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

True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Yes. Agreed again.

    BTW, here is another reason stats are dangerous to interpret. Let's say Player A is playing for a bad team. You and I both know that good teams try harder against their rivals versus a bad team. Sometimes a coach may rest a player against a team they know they might beat. So, Player A has a pretty easy route to good stats.

    Now, Player B is much better but he's playing for a good team. Other teams are "up" for that competition and try much harder to win. Player B, although much better than Player A, has to contend with tighter defense...and therefore his shooting stats suffer.

    On paper, Player A looks better in all respects. I suppose his team's record is an indication. But even then, we are talking black magic trying to figure out who the better shooter is, simply based on statistics. IOW, good luck and it ain't happening.
    which is why no one is saying to base things only off statistics...

    Comment


    • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Yes. Agreed again.

      BTW, here is another reason stats are dangerous to interpret. Let's say Player A is playing for a bad team. You and I both know that good teams try harder against their rivals versus a bad team. Sometimes a coach may rest a player against a team they know they might beat. So, Player A has a pretty easy route to good stats.

      Now, Player B is much better but he's playing for a good team. Other teams are "up" for that competition and try much harder to win. Player B, although much better than Player A, has to contend with tighter defense...and therefore his shooting stats suffer.

      On paper, Player A looks better in all respects. I suppose his team's record is an indication. But even then, we are talking black magic trying to figure out who the better shooter is, simply based on statistics. IOW, good luck and it ain't happening.
      Your argument is good but one could counter that by saying that Player A has worse teammates and thus he takes harder shots because his teammates are unable to play offense while Player B has much better teammates and multiple threats on the floor that create better scoring opportunities for him. So, there are two sides of the coin.

      It's also true that there are empty stats. If a player puts up good stats but he doesn't make an impact in the W-L margin then he is posting empty stats. Kevin Love has been accused of posting empty stats a lot of times.

      Statistics are just a tool to help us get more info. They are not the be all and end all but they do help at keeping our opinions honest. We should use both statistics and our logic equally, imo.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

        Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
        which is why no one is saying to base things only off statistics...
        But how much do you even weigh that stat vs "the other stuff"? There's just no way to determine that either because it's way too subjective. By the time you get something you can stand on with some basic analysis, you can literally watch the players over the course of a few weeks to get probably a truer measurement.

        Comment


        • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          But how much do you even weigh that stat vs "the other stuff"? There's just no way to determine that either because it's way too subjective. By the time you get something you can stand on with some basic analysis, you can literally watch the players over the course of a few weeks to get probably a truer measurement.
          How much? Who knows. But you should use them. TS% is a pretty damn solid statistic. You can watch the player and use the "advanced" statistics for a further understanding. Thats all.

          Comment


          • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            But how much do you even weigh that stat vs "the other stuff"? There's just no way to determine that either because it's way too subjective. By the time you get something you can stand on with some basic analysis, you can literally watch the players over the course of a few weeks to get probably a truer measurement.
            Not measurement. Without statistics you have no way of actually quantifying anything.

            You would get a very distorted image of reality if you're basing everything off of either statistics or "the real thing." You would remember the things you really liked, the things you really hated, and the things that happened at the beginning and ending of games if you removed all knowledge of recorded stats. You know which players are better than which, but you would only be able to speak qualitatively. Conversely, if you based 100% of your analysis on statistics, even a complete set, there's going to be a lot of holes.
            Last edited by aamcguy; 11-07-2013, 04:24 AM.
            Time for a new sig.

            Comment


            • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              BTW, there is no end to the number of holes you can shoot into conclusions made by novices attempting to be statisticians.
              You do understand that the principles of TS% are taught in all introductory statistics and probability classes, right? TS% is no more complicated than FG% if you understand the concept of a weighted average.
              Time for a new sig.

              Comment


              • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                You do understand that the principles of TS% are taught in all introductory statistics and probability classes, right? TS% is no more complicated than FG% if you understand the concept of a weighted average.
                I like how your signature quote by NGT pretty much sums up the argument in this thread.

                Comment


                • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  With all due respect (and I do mean that), my problem with stats is that they lack meaningful value when I see Troy Murphy's stats. It does mean something...but I don't think it tells you anything really useful.
                  Just as an academic exercise, I decided to compare Troy's advance stats with other stretch 4s, and one defense-minded 4 that we know. This will compare Troy's 4 years in Indiana to their career:

                  Season G MP PER TS% eFG% FTr 3PAr ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48

                  Troy Murphy 262 8117 16.9 .583 .545 .261 .380 6.0 26.8 16.3 10.9 1.3 1.1 10.7 18.0 116 105 14.4 10.9 25.3 .149
                  Ryan Anderson 188 4299 19.8 .586 .549 .222 .583 11.5 16.1 13.9 5.9 1.3 1.4 8.1 21.6 121 104 12.6 5.8 18.4 .206
                  Dirk Nowitzki 1113 40133 23.5 .581 .511 .380 .191 3.7 21.9 12.9 13.1 1.3 1.9 8.8 27.0 117 104 123.6 51.0 174.6 .209
                  Dale Davis 671 19814 15.6 .552 .543 .416 .001 13.9 21.4 17.8 4.5 1.2 3.2 12.5 14.8 113 103 28.7 29.6 58.4 .141


                  Here's where the rubber meets the road. On paper, you can see that Troy Murphy was a more efficient scorer in a Pacers jersey than Dirk was in a Mavs jersey. However, stats can't show that Murphy was always the 3rd offensive option, shooting wide-open 3s, whereas Dirk has been the 1st offensive option, dealing with double teams, etc. for his entire career. Also keep in mind that Dirk's stats are a much larger sample.

                  I think, overall, one stat that does stick out is PER. PER seems to show that Dirk is a far superior offensive player than Anderson and Murphy. Otherwise, on paper, the stats are very similar for all three players, which is unsettling.

                  As for Dale, you can clearly see how much better he is on the boards and as a shot blocker than these stretch 4s. We also know that his offensive game was limited, which is also shown. Looking at this broader sapmling, I think that ORtg and DRtg are junk stats, because I doubt anyone would argue that Dale Davis is more of a liability on defense than the other three players. Again, this is how we use our eyes to determine the usefulness of a stat.

                  Again, I think this just shows that stats can be used, in a vacuum, to come to an incorrect conclusion. It also shows that there are some stats, such as PER, that appear to show a more accurate picture. Finally, I think this shows the usefulness of advance stats to allow us to compare a known quantity (Troy Murphy is a bad basketball player) to other, lesser known quantities (Ryan Anderson). Based on this, I think Ryan Anderson is not likely to be a big contributor on a contender, although his ORB% is significantly higher than Murphy, so in the right framework, I could be wrong.

                  Comment


                  • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                    Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                    However, stats can't show that Murphy was always the 3rd offensive option, shooting wide-open 3s, whereas Dirk has been the 1st offensive option, dealing with double teams, etc. for his entire career. Also keep in mind that Dirk's stats are a much larger sample.
                    Exactly. That's why we have to use our logic and common sense along with stats. It's pretty logical that 1st options are less efficient than 3rd/4th/5th options as they are they are often double-teamed or they go against the opposing team's best defender. A #1 option will almost never attempt a wide open shot against a good defense. A 3rd/4th/5th option will attempt those shots because the #1 option is drawing people on him.

                    Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                    Looking at this broader sapmling, I think that ORtg and DRtg are junk stats, because I doubt anyone would argue that Dale Davis is more of a liability on defense than the other three players. Again, this is how we use our eyes to determine the usefulness of a stat.
                    ORTg and DRTg are mostly team statistics. They do not account for the individual player all that accurately. Great defensive teams will see most of their players posting really good DRTg. I mean, DJ Augustin posted a 104 DRTg last year which is actually an average number.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                      Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                      I think this shows the usefulness of advance stats to allow us to compare a known quantity (Troy Murphy is a bad basketball player) to other, lesser known quantities (Ryan Anderson).
                      And here's where I have a little problem with this response. Just saying "Troy Murphy is a bad basketball player" is too general a statement for the application of statistics. You have to define what you mean by "bad", because - contrary to Pacerfan belief - Troy actually could do things like score the ball and rebound. We discount the scoring because the team didn't win, and we discount the rebounding because we maintain the story that all his rebounds were easy or stolen, but I seriously doubt those tales because they are the very definition of remembering what we want to remember (and blaming the player for how he was used by the coach).

                      Only a little more refinement makes the statement testable - "Troy Murphy is a bad classic PF" - and suddenly there are all kinds of things you can use to test and compare - points in the paint, deflections, contested rebounds. In any case head-to-head defensive stats - which lag WAY behind the development of offensive stats, not least because they are hard to define objectively and to see in the course of a game - would show major flaws at that end of the floor.

                      I will always maintain that Troy had skills that, in the right hands and at the right time of the game, would be valuable. The problem was that he should have been a perimeter SF rather than a PF, but he didn't have the body (speed) for it.

                      I remember how people absolutely reviled Jeff Foster when he was forced into the position of being the Pacers' starting center. Once he was able to go back to coming off the bench and had the luxury to specialize in what he was best at, he amazingly "got better".
                      BillS

                      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                      Comment


                      • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        And here's where I have a little problem with this response. Just saying "Troy Murphy is a bad basketball player" is too general a statement for the application of statistics. You have to define what you mean by "bad", because - contrary to Pacerfan belief - Troy actually could do things like score the ball and rebound. We discount the scoring because the team didn't win, and we discount the rebounding because we maintain the story that all his rebounds were easy or stolen, but I seriously doubt those tales because they are the very definition of remembering what we want to remember (and blaming the player for how he was used by the coach).

                        Only a little more refinement makes the statement testable - "Troy Murphy is a bad classic PF" - and suddenly there are all kinds of things you can use to test and compare - points in the paint, deflections, contested rebounds. In any case head-to-head defensive stats - which lag WAY behind the development of offensive stats, not least because they are hard to define objectively and to see in the course of a game - would show major flaws at that end of the floor.

                        I will always maintain that Troy had skills that, in the right hands and at the right time of the game, would be valuable. The problem was that he should have been a perimeter SF rather than a PF, but he didn't have the body (speed) for it.

                        I remember how people absolutely reviled Jeff Foster when he was forced into the position of being the Pacers' starting center. Once he was able to go back to coming off the bench and had the luxury to specialize in what he was best at, he amazingly "got better".
                        The point is not that Troy was a bad player the point is that you can use stats to compare an OK player like him to hall of famers and way better players than him(see Dale and Dirk comparisons) and make him look like he was close to their level when everybody and their mom know that he was never that good.

                        And yes I agree with you that Murphy in his prime could have been a good piece on a good team but again that is not what Eindar is saying.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          The point is not that Troy was a bad player the point is that you can use stats to compare an OK player like him to hall of famers and way better players than him(see Dale and Dirk comparisons) and make him look like he was close to their level when everybody and their mom know that he was never that good.

                          And yes I agree with you that Murphy in his prime could have been a good piece on a good team but again that is not what Eindar is saying.
                          Sure, you can always select the stats that make your case. You can do that with the "eye test" too and only see and report what you want to see. At least with stats someone can come up with another stat that contradicts the selectivity. With the eye test another observation is just another observation and no one can really state for sure if it was an isolated incident or the actual trend.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post

                            I will always maintain that Troy had skills that, in the right hands and at the right time of the game, would be valuable. The problem was that he should have been a perimeter SF rather than a PF, but he didn't have the body (speed) for it.
                            I agree that he could have been a decent player in a more limited role. But the main problem was that him and Dunleavy were basically paid a combined $20 million a season. They simply were not good enough to justify that money, and their salaries completely tied our hands for a few years. If you're paying two guys a combined $20 million, then they better at least get you to the playoffs once. So even though Murphy was playing as hard as he could, his salary was a huge reason that the team couldn't improve. I'm still amazed that Bird found a way to trade him before 10-11.

                            Comment


                            • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              I agree that he could have been a decent player in a more limited role. But the main problem was that him and Dunleavy were basically paid a combined $20 million a season. They simply were not good enough to justify that money, and their salaries completely tied our hands for a few years. If you're paying two guys a combined $20 million, then they better at least get you to the playoffs once. So even though Murphy was playing as hard as he could, his salary was a huge reason that the team couldn't improve. I'm still amazed that Bird found a way to trade him before 10-11.
                              He found a team that over-valued TS or looked at it in a vacuum...
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                He found a team that over-valued TS or looked at it in a vacuum...
                                Or just needed an expiring.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X