Page 21 of 36 FirstFirst ... 1117181920212223242531 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 525 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #501

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You're right about it getting more hilarious. It's been 3 games already and we're only talking all star for Stephenson. Where's the mvp thread?
    weren't you one of the guys who said Paul had no chance to make the team last year?

  2. #502
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,706

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1369 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Which would also be a horrible idea. You are gaurenteeing we play 14 mins a game against the other teams best unit with an inferior unit. All so you can get a few extra minutes of Lance with the bench. Having one of your best players come off the bench is an exception for a reason.
    I wasn't talking about 14 minutes. I was talking about 5 mins each half so I was talking about 10 total minutes. The concept is the same.

    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.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  3. #503

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I wasn't talking about 14 minutes. I was talking about 5 mins each half so I was talking about 10 total minutes. The concept is the same.

    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.
    So you want to move a starter to the bench and then start subbing early?

  4. #504
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,706

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1369 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So you want to move a starter to the bench and then start subbing early?
    Yeah, that's the idea.

    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.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  5. #505
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,553

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    One factor not mentioned here is that Granger wouldn't be scoring nearly as many points as he did when he was "the man". Not only is this team MUCH better, he will never again be the best player on the team. Not with Paul. Hibbert is clearly more valuable.

    The point is, everyone needs to forget about the seasons Granger got his numbers on bad teams. It happens all the time. A player has inflated stats because his team isn't all that good. Granger was a trooper delivering for the Pacers year after year, but that's exactly what happened. His scoring average, on fairly poor FG%, was very much inflated. At best he would average 17PPG on this team.

    Seriously, the team is so much better now. People need to readjust who Danny Granger really is because even if 100% healthy he may very well be the 4th best player on the team.



    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.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  7. #506
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,805

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Granger has shot a higher percentage than PG every year of his career. For his career he's a more efficient scorer than KOBE BRYANT.
    Let me guess, he was also more efficient than Michael Jordan......

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  9. #507
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,553

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Let me guess, he was also more efficient than Michael Jordan......
    No. He wasn't. Jesus you're totally not an idiot.
    Last edited by mattie; 11-04-2013 at 01:43 AM.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  10. #508
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,706

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The problems with you guys has always been attempting to devalue Granger in anyway possible.
    Thanked for this very simple fact.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  12. #509
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Let me guess, he was also more efficient than Michael Jordan......
    And Reggie Miller of course..

  13. #510
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,553

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And Reggie Miller of course..
    I mean are you serious, or just really slow? Can you not understand the difference between facts and opinion? "I think Granger (or Lance) is better in the starting lineup" is an opinion. "Player A was more efficient than player B according basketball-reference.com" is a fact.

    What's with the sarcasm? I dont' want to be mean, but if you can't understand the difference you really are an idiot.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  14. #511
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,706

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Let me guess, he was also more efficient than Michael Jordan......
    Nope. But mattie is absolutely right. Danny Granger has a better career TS% than Kobe Bryant. It's just the truth.

    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.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  16. #512
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,706

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And Reggie Miller of course..
    Again, no. Reggie Miller has a higher career TS%. Reggie is #6 in NBA's All-Time list.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  17. #513
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,706

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I mean are you serious, or just really slow? Can you not understand the difference between facts and opinion? "I think Granger (or Lance) is better in the starting lineup" is an opinion. "Player A was more efficient than player B according basketball-reference.com" is a fact.

    What's with the sarcasm? I dont' want to be mean, but if you can't understand the difference you really are an idiot.
    He is not an idiot. He is a smart guy with an agenda. As we can see by this thread his agenda is working perfectly. Why would he change his tune?
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  19. #514
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,805

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nope. But mattie is absolutely right. Danny Granger has a better career TS% than Kobe Bryant. It's just the truth.

    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.
    Rickey Pierce and Kyle Korver are better than Jordan on this list.

    This list is a way to artificially inflate three point chuckers.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  21. #515
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,805

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No. He wasn't. Jesus you're an idiot.

    Sorry, I got it confused with eFG%.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  23. #516
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,553

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nope. But mattie is absolutely right. Danny Granger has a better career TS% than Kobe Bryant. It's just the truth.

    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.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  25. #517
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,553

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Rickey Pierce and Kyle Korver are better than Jordan on this list.

    This list is a way to artificially inflate three point chuckers.
    No. It shows who is efficient at scoring. SO if you have a high volume scorer who is also efficient, you know he's a good scorer. Right?

    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.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  27. #518
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    42
    Posts
    25,672

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm pretty sure you got to read the whole thread and you know who I'm talking about, here is one of the comments:
    Nope...I have no clue who posted this.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  28. #519
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    6,528

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The problems with you guys has always been attempting to devalue Granger in anyway possible, and overhype Lance before he's proven anything.
    very true. This is my main issue with this particular discussion and honestly the reason why I've commented and argued less and less.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Ace E.Anderson For This Useful Post:


  30. #520
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,805

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No. It shows who is efficient at scoring. SO if you have a high volume scorer who is also efficient, you know he's a good scorer. Right?

    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.
    Lebron is 57th on the list. Jordan is 71st. Those are two of the top 10 players in NBA history. The list is a complete joke.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  32. #521
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,553

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nope...I have no clue who posted this.
    I said it. (I was the only one).

    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?
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  33. #522
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,706

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Rickey Pierce and Kyle Korver are better than Jordan on this list.

    This list is a way to artificially inflate three point chuckers.
    You're confusing the word "more efficient" with the word "better". No one said that they were better. Mattie said that they were more efficient because that's the true. It's a well-known fact that more efficient does not equal better.

    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.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  34. #523
    Member Eleazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,592

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Rickey Pierce and Kyle Korver are better than Jordan on this list.

    This list is a way to artificially inflate three point chuckers.
    These stats may not be accurate when comparing different positions and roles, but while comparing players with similar roles (i.e. number 1 scoring wing option) these stats become much more meaningful.

  35. #524
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,553

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Lebron is 57th on the list. Jordan is 71st. Those are two of the top 10 players in NBA history. The list is a complete joke.
    It is exactly what it says it is. It's a list of how efficient every player scores. IT's not a joke. It isn't something you can't argue. It's simply a list of how efficient every player is.

    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. =)
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  37. #525
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,553

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He is not an idiot. He is a smart guy with an agenda. As we can see by this thread his agenda is working perfectly. Why would he change his tune?
    Neither Sollozo or Vnz deserve that. Apologies.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •