Page 34 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2430313233343536 LastLast
Results 826 to 850 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #826
    Member Eleazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,544

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    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
    Ok...just to straighten this out. Here are his dropping 2 pt FG% figures rookie year on.

    .462
    .459
    .446
    .447
    .428
    .425
    .416
    .286
    No those are his FG%, not 2P%. No wonder you don't understand the use of stats, you don't even know which stat are which.
    Last edited by Eleazar; 11-05-2013 at 11:21 PM.

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


  3. #827
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,530

    Sports Logo

    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
    That is just not true. I want Granger to play mostly with the bench to improve it. If he comes in to give Paul or Lance some rest and play with the starters, that's fine too. But I don't want him part of the group closing out games. I want Lance getting every bit of that experience (with the starters) unless match ups absolutely dictate otherwise.
    I don't want Granger closing out games either. But you disagree with my overall point as well. Why?
    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

  4. #828
    Come Home Lance! BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,998

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No those are his FG%, not 2P%. No wonder you don't understand the use of stats, you don't even know which stat is which.
    Yes, I know FG% is a combination. I should not have said 2. The point still stands and you ignore it. His FG% has been sliding for years and is not good...particularly if your calling card is the big time shooter.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BlueNGold For This Useful Post:


  6. #829
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,530

    Sports Logo

    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
    Yes, I know FG% is a combination. I should not have said 2. But the point still stands. His FG% has been sliding for years and is not good...particularly if your calling card is the big time shooter.
    Granger's calling card is that he is a great 3 point shooter. FG% is an all-encompassing stat that includes dunks, hook shots, lay-ups, fade-aways, pull-up jumpers, spot-up shots, floaters, leaners, 3 pointers and every other kind of shot in a basketball game.

    What I'm trying to say is that FG% is not the statistic that measures who is a great shooter and who isn't. Dwight Howard (and several other Centers) have very high FG% but you don't consider them good shooters, right?
    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

  7. #830
    Come Home Lance! BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,998

    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 don't want Granger closing out games either. But you disagree with my overall point as well. Why?
    Ok. I went back and read what you quoted from Cable. You want Lance to get practice handling the ball with the second unit. Yet you want him to close. Wouldn't you rather have him fine tune his skills with the first unit to ensure they close out well?

  8. #831
    Come Home Lance! BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,998

    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
    Granger's calling card is that he is a great 3 point shooter. FG% is an all-encompassing stat that includes dunks, hook shots, lay-ups, fade-aways, pull-up jumpers, spot-up shots, floaters, leaners, 3 pointers and every other kind of shot in a basketball game.

    What I'm trying to say is that FG% is not the statistic that measures who is a great shooter and who isn't. Dwight Howard (and several other Centers) have very high FG% but you don't consider them good shooters, right?
    Granger isn't even a great 3pt shooter. 38% is pretty good. But it is not great.

    Granger is great from the free throw line and he's pretty good from 3. But if that is his very best skill he's not a great player.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to BlueNGold For This Useful Post:


  10. #832
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,530

    Sports Logo

    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
    Ok. I went back and read what you quoted from Cable. You want Lance to get practice handling the ball with the second unit. Yet you want him to close. Wouldn't you rather have him fine tune his skills with the first unit to ensure they close out well?
    I want him to do both. I believe that he is capable of doing both. Lance will play enough minutes with both the starters and the bench in order to work on both of those roles. And I have no problem if Lance suddenly starts taking over games like Paul George did.
    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. #833
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,530

    Sports Logo

    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
    Granger isn't even a great 3pt shooter. 38% is pretty good. But it is not great.

    Granger is great from the free throw line and he's pretty good from 3. But if that is his very best skill he's not a great player.
    It's a percentage good enough to put him in the All-Time top-100 3p% list. He is #83 in that list and he is tied with John Stockton. Plus, he is keeping that percentage while having a much higher volume of 3 point shots than several others on this list -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ct_career.html

    So, yeah. He is a great shooter. At least, he was a great shooter before the injury. Injuries like that do not tend to take away one person's shooting but I guess that I have to wait and see how he plays when he returns before using the present tense.
    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

  12. #834
    Member Eleazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,544

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    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
    Yes, I know FG% is a combination. I should not have said 2. The point still stands and you ignore it. His FG% has been sliding for years and is not good...particularly if your calling card is the big time shooter.
    Because the raw FG% is a bad way to judge a shooter. Danny's 3P% has been relatively stable, he had one down year, but otherwise has shot 38+%. So we know he is still a good 3 point shooter even though his overall FG% is down. So the question is why is his FG% going down. To figure that out we have to look at the ratio of 3PA to 2PA. After Danny became the number 1 option there has been two major drops in his FG%. The first being 08-09 to 09-10. Here if we look at his stats we see this was Danny's worst year at shooting 3s as a number 1 option. He shot 36.1%. That year was also the year he took the greatest percentage of his shots from 3-point range, 38.5% of his shots. So even though he shot 47.1% from 2pointers, the amount of 3's he took brought down his overall FG% much more than usual. The following year his FG% was more or less the same (.3% is not a significant change), although for a different reason. That year his 3P% was up, his percentage of 3s taken was down, but there was a big drop in his 2p%. Why this is, it is hard to say without going back and watching. Could be he declined, or it could be the transition from JOB to Vogel. Considering that as a team the Pacers have shot horribly since Vogel took over I'm siding with it had more to do with Vogel than Danny, especially considering how well he ended the 11-12 season playing some of the best ball of his career. But in 11-12 the percentage of 3PA went up again for Danny which was a major reason why there was another drop in his FG%.

    See, looking at a single statistic doesn't tell you the whole story. It gives you one very small piece of a much bigger puzzle. Only once you start adding other pieces to the puzzle do they start to show you the whole picture. The shooting percentage stats are only one corner of the picture.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  14. #835
    Come Home Lance! BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,998

    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
    It's a percentage good enough to put him in the All-Time top-100 3p% list. He is #83 in that list and he is tied with John Stockton. Plus, he is keeping that percentage while having a much higher volume of 3 point shots than several others on this list -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ct_career.html

    So, yeah. He is a great shooter. At least, he was a great shooter before the injury. Injuries like that do not tend to take away one person's shooting but I guess that I have to wait and see how he plays when he returns before using the present tense.
    He's 33rd for active players. Brandon Rush is higher. CJ Watson is 41st. George Hill is 50th. Yes, Granger is a very good shooter but I don't consider anything less than 40%, particularly when it's been dropping to be all that great. Not saying he could not help the bench because he could.

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


  16. #836
    Come Home Lance! BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,998

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

    BTW, his numbers and stats and percentages were inflated on a bad team coached by JOb. Murphy shot 45% one year. But you should have seen him shoot in the 4th quarter that year. Teams were not guarding the Pacers that tight...

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BlueNGold For This Useful Post:


  18. #837
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    20,530

    Sports Logo

    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
    He's 33rd for active players. Brandon Rush is higher. CJ Watson is 41st. George Hill is 50th. Yes, Granger is a very good shooter but I don't consider anything less than 40%, particularly when it's been dropping to be all that great. Not saying he could not help the bench because he could.
    George Hill is attempting 2.7 3s per game. CJ Watson is attempting 2.1 3s per game. Brandon Rush is attempting 3.3 3s per game. Danny Granger is attempting 5.1 3s per game.

    A difference in volume is very significant since higher volume tends to mean lower efficiency. Another significant part is whether this player is an off-ball player or an on-ball player. Hill, Watson and Rush are mostly off-ball players. Danny was both but he spent a lot of time on-ball as well. Again, shooting 3s as an on-ball player is harder than shooting a spot-up 3. That's also why I want Danny to be an off-ball player when he returns.

    That's why Curry is so amazing. Because he is shooting crazy percentages (45.3% last year) while taking a huge volume of 3s (7.7 per game last year) and he does all that while being an on-ball player. I mean, Curry is just transcendental.
    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

  19. #838
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    6,403

    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
    George Hill is attempting 2.7 3s per game. CJ Watson is attempting 2.1 3s per game. Brandon Rush is attempting 3.3 3s per game. Danny Granger is attempting 5.1 3s per game.

    A difference in volume is very significant since higher volume tends to mean lower efficiency. Another significant part is whether this player is an off-ball player or an on-ball player. Hill, Watson and Rush are mostly off-ball players. Danny was both but he spent a lot of time on-ball as well. Again, shooting 3s as an on-ball player is harder than shooting a spot-up 3. That's also why I want Danny to be an off-ball player when he returns.

    That's why Curry is so amazing. Because he is shooting crazy percentages (45.3% last year) while taking a huge volume of 3s (7.7 per game last year) and he does all that while being an on-ball player. I mean, Curry is just transcendental.
    Don't forget to mention the fact that Danny was scoring option number one while the aforementioned players were all 3rd-4th options who could merely spread the floor. Just my two cents

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ace E.Anderson For This Useful Post:


  21. #839
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,551

    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
    BTW, his numbers and stats and percentages were inflated on a bad team coached by JOb. Murphy shot 45% one year. But you should have seen him shoot in the 4th quarter that year. Teams were not guarding the Pacers that tight...
    Whether or not Granger's numbers are inflated on Obie's teams, surely you're not saying that he's not one of the best, if not arguably the best, player on 2 Vogel teams?

    I think Danny's future is uncertain, but there's no denying that he was a very good player in the past.

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to wintermute For This Useful Post:


  23. #840
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,834

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wintermute View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Whether or not Granger's numbers are inflated on Obie's teams, surely you're not saying that he's not one of the best, if not arguably the best, player on 2 Vogel teams?

    I think Danny's future is uncertain, but there's no denying that he was a very good player in the past.
    Be aware that if anything positive is said about Granger in a thread about Lance, it will be disagreed with or qualified by one or more of a handful of trusty reasons describing why it can't possibly be relevant anymore.

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


  25. #841
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,217

    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
    A difference in volume is very significant since higher volume tends to mean lower efficiency.
    I'd be interested to know how you arrive at that notion. It seems to me higher volume gives you a better chance to warm up and find a groove.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  26. #842

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

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd be interested to know how you arrive at that notion. It seems to me higher volume gives you a better chance to warm up and find a groove.
    High volume players have to create offense when it breaks down, draw more defensive attention, shoot shots against the shot clock, etc. That tends to decrease their efficiency.

    Three point specialists and athletic defensive centers are examples of low volume players who tend to be super efficient because they rely on other players to get them shots, and they tend to only shoot when they're open.

    This is a great example of how scouting/statistics work together actually. Teams evaluate a player's role in the offense through observation, and then they can dig into the statistics and compare his efficiency to other players who have the same role in their offenses to see if he's being as efficient as he should be. Then they can look deeper into shot charts, etc. to see if there are certain areas of the court that are better for them to see if the offense is utilizing them correctly. Paul George IIRC was just talking about this about using shot charts to find spots on the floor that he naturally shoots better at and working in the offense to get to those points on the floor.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cubs231721 For This Useful Post:


  28. #843
    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 wintermute View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Whether or not Granger's numbers are inflated on Obie's teams, surely you're not saying that he's not one of the best, if not arguably the best, player on 2 Vogel teams?

    I think Danny's future is uncertain, but there's no denying that he was a very good player in the past.
    That last part is really important, HE WAS but the problem is that some people think he is still an all star.

  29. #844
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    4,225

    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 don't want Granger closing out games either. But you disagree with my overall point as well. Why?
    If I had to pick the player to close out a game, I still think I'd go with Granger assuming he's healthy. Lance is off to a good start in 4 games but his history of inconsistent play with a lot of mistakes can't be ignored yet. I'll still go with the vet down the stretch who will find a way to get to the line and convert and you want someone who can hit a foul shot down the stretch. I have to say that I'm impressed with the run Lance is on and I'm seeing fewer mistakes then last season but until I get to see what Granger has to offer for 20 games and see if Lance can show some reasonable consistency for that long, I'm not going to discount Granger.

  30. #845
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,217

    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
    If I had to pick the player to close out a game, I still think I'd go with Granger assuming he's healthy. Lance is off to a good start in 4 games but his history of inconsistent play with a lot of mistakes can't be ignored yet. I'll still go with the vet down the stretch who will find a way to get to the line and convert and you want someone who can hit a foul shot down the stretch. I have to say that I'm impressed with the run Lance is on and I'm seeing fewer mistakes then last season but until I get to see what Granger has to offer for 20 games and see if Lance can show some reasonable consistency for that long, I'm not going to discount Granger.
    I don't agree with the rest, but I completely agree with the bold part. Lance needs to improve ASAP at the foul line or he won't finish the last two minutes of games. And it will be totally on him.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to McKeyFan For This Useful Post:


  32. #846
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,217

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cubs231721 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    High volume players have to create offense when it breaks down, draw more defensive attention, shoot shots against the shot clock, etc. That tends to decrease their efficiency.

    Three point specialists and athletic defensive centers are examples of low volume players who tend to be super efficient because they rely on other players to get them shots, and they tend to only shoot when they're open.
    You could also say that the really good shooters just haven't been given an opportunity yet.

    You have a theory. I have a theory. So who's right?


    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  33. #847
    Member Eleazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,544

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You could also say that the really good shooters just haven't been given an opportunity yet.

    You have a theory. I have a theory. So who's right?


    How about we convince the team Kyle Korver is on to make him the number one option and see how it goes?

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  35. #848
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,551

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

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You could also say that the really good shooters just haven't been given an opportunity yet.

    You have a theory. I have a theory. So who's right?


    Well, the correct answer is "Depends on the player type/role". Thankfully, we can look up such things now.

    http://hoopdata.com/motioncharts.aspx

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


  37. #849
    Come Home Lance! BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,998

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

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Be aware that if anything positive is said about Granger in a thread about Lance, it will be disagreed with or qualified by one or more of a handful of trusty reasons describing why it can't possibly be relevant anymore.
    I thanked his post. Danny is a very good player but he needs to take a backseat so Lance can develop with the starters.

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to BlueNGold For This Useful Post:


  39. #850

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

    I love Danny, but if he wants to be apart of a Championship contending team, he will accept his role and come off the bench. I think/hope Lance can continue to improve and be our starting shooting guard for years to come. I do think Lance will go into a slump at some point during the season, and this could very well coincide Danny's returning to playing meaningful minutes, but I do not think that the starting lineup should be changed.

Posting Permissions

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