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 BlueNGold View Post
    This is the core of our disagreement. The fact is, we could use a better perimeter shooter with the starting unit. I get that. You get that. Not a single person in this thread wouldn't or shouldn't agree with it. But there is more to the game than shooting the basketball.

    The starting unit also needs better ball movement. As good as Hill is, he is not a pass first PG. Last year, Lance was already pretty good at delivering the ball to guys in scoring position...far better than anyone on the team. He is bound to get better at that.

    The starting unit also needs better ball penetration. Lance has the ability to dribble the basketball without putting his head down and steamrolling like Granger. He is a serious threat and puts a lot of pressure on the interior defense. He will only get better at that.

    The starting unit could use better rebounding. People, Lance is breaking out before your eyes and some don't recognize it. He is a big, aggressive guard with long and strong arms...who goes after rebounds. Then you have Paul, a SF, who racks up boards too...and pulling him out to the perimeter to play an unnatural position is going to hurt his ability to rebound.

    The starting unit needs to retain its defense. It's not just about the fact Lance/Paul defends the wing better than Paul/Danny. It's that pulling Paul out to the perimeter prevents him from helping on D. Roy is left more vulnerable to fouling because Granger isn't going to be nearly quick enough to move into position to help stop penetration.

    Look, I understand there's a lot to chew on. But people need to get this straight in their heads. The starting unit doesn't need to change. It just needs more time to develop. Paul, Roy, Hill and Lance should all be a little better next year. Just add Granger, Copeland, Scola and Watson to the bench and watch this team get much better. We can use Danny. He can play a lot of minutes off the bench and when match ups are favorable. We can use his shooting. But with that knee being an unknown all year, why risk him going down and hurting our starting units development? He's a great shooter. We all know that. But it is not the right decision to change this starting unit.
    So. That's the thing.

    Lance is such a stunning passer, that he averaged an overwhelming 2.9 assists per game. The same amount of assists as David West.

    As you said, he's a great rebounder too! I mean, his 3.9 rebounds per game isn't as good as Danny's 5 rebounds per game, but somehow someway, there has got to be away to reason why Lance is a better rebounder than Danny.

    Lance and Paul also have to play much better defense as well. I mean, since the 11-12 season, Hill, West, Roy, and Paul George are all either a little or MUCH improved on defense. Those four guys, the four who started with Danny Granger, are all better in the 12-13 season than the 11-12 season when they started with Lance. Yet somehow, the five man unit of Hill-PG-DG-West-Roy is a more potent defense than the five man unit of Hill-Lance-PG-West-Roy. Either way, I'm going to ignore reality and just assume Lance/Paul is a better defensive wing combo than PG/DG.

    I love how Lance is "by far the best" at giving the ball to people in scoring position yet he doesn't even lead the team in assists. Look, if he was the best at giving the ball to people in scoring position? He'd have the most assists, because people in scoring position would score the ball, and subsequently award Lance with the assist.

    Here's some facts about Lance: He was assisted on scores about the same amount as Ray Allen, a guy who's been relegated to playing off the ball and shooting it when it gets to him. The only difference is, Ray actually scored. According to Hoopdata, Lance shot no better than 33% from 3 feet and beyond. He was only effective at the rim. This is because Lance spends his entire time off the ball and the only way he can score is if he shoots layups. Because he CAN'T SHOOT.

    Here check this out, more examples of Lance Stephenson's STUNNING passing ability: http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball...s/13/3/ast/1-1

    The link will show a list of all the two guards in the NBA. Lance is ranked 19th among all two guards. Incredible right?

    See here's the deal, me and you both have differing opinions on what Lance brings. However, one of those opinions is based on facts, and another is based on a fantasy.

    I don't think Lance can score, and his 8ppg game is proof of that. I don't think he's that great of a passer and his 2.9 assists per game is proof of that. I don't think he's that creative and the numbers showing him assisted on nearly every basket is proof of that. I don't think he's a better rebounder than Danny, and his 3 rebounds compared to Danny's 5 rebounds is proof of that. I think he's a terrible shooter and the numbers showing him ineffective from everywhere on the court except at the rim is proof of that. I think the fact that the five man unit was better defensively with Danny instead of Lance is proof that at the very least Danny is as good as Lance, but considering his size and length he's probably better.

    Now VNZ and the lot will continue to say otherwise all day long, but you know what? I'm ok with that because all the numbers back me up. Nothing backs you up except wild opinions based on nothing other than the fantasy and desire to see two young players grow up into a fancy, flashy duo. As others have said, I wish Danny had showed a littler more flash to his game, because then people wouldn't cast him aside for what will probably be a career role player.

    Comment


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

      By the way, speaking of Hill not handling pressure moments, should I do the classic Vnz argument where he posts highlight videos?? Shoud I show the highlight videos of all of George Hill's game winners?? You're right. He doesn't handle pressure well, that's why he has more game winners than anyone on the Pacers.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        I would be curious to know if he, or anybody else for that matter, was talking about the writing on the wall regarding Danny and his knees prior to last preseason.
        I have been talking about Danny knee issues for years, my argument was always to trade him while his value was high and his knees were "good", I knew why he dropped on the draft and the teams reasoning for passing on him, some comments at the time were that they didn't expect his career to last that long because of his bad knees (like Brandon Roy) him having knee issues year after year made me see the writing on the wall it was only a matter of time for those knees to give up.

        Seriously I'm not sure how some of you don't remember this especially when some of you called me names for predicting it, I also think is funny that I was blasting the clown few years ago because he was playing an injured Danny to make a last "playoffs push", I was worried about the clown messing up Danny's knees lol what a hater I was.

        And nope is not my fault PD is not keeping records.
        Last edited by vnzla81; 09-22-2013, 11:07 AM.
        @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

          vnzl said: And nope is not my fault PD is not keeping records.


          ROTFL you just surpassed your most ridiculous statement ever, i will bother you with this :
          http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...nting-the-post which as you may notice is thread from many years before your existence on this board, if you can't find threads where you stated your claims that is most likely because you never made those claims.



          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

          Comment


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

            One other consideration Frank and Co. may take into account about starting Danny is whether his knee will stiffen if he sits for a quarter after warming up. Remember when Foster used to spend his 'bench' time on a stationary bike to keep his back loose? Personally, I have stated over and over that I would like to see Danny come off the bench and provide the leadership role for the new Goonies. However, I will not be shocked if FV does just what he said he would do last year and start Danny if he is ready to play. Having Roy and West around the paint with DG on one side of the floor and PG on the other for kick-outs with Hill directing is a pretty daunting image for opposing Coaches to defend against

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by able View Post
              ROTFL you just surpassed your most ridiculous statement ever, i will bother you with this : [/COLOR]http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...nting-the-post which as you may notice is thread from many years before your existence on this board, if you can't find threads where you stated your claims that is most likely because you never made those claims.



              I don't know why I bother to argue with you but yeah some years of old posts are gone, anytime I look for old posts I go from 2013/12 straight to 2005/2004.

              I also remember the time you guys(PD administrators) lost some years of old posts are you telling me that you recovered all that? I don't see it.
              @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

                Yep anytime I go to "advance search" I'm only able to see posts from 2004/05/06 and then starts again in 2012/13, it looks like 2007/08/09/10 and 2011 are gone, I'm the only one that can't search those other years?

                http://www.pacersdigest.com/search.p...094&pp=&page=6
                @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

                  Originally posted by mattie View Post


                  So. That's the thing.


                  Lance is such a stunning passer, that he averaged an overwhelming 2.9 assists per game. The same amount of assists as David West.


                  This isn't about West. Granger averaged 1.9 per 36 minutes in 2012. Lance averaged 3.5 per 36 minutes last year. There is no comparison.


                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  As you said, he's a great rebounder too! I mean, his 3.9 rebounds per game isn't as good as Danny's 5 rebounds per game, but somehow someway, there has got to be away to reason why Lance is a better rebounder than Danny.

                  Lance as a GUARD averaged 4.8 per 36 during the regular season and stepped it up in the playoffs. Granger as a FORWARD averaged 5.4 in 2012 as a veteran in the prime of his career. With Paul playing SF instead of on the perimeter chasing guards, there is no question as a team we rebound better. The issue here is you and others are thinking of Granger production in a vacuum.


                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  Lance and Paul also have to play much better defense as well. I mean, since the 11-12 season, Hill, West, Roy, and Paul George are all either a little or MUCH improved on defense. Those four guys, the four who started with Danny Granger, are all better in the 12-13 season than the 11-12 season when they started with Lance. Yet somehow, the five man unit of Hill-PG-DG-West-Roy is a more potent defense than the five man unit of Hill-Lance-PG-West-Roy. Either way, I'm going to ignore reality and just assume Lance/Paul is a better defensive wing combo than PG/DG.



                  You ignore the fact Granger cannot help Roy on D the way Paul can. Push Paul out to chase guards around and Roy racks up fouls. Look at the big picture.


                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  I love how Lance is "by far the best" at giving the ball to people in scoring position yet he doesn't even lead the team in assists. Look, if he was the best at giving the ball to people in scoring position? He'd have the most assists, because people in scoring position would score the ball, and subsequently award Lance with the assist.

                  If that was his role, he would lead the team. God help us if that's Danny Granger's role.


                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  Here's some facts about Lance: He was assisted on scores about the same amount as Ray Allen, a guy who's been relegated to playing off the ball and shooting it when it gets to him. The only difference is, Ray actually scored. According to Hoopdata, Lance shot no better than 33% from 3 feet and beyond. He was only effective at the rim. This is because Lance spends his entire time off the ball and the only way he can score is if he shoots layups. Because he CAN'T SHOOT.

                  Can't shoot but shot 2nd best on team FG%. Can't shoot but has a better career FG% than Granger...this awesome shooter. .44 to .437 for Granger. Whatever. You probably supported Jim O'Brien as coach, didn't you?


                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  See here's the deal, me and you both have differing opinions on what Lance brings. However, one of those opinions is based on facts, and another is based on a fantasy.

                  You got that right.

                  Comment


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

                    we lost 6 months max, the rest is your incapable searching, you only joined in 2008 so why you want posts from before then to prove things is beyond me, certainly not something you posted.


                    2005: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...ravelling-quot
                    2006: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...s-about-to-set
                    2007: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...ypical-fashion
                    2008: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...ere-still-here
                    2009: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...s-the-positive
                    2010: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...urant-wears-35
                    2011: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...ters-block-MIA
                    2012: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...ew-York-Groove

                    so once again someone proven you so horribly wrong, are you really trying to argue the size and content of our database with me?? too funny

                    you can't find it because you never wrote it
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by able View Post
                      we lost 6 months max, the rest is your incapable searching, you only joined in 2008 so why you want posts from before then to prove things is beyond me, certainly not something you posted.
                      I'm not looking for posts before that all I'm saying is that when I search only some years are coming up.


                      so once again someone proven you so horribly wrong, are you really trying to argue the size and content of our database with me?? too funny

                      you can't find it because you never wrote it
                      I remember writing it and nope I'm not going to argue whatever database you have all I'm saying is that I can't find those other years(maybe something is wrong?) either way nevermind and don't worry about fixing it.

                      And like I said before I know I'm wasting my time by talking to you.
                      @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

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        This is the core of our disagreement. The fact is, we could use a better perimeter shooter with the starting unit. I get that. You get that. Not a single person in this thread wouldn't or shouldn't agree with it. But there is more to the game than shooting the basketball.

                        The starting unit also needs better ball movement. As good as Hill is, he is not a pass first PG. Last year, Lance was already pretty good at delivering the ball to guys in scoring position...far better than anyone on the team. He is bound to get better at that.

                        The starting unit also needs better ball penetration. Lance has the ability to dribble the basketball without putting his head down and steamrolling like Granger. He is a serious threat and puts a lot of pressure on the interior defense. He will only get better at that.

                        The starting unit could use better rebounding. People, Lance is breaking out before your eyes and some don't recognize it. He is a big, aggressive guard with long and strong arms...who goes after rebounds. Then you have Paul, a SF, who racks up boards too...and pulling him out to the perimeter to play an unnatural position is going to hurt his ability to rebound.

                        The starting unit needs to retain its defense. It's not just about the fact Lance/Paul defends the wing better than Paul/Danny. It's that pulling Paul out to the perimeter prevents him from helping on D. Roy is left more vulnerable to fouling because Granger isn't going to be nearly quick enough to move into position to help stop penetration.

                        Look, I understand there's a lot to chew on. But people need to get this straight in their heads. The starting unit doesn't need to change. It just needs more time to develop. Paul, Roy, Hill and Lance should all be a little better next year. Just add Granger, Copeland, Scola and Watson to the bench and watch this team get much better. We can use Danny. He can play a lot of minutes off the bench and when match ups are favorable. We can use his shooting. But with that knee being an unknown all year, why risk him going down and hurting our starting units development? He's a great shooter. We all know that. But it is not the right decision to change this starting unit.
                        If Lance is so much better for the offense of our starting unit, why did we have a much worse offense last season as opposed to the 11-12 season? And this was with an upgrade at the starting PG (Hill) a much improved Paul George, a healthier and improved D.West, and a monster after the AS break in Roy Hibbert.

                        Lance has the POTENTIAL to be a consistent drive and kick facilitator and a ball handler, but he hardly ever does it within the half court. Most of his points came out of the open court, on back-door cuts, and off of wide open 3-pointers. That's it. He doesn't get to the line much at all and he doesn't break guys down and get to the basket consistently in the half court either.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by able View Post
                          we lost 6 months max, the rest is your incapable searching, you only joined in 2008 so why you want posts from before then to prove things is beyond me, certainly not something you posted.


                          2005: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...ravelling-quot
                          2006: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...s-about-to-set
                          2007: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...ypical-fashion
                          2008: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...ere-still-here
                          2009: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...s-the-positive
                          2010: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...urant-wears-35
                          2011: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...ters-block-MIA
                          2012: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...ew-York-Groove

                          so once again someone proven you so horribly wrong, are you really trying to argue the size and content of our database with me?? too funny

                          you can't find it because you never wrote it
                          Another factor is people love to bump old threads and that brings old posts into the 'present' all the time, too.

                          Comment


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

                            VNZLA, i show you that all those years are still in the database, and that the error is a PICNIC error (Problem In Chair, Not In Computer) and all you can come up with is insulting me to say you should not argue with me and all the load of that remark? Disgusting, but to be honest, all in line with your usual behaviour on these boards.

                            Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks, if it wont stick it is someone else's fault
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by mattie View Post
                              So. That's the thing.

                              Lance is such a stunning passer, that he averaged an overwhelming 2.9 assists per game. The same amount of assists as David West.

                              As you said, he's a great rebounder too! I mean, his 3.9 rebounds per game isn't as good as Danny's 5 rebounds per game, but somehow someway, there has got to be away to reason why Lance is a better rebounder than Danny.

                              Lance and Paul also have to play much better defense as well. I mean, since the 11-12 season, Hill, West, Roy, and Paul George are all either a little or MUCH improved on defense. Those four guys, the four who started with Danny Granger, are all better in the 12-13 season than the 11-12 season when they started with Lance. Yet somehow, the five man unit of Hill-PG-DG-West-Roy is a more potent defense than the five man unit of Hill-Lance-PG-West-Roy. Either way, I'm going to ignore reality and just assume Lance/Paul is a better defensive wing combo than PG/DG.

                              I love how Lance is "by far the best" at giving the ball to people in scoring position yet he doesn't even lead the team in assists. Look, if he was the best at giving the ball to people in scoring position? He'd have the most assists, because people in scoring position would score the ball, and subsequently award Lance with the assist.

                              Here's some facts about Lance: He was assisted on scores about the same amount as Ray Allen, a guy who's been relegated to playing off the ball and shooting it when it gets to him. The only difference is, Ray actually scored. According to Hoopdata, Lance shot no better than 33% from 3 feet and beyond. He was only effective at the rim. This is because Lance spends his entire time off the ball and the only way he can score is if he shoots layups. Because he CAN'T SHOOT.

                              Here check this out, more examples of Lance Stephenson's STUNNING passing ability: http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball...s/13/3/ast/1-1

                              The link will show a list of all the two guards in the NBA. Lance is ranked 19th among all two guards. Incredible right?

                              See here's the deal, me and you both have differing opinions on what Lance brings. However, one of those opinions is based on facts, and another is based on a fantasy.

                              I don't think Lance can score, and his 8ppg game is proof of that. I don't think he's that great of a passer and his 2.9 assists per game is proof of that. I don't think he's that creative and the numbers showing him assisted on nearly every basket is proof of that. I don't think he's a better rebounder than Danny, and his 3 rebounds compared to Danny's 5 rebounds is proof of that. I think he's a terrible shooter and the numbers showing him ineffective from everywhere on the court except at the rim is proof of that. I think the fact that the five man unit was better defensively with Danny instead of Lance is proof that at the very least Danny is as good as Lance, but considering his size and length he's probably better.

                              Now VNZ and the lot will continue to say otherwise all day long, but you know what? I'm ok with that because all the numbers back me up. Nothing backs you up except wild opinions based on nothing other than the fantasy and desire to see two young players grow up into a fancy, flashy duo. As others have said, I wish Danny had showed a littler more flash to his game, because then people wouldn't cast him aside for what will probably be a career role player.
                              Be ready for the whole "stats don't tell the whole story" thing....until someone can find a stat that proves their point to be correct. lol.

                              Good Post though bro

                              Comment


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

                                Searching PD using google:

                                "vnzla81 knee" gets you 'About 70,000 results'.

                                Now, same search, specifying only posts between 7/1/2008 and 9/1/2012, again "vnzla81 knee", gets you 23 results.

                                Of those 23, the results are threads discussing the knee's of David West, Eric Gordon, Tim Thomas, Jonathan Bender, someone named Molcok in the Purdue thread, David West, John "Hot Plate" Williams, Jarrett Jack, Jeff Foster, Paul George, Dwyane Wade, a quote from Emiliano Zapata, David West, Mike Dunleavy, Mike Dunleavy again, Bob Sanders, M.L. Carr kneeing Stepanovich in the lower abdomen, being on your knees wishing Stacy Paetz was back instead of Brooke, Josh McRoberts's knee-high socks, Brandon Roy, Michael Beasley rubbing a teammate's knee on the bench, Paul George, and Perry Jones III.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X