Page 25 of 36 FirstFirst ... 1521222324252627282935 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 625 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #601
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,769

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Sorry, it wasn't Brent Barry vs. Jordan, it was Barry vs. Jordan, Shap, Dirk, LeBron, and Bird.



    You've spent the last three pages trying to either trying to distort what the statistic means, and after that didn't work out, how it's calculated.

    So at 1 AM I made a sarcastic comment about something that is factually correct (Barry being ranked higher than 5 HOFers). The horror.

  2. #602
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,091

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    RIGHT NOW, in November of 2013, LANCE is the better shooter!!! Danny hasn't played in a year and a half, and you are making a BIG assumption that Danny will be the same player he was. Besides, Danny was always a volume scorer. Never an automatic shooter like Ray Allen or Kyle Korver. FACT: Lance is shooting lights out RIGHT NOW. Until or IF Danny comes back, YOU cannot assume he is Reggie Miller 2.0
    Re-stating your opinion with a couple exclamation points doesn't some how change it to fact, even if there are three. I've never said anything about Reggie2.0. This is what is so damn frustrating trying to discuss this topic, because what is said, isn't comprehended correctly, and what isn't said, is the point that is ran with. Instead of you using what you THINK people have said, use what they actually DID say, and this convo would run a lot smoother.

    As for the rest of it, I'll just continue to laugh about you trying to use 3 games worth of Lance's shooting percentages, and somehow think that's the real Lance and not his career shooting percentages. Might as well get him his MIP trophy now, and put his name in the record books as the great three point shooting season of all time. 65% in three games, MARK IT DOWN BABY!
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  4. #603
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Danny was NEVER known for his defense. Lance CAN defend and is a terrific rebounder for a SG
    EMPHASIS doesn't make this any less false.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  6. #604
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,861

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Danny was NEVER known for his defense. Lance CAN defend and is a terrific rebounder for a SG
    pre-JOB Danny was absolutely known for his defense. Ask Ron Artest.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ilive4sports For This Useful Post:


  8. #605
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    RIGHT NOW, in November of 2013, LANCE is the better shooter!!! Danny hasn't played in a year and a half, and you are making a BIG assumption that Danny will be the same player he was. Besides, Danny was always a volume scorer. Never an automatic shooter like Ray Allen or Kyle Korver. FACT: Lance is shooting lights out RIGHT NOW. Until or IF Danny comes back, YOU cannot assume he is Reggie Miller 2.0
    OF COURSE right now, November 2013 he's a better shooter. Who the hell do you think is ARGUING that particular fact? NOBODY.

  9. #606
    Member Pacergeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,464

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Let's review how well both have shot the 3 ball since Lance arrived, as well as look at their career %'s.

    October 2010:
    3 games, Danny averaged 3.7/8.0 for 45.8% (that's FG% not eFG% by the way)
    Lance DNP

    November 2010:
    13 games, Danny averaged 2.5/6.1 for 40.5%
    Lance DNP

    December 2010:
    14 games, Danny averaged 1.5/5.5 for 27.3%
    Lance DNP

    January 2011:
    14 games, Danny averaged 2.2/4.9 for 45.6%
    Lance DNP

    February 2011:
    13 games, Danny averaged 1.9/4.5 for 42.4%
    1 game, Lance averaged 0.0/0.0 for 0%

    March 2011:
    17 games, Danny averaged 1.5/4.6 for 33.3%
    11 games, Lance averaged 0.0/0.5 for 0%

    April 2011:
    5 games, Danny averaged 2.2/4.4 for 50%
    Lance DNP

    ---
    December 2011:
    4 games, Danny averaged 1.8/4.5 for 38.9%
    3 games, Lance averaged 0.0/0.3 for 0%

    January 2012:
    15 games, Danny averaged 1.7/5.1 for 32.9%
    14 games, Lance averaged 0.0/0.5 for 0.0%

    February 2012:
    13 games, Danny averaged 2.2/5.9 for 36.4%
    14 games, Lance averaged 0.1/0.8 for 18.2%

    March 2012:
    17 games, Danny averaged 1.6/4.6 for 35.9%
    7 games, Lance averaged 0.0/0.7 for 0%

    April 2012:
    13 games, Danny averaged 2.7/5.7 for 47.3%
    4 games, Lance averaged 0.5/1.5 for 33.3%

    ---
    October 2012:
    Danny DNP
    1 game, Lance 1.0/1.0 100%

    November 2012:
    Danny DNP
    15 games, Lance 0.9/2.3 for 37.1%

    December 2012:
    Danny DNP
    13 games, Lance 0.7/1.8 for 39.1%

    January 2012:
    Danny DNP
    15 games, Lance 0.8/2.4 for 33.3%

    February 2012:
    3 games, Danny 0.3/2.3 for 14.3%
    12 games, Lance 1.1/3.3 for 32.5%

    March 2013:
    2 games, Danny 0.5/1.5 for 33.3%
    15 games, Lance 0.5/2.2 for 21.2%

    April 2013:
    Danny DNP
    7 games, Lance 1.0/2.9 for 35%

    ---
    October 2013:
    Danny DNP
    2 games, Lance 2.0/3.5 for 57.1%

    November 2013 (as of 11/04/2013)
    Danny DNP
    1 game, Lance 5.0/7.0 for 71.4%

    Career Three Point %:
    Danny .384
    Lance .316

    Lance has certainly gotten better, but if you think these first 3 games represent his normal 3p% from now on, you're on your own island with that opinion.

    http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.htm...Season=2010-11
    http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.htm...Season=2010-11
    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...grangda01.html
    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...stephla01.html
    So its OK to ASSUME that Danny is still the same shooter, and also OK to ASSUME that Lance hasn't improved his shot, even though there is evidence out there? Player NEVER get better at shooting......Billy Keller doesn't know what he is doing......
    David "And One" West

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Pacergeek For This Useful Post:


  11. #607
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,091

    Sports Logo 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
    So at 1 AM I made a sarcastic comment about something that is factually correct (Barry being ranked higher than 5 HOFers). The horror.
    Except it's not factually correct. Mattie pointed out a factually correct stat, and you tried using that stat as a measure of which player is better, something that the stat doesn't measure. So you're A) ignorant about what the stat represents or B) purposefully distorting said stat.

    The ignorance excuse is getting thinner and thinner each time someone tries to explain it and put it in the proper context.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  13. #608
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,083

    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
    wouldn't it be more useful to apply stats and eyeballs together? The whole point of the stats is to create a better understanding of the game, after all.
    Right. It would be difficult to statistically measure how often Granger shoots early in the shot clock, how often he shoots when defended rather than dishing off, etc.

    I think the TS% is helpful to know Granger isn't THAT inefficient. But the eyeballs tell me he looks a lot less efficient than Lance.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “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

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


  15. #609
    Let PG Fly Again Soon! ECKrueger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Age
    23
    Posts
    4,080

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    This is hilarious(ly sad).

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


  17. #610
    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 Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Danny was NEVER known for his defense. Lance CAN defend and is a terrific rebounder for a SG
    Well Ron Artest told us he was a good defender six years ago so that counts for something right?

  18. #611
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,608

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    What's the over/under on how many days until Danny was the worst player to play for the Pacers until MDJ and then only barely? After all, clearly the guy never played defense, only scored by chucking the ball, couldn't pass, couldn't dribble, had a horrible attitude making it likely he'll throw a fit if he doesn't get to start, and was so lazy that he never dove for a ball or tried to get physical on a play. Pacers never should have drafted him, right? What a bum.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  19. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to BillS For This Useful Post:


  20. #612
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,769

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Except it's not factually correct. Mattie pointed out a factually correct stat, and you tried using that stat as a measure of which player is better, something that the stat doesn't measure. So you're A) ignorant about what the stat represents or B) purposefully distorting said stat.

    The ignorance excuse is getting thinner and thinner each time someone tries to explain it and put it in the proper context.

    Well, I admit ignorance in that I began to gloss over some of mattie's posts after he called me an idiot. I made a sarcastic comment at 1 AM that I would certainly take back if I knew that it would be talked about 4 pages later. In hindsight, I shouldn't have mocked the point that mattie was trying to make. Do you really think I was seriously trying to imply that mattie really thought Brent Barry was better than Jordan?

  21. #613
    Member Pacergeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,464

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ECKrueger View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This is hilarious(ly sad).
    It is hilarious. Pacer fans assuming that Lance had plateaued last year and couldn't possibly improve. Now that we have evidence that he has improved significantly, let's still expect a drop off
    David "And One" West

  22. #614
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,861

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo 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
    Well Ron Artest told us he was a good defender six years ago so that counts for something right?
    Just because a post you thanked was flat out wrong doesn't mean you have to get snippy.

  23. #615
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,861

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It is hilarious. Pacer fans assuming that Lance had plateaued last year and couldn't possibly improve. Now that we have evidence that he has improved significantly, let's still expect a drop off
    I really have to question your reading comprehension if thats what you are getting out of this thread.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to ilive4sports For This Useful Post:


  25. #616
    Member Pacergeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,464

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Hate to say it, but I have been backed into a corner. Danny is expendable. We were one game away from the finals without him. Lance's improvement, and PG's, has the Pacers primed to beat Miami. Improved Lance in 2013-2014 > Danny Granger returning to the lineup. If you can't see this, you are blinded by emotion
    David "And One" West

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


  27. #617
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So its OK to ASSUME that Danny is still the same shooter, and also OK to ASSUME that Lance hasn't improved his shot, even though there is evidence out there? Player NEVER get better at shooting......Billy Keller doesn't know what he is doing......
    Good golly. You asked, "Who can honestly say Granger can shoot 3's better than Lance?'. I just ****ing explained why someone might say that, with lots of evidence to back it up.

    How that leads to picking and choosing what I allegedly do or do not assume is beyond me, but it's really irritating, I can say that much.

    History (not just Danny, but NBA history) tells us that if Danny becomes healthy, in the long run he will still prove to be the same shooter as before, and playing with this much talent history also says that's usually when shooters are their most efficient, something that is most likely assisting Lance as well right now in his own shooting.

    I DO assume Lance has improved his 3ball. I just DO NOT assume he's going to be a .666 3 point shooter. Odds are it will be almost half of that when the season is over. Probably between 35% and 39%. In other words, the most likely scenario is that if Lance truly has improved, then they will now be VERY SIMILAR IN QUALITY WITH REGARDS TO SHOOTING THE THREE. Gee, what a terrible thing for both of them...


    By the way, Billy Keller isn't Lance's shooting coach (though he may also be helping him; I'm not sure anymore).

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  29. #618
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,091

    Sports Logo 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
    Do you really think I was seriously trying to imply that mattie really thought Brent Barry was better than Jordan?
    If you don't, then why did you just say it was factually correct?
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  30. #619
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    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
    Right. It would be difficult to statistically measure how often Granger shoots early in the shot clock, how often he shoots when defended rather than dishing off, etc.

    I think the TS% is helpful to know Granger isn't THAT inefficient. But the eyeballs tell me he looks a lot less efficient than Lance.
    All statistics are generated from eyeballs. It's just that those eyeballs have a hand holding a pen next to a pad of paper. Or two hands on the keyboard of a laptop. In other words, they are more consistent and reliable eyeballs.

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


  32. #620
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,861

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hate to say it, but I have been backed into a corner. Danny is expendable. We were one game away from the finals without him. Lance's improvement, and PG's, has the Pacers primed to beat Miami. Improved Lance in 2013-2014 > Danny Granger returning to the lineup. If you can't see this, you are blinded by emotion
    You realize its not about having one or the other right? We have both. Both will play.

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ilive4sports For This Useful Post:


  34. #621
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ECKrueger View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This is hilarious(ly sad).
    It's really remarkable. One side keeps trying to explain themselves with reason and statistics first and foremost, but then any slip ups or anything left open for misinterpretation is attacked and mocked. Then if the original poster dares to respond with any attitude, then they're allegedly 'both equally wrong'. It's gross.

  35. #622
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,769

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you don't, then why did you just say it was factually correct?
    It's factually correct that he's ranked higher on the list that mattie linked to. That's what I was referring to.

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ct_career.html

  36. #623
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It is hilarious. Pacer fans assuming that Lance had plateaued last year and couldn't possibly improve. Now that we have evidence that he has improved significantly, let's still expect a drop off
    Nobody said they assume he's plateaued, and hell yes we assume his 3p% will drop from SIXTY-FRIGGIN-SEVEN percent. Of course we do! Because that's just common sense backed with the entire history of NBA 3 point shooting!

  37. #624
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hate to say it, but I have been backed into a corner. Danny is expendable. We were one game away from the finals without him. Lance's improvement, and PG's, has the Pacers primed to beat Miami. Improved Lance in 2013-2014 > Danny Granger returning to the lineup. If you can't see this, you are blinded by emotion
    Yeah, we're the ones blinded by emotion. Okay.

    Read this part: I agree Danny is expendable. *gasp* *double take* *choke*

    Yes, that's right. He is. I agree.

    Figure that out along with your assessment of who we are and why we say what we say.

  38. #625
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,091

    Sports Logo 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
    It's factually correct that he's ranked higher on the list that mattie linked to. That's what I was referring to.

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ct_career.html
    That's not the statement in question here. The statement in question, is you using the efficiency stat as a barometer of which player is better overall, something that the efficiency stat doesn't even attempt to quantify.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  39. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


Posting Permissions

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