Wow, it's getting gruesome the longer this goes on...or it's starting to become a joke.
Seriously? Kyle Korver? And somebody agrees with it? I know there's a new mancrush on Lance but let's stop putting down one player to make the other player shine too much on your eyes. That's borderline trolling, if it's not total trolling.
And being part of the bench of the US Team is a knock on him? So that means Rondo being cut makes him less of a player to Granger and the others? Now if you agree that Rondo > Granger then you're totally contradicting yourself. It's getting old really.
Myth. He's actually very effective at both of those things.
Again with the silliness. Danny's an average defensive SF at WORST. At his best, he's very good.He's an average defensive SF at best.
We can all agree that Kobe is the top wing, and one of the top 2-3 players, in the period between MJ and LeBron. The air up there is rare. But Korver is a ridiculous comparison. Korver's never been the primary threat on a team in his life. Danny's been the top scorer on the team for the past 5 years, and his average would have put him as the leading scorer this past year if his knee had been up for it.The bottom line here is that he's a lot closer to Korver than Kobe.
You'd be getting a lot more agreement if you didn't bring in these ridiculous overstatements.
Last edited by Anthem; 09-26-2013 at 10:49 PM.
This space for rent.
You call that one handed mechanical dribble very effective? There are very few wings in the NBA with a worse handle. I could put together a video of Britton Johnson and make him look like an all-star as well. His passing skills aren't even NCAA average.
yeah, we have a below average NCAA player as our primary inbound passer. Makes sense. You aren't going over the top or anything.
Danny isn't an amazing passer. But he is a solid one. He was the best post feeder in the 11-12 season. He won't wow you like Lance does with some of his passes. Thats just not his game. But to sit there and post that he is a below NCAA average passer, are you even trying to have a discussion here?
It ain't pretty, I'll grant you, but it gets the job done. How does he get into the lane so well if he has no handle? I think you're confusing aesthetics for effectiveness.
Challenge accepted! Please do so. That would be awesome. Post it in the highlights thread.I could put together a video of Britton Johnson and make him look like an all-star as well.
Go home, dude. You're drunk.His passing skills aren't even NCAA average.
This space for rent.
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.
This space for rent.
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 who weren't able to dribble, or drive to the basket without any type of effectiveness? Are there any one dimensional, spot up shooting wings that have been able to do that type of scoring throughout 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?
Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 09-27-2013 at 02:23 AM.
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.
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 at 09:15 AM.
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.
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 at 09:29 AM.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Last edited by Gamble1; 09-27-2013 at 10:20 AM.
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.