I want us to establish a constant offensive flow and have a shot creator on the floor at all times. That's the aim of the ideas I have posted in this discussion. I believe that this will be easier to achieve if Lance is the 6th man. If Vogel finds a way to do that while keeping Lance in starting line-up then I'm perfectly fine with that.
Having one of your best players come off the bench is an exception because not all teams have the luxury to have 7 players on their roster that are starting quality. We have that luxury.
However, I will be perfectly fine if Vogel finds a way to have Lance or PG on the court all times while keeping them both in the starting unit. That's why I have said a lot of times that I'm extremely glad with how things are at the moment.
The problems with you guys has always been attempting to devalue Granger in anyway possible, and overhype Lance before he's proven anything.
Granger has shot a higher percentage than PG (his season last year as a scorer) every year of his career. For his career he's a more efficient scorer than KOBE BRYANT. He was a scorer plain and simple. What's the point of spewing that ********? Or are just you that ignorant?
Now on another completely different note, just to add some common sense to this thread for once, if Lance is somehow able to continue to play like this all season obviously he'll have proven himself at minimum equal to Danny Granger. While I completely understand "fit" that some folks are arguing for, for me I'm always about talent. I'd rather the better player start, so if Lance is still playing like this in a month when Granger is finally completely back in the swing of things, I would want him to keep the job. To be clear, tho, I understand why folks would STILL want Granger in the lineup as he's a fantastic shooter, and shooting is the need most lacking in the starting lineup. Just an opinion tho- I go for talent versus fit.
Last edited by mattie; 11-04-2013 at 01:15 AM.
What's with the sarcasm? I dont' want to be mean, but if you can't understand the difference you really are an idiot.
Here is the list by the way -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ct_career.html
As you can clearly see Danny is #94 in the All-Time NBA list and #98 in the All-Time joint NBA/ABA list.
It is simply astounding how many times people want to argue with facts. It would be one thing if people stuck to just arguing over their differing opinions. We all have them, and that's the fun in discussing them. But arguing with undeniable truths? As if you can change reality simply with a smartass comment? Blows my mind.
Mean while, low volume low players many times can have extremely high efficiency ratings (as they should, low attempts, make the best of your wide open looks).
Once again, what is the point of trying to belittle Granger's accomplishments?? If Lance continues his play as is, he will have truly earned his starting spot over Granger by being a better ball player. You don't need to attempt to belittle Granger's scoring ability to argue that Lance should start.
I don't think Lance after 3 games (tho it was after 2 games at the time) has proven that he's a 19ppg scorer yet. I think he's had a fantastic start to the season. But, I'll wait to see if he keeps it up before crowning him the next Pacers all-star. Seems fair enough?
TS% is a shooting efficiency statistic as it's name implies. It isn't a "best player" statistic.
Sollozzo, you have a good basketball mind. Don't intentionally misinterpret statistics in order to make them sound ridiculous just because they disagree with your opinion.
This is what's amazing.
So you find out that LBJ and MJ aren't the two most efficient scorers of all time so that means it doesn't matter how efficient a player can score? Think about what you're saying. =)