threat during the 2011-2012 season it made sense he took more shots, as him and West were the only reliable scorers. Paul George shot like 29% from mid-range to 3 pointer that year. Now with a more balanced scoring and PG getting better, it'll be interesting. WOO Next Saturday and against a good team, it will be a fun watch.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by immortality View Post
                              Considering Granger was the only real outside threat during the 2011-2012 season it made sense he took more shots, as him and West were the only reliable scorers. Paul George shot like 29% from mid-range to 3 pointer that year. Now with a more balanced scoring and PG getting better, it'll be interesting. WOO Next Saturday and against a good team, it will be a fun watch.
                              I think my point is he is taking too many 3s. And I think there could have been more emphasis on post entry
                              1 Danny Granger 28 62 62 2062 391 941 .416 123 323 .381 254 291 .873 79 228 307 109 62 40 110 144 1159
                              2 David West 31 66 66 1925 349 716 .487 2 9 .222 142 176 .807 118 315 433 140 52 46 93 160 842
                              3 Roy Hibbert 25 65 65 1937 332 668 .497 0 1 .000 170 239 .711 213 359 572 108 32 128 128 195 834
                              4 Paul George 21 66 66 1958 281 639 .440 90 234 .385 146 182 .802 56 314 370 158 108 38 117 191 798
                              5 Darren Collison 24 60 56 1878 230 523 .440 34 94 .362 127 153 .830 30 157 187 287 49 14 114 101 621
                              6 Tyler Hansbrough 26 66 0 1442 194 479 .405 0 1 .000 226 278 .813 113 177 290 30 54 9 65 159 614
                              7 George Hill 25 50 9 1274 168 380 .442 54 147 .367 91 117 .778 31 120 151 145 42 17 52 98 481
                              8 Dahntay Jones 31 65 3 1052 115 281 .409 33 77 .429 83 99 .838 23 94 117 63 23 11 46 119 346
                              9 Louis Amundson 29 60 0 753 89 207 .430 0 0 35 82 .427 94 128 222 14 27 44 45 125 213
                              10 Leandro Barbosa 29 22 0 436 73 183 .399 25 59 .424 25 33 .758 12 37 49 33 20 0 26 34 196
                              11 A.J. Price 25 44 1 568 59 174 .339 26 88 .295 28 35 .800 13 48 61 86 20 2 32 30 172
                              12 Lance Stephenson 21 42 1 442 47 125 .376 4 30 .133 8 17 .471 12 41 53 46 21 5 36 30 106
                              13 Jeff Pendergraph 24 20 1 106 15 36 .417 0 0 4 7 .571 12 21 33 4 3 2 2 16 34
                              14 Jeff Foster 35 11 0 141 9 18 .500 1 1 1.000 6 9 .667 18 24 42 4 8 1 7 26 25
                              15 Kyrylo Fesenko 25 3 0 17 2 5 .400 0 0 4 6 .667 2 7 9 1 2 0 0 2 8
                              Data courtesy Basketball-Reference.com.


                              1 Danny Granger 28 62 62 2062 391 941 .416 123 323 .381 254 291 .873 79 228 307 109 62 40 110 144 1159
                              2 David West 31 66 66 1925 349 716 .487 2 9 .222 142 176 .807 118 315 433 140 52 46 93 160 842
                              3 Roy Hibbert 25 65 65 1937 332 668 .497 0 1 .000 170 239 .711 213 359 572 108 32 128 128 195 834
                              4 Paul George 21 66 66 1958 281 639 .440 90 234 .385 146 182 .802 56 314 370 158 108 38 117 191 798
                              5 Darren Collison 24 60 56 1878 230 523 .440 34 94 .362 127 153 .830 30 157 187 287 49 14 114 101 621
                              6 Tyler Hansbrough 26 66 0 1442 194 479 .405 0 1 .000 226 278 .813 113 177 290 30 54 9 65 159 614
                              7 George Hill 25 50 9 1274 168 380 .442 54 147 .367 91 117 .778 31 120 151 145 42 17 52 98 481
                              8 Dahntay Jones 31 65 3 1052 115 281 .409 33 77 .429 83 99 .838 23 94 117 63 23 11 46 119 346
                              9 Louis Amundson 29 60 0 753 89 207 .430 0 0 35 82 .427 94 128 222 14 27 44 45 125 213
                              10 Leandro Barbosa 29 22 0 436 73 183 .399 25 59 .424 25 33 .758 12 37 49 33 20 0 26 34 196
                              11 A.J. Price 25 44 1 568 59 174 .339 26 88 .295 28 35 .800 13 48 61 86 20 2 32 30 172
                              12 Lance Stephenson 21 42 1 442 47 125 .376 4 30 .133 8 17 .471 12 41 53 46 21 5 36 30 106
                              13 Jeff Pendergraph 24 20 1 106 15 36 .417 0 0 4 7 .571 12 21 33 4 3 2 2 16 34
                              14 Jeff Foster 35 11 0 141 9 18 .500 1 1 1.000 6 9 .667 18 24 42 4 8 1 7 26 25
                              15 Kyrylo Fesenko 25 3 0 17 2 5 .400 0 0 4 6 .667 2 7 9 1 2 0 0 2 8
                              Data courtesy Basketball-Reference.com.
                              Last edited by Major Cold; 09-26-2013, 04:41 PM.

                              Comment


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

                                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.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X