Page 45 of 68 FirstFirst ... 3541424344454647484955 ... LastLast
Results 1,101 to 1,125 of 1696

Thread: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

  1. #1101
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,615

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ Jones View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You must be talking about the last half of 2011. I find it hard to believe, but you may be right. It was the 11-12 season that really soured me on Danny's game. I hoped he'd take a back seat for our emerging young players and D. West, and he did not. Whether or not it was his fault, I'm not sure. I don't see any reason why he would mind being a role player for us at this point, though.

    As for the players you mention... Monta hate around here probably needs to go with the season he's having. The rest are clearly not as good as a healthy Danny.

    In 11-12, West was coming off of the injury and only averaged 29 MPG compared to 33 MPG last year. He clearly wasn't 100% yet. Roy was at his 12 PPG ceiling, PG was just a second year player, and Hill/Collison combined for 20 points, which was about what you'd expect for them. Lance was still just a paid cheerleader for the most part. In that season, DG was clearly still the best offensive option on that team and I'd say the overall results were pretty favorable. Now, a ton of stuff has obviously changed in the two years since then, but I have no problem with the amount of shots DG took that year.

  2. #1102
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,554

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ Jones View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You must be talking about the last half of 2011. I find it hard to believe, but you may be right. It was the 11-12 season that really soured me on Danny's game. I hoped he'd take a back seat for our emerging young players and D. West, and he did not. Whether or not it was his fault, I'm not sure. I don't see any reason why he would mind being a role player for us at this point, though.
    Why would Danny have taken a back seat in 11-12? On what team would the guy who was previously the team's best player suddenly take a back seat just when the team was starting to move forward without some drastic change (like a #1 draft pick coming in)?

    Please don't get me wrong, being out for the 12-13 season and the first third of 13-14 IS a drastic change. I would expect that if Danny wants to be "the man" he has to prove it - and I am not concerned that if he CAN prove it we will suddenly become this horrible mishmosh of a team because we got a player added to the active roster who was too good.
    BillS

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

  3. #1103
    Redemption. docpaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Noblesville, IN
    Posts
    1,685

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why would Danny have taken a back seat in 11-12? On what team would the guy who was previously the team's best player suddenly take a back seat just when the team was starting to move forward without some drastic change (like a #1 draft pick coming in)?

    Please don't get me wrong, being out for the 12-13 season and the first third of 13-14 IS a drastic change. I would expect that if Danny wants to be "the man" he has to prove it - and I am not concerned that if he CAN prove it we will suddenly become this horrible mishmosh of a team because we got a player added to the active roster who was too good.
    I know you specifically are not implying this at all, but sheesh... how could anyone actually listen to what Danny has had to say and believe that he wants to be "the man" on this team? He knows that it's not winning basketball, and seems relieved to be a part of a team concept.

  4. #1104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why would Danny have taken a back seat in 11-12? On what team would the guy who was previously the team's best player suddenly take a back seat just when the team was starting to move forward without some drastic change (like a #1 draft pick coming in)?

    Please don't get me wrong, being out for the 12-13 season and the first third of 13-14 IS a drastic change. I would expect that if Danny wants to be "the man" he has to prove it - and I am not concerned that if he CAN prove it we will suddenly become this horrible mishmosh of a team because we got a player added to the active roster who was too good.

    Dwade? Pierce? Duncan? I can come up with more examples.

  5. #1105

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    I just want somebody to define what a chucker is.. A low efficient scorer? If thats the case shouldn't you just use his true shooting percentage and call a spade a spade based on the league average for starting NBA sf's?

    In the 11-12 season the league average TS% for NBA starting sf's was 54% with a USG% of 21%. Dannys was TS% was 54.2% with a useage of 25.92%

    This is above guys who often get labeled with the chucker tag such as Melo (TS% of 52.5) and Rudy Gay (TS% of 52.1).

    FOr the past 5 years the league average for TS% (for starting sf's) is hovering around 55% and Grangers career average is .563%.

    To say he is a chucker would imply that he is below average scorer and I don't see much statistical evidence for that conclusion Vnzla. Now Monta Ellis or JR Smith thats a different story IMO.
    Last edited by Gamble1; 12-20-2013 at 01:07 PM.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Gamble1 For This Useful Post:


  7. #1106
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,554

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Dwade? Pierce? Duncan? I can come up with more examples.
    So you wouldn't call signing LeBron James a "drastic change"? I certainly would. Same with signing Kevin Garnett - and my understanding is that Pierce had a ton of problems actually stepping back.
    BillS

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

  8. #1107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Gamble1 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I just somebody to define what a chucker is.. A low efficient scorer? If thats the case shouldn't you just use his true shooting percentage and call a spade a spade based on the league average for starting NBA sf's?

    In the 11-12 season the league average TS% for NBA starting sf's was 54% with a USG% of 21%. Dannys was TS% was 54.2% with a useage of 25.92%

    This is above guys who often get labeled with the chucker tag such as Melo (TS% of 52.5) and Rudy Gay (TS% of 52.1).

    FOr the past 5 years the league average for TS% (for starting sf's) is hovering around 55% and Grangers career average is .563%.

    To say he is a chucker would imply that he is below average scorer and I don't see much merit for that conclusion Vnzla. Now Monta Ellis or JR Smith thats a different story IMO.
    In case you didn't get to see it:

    @Chris_Broussard: @dgranger33 told me he'll fit n seamlessly w/Indy. Said he's not the DG of 4/5 yrs ago, chucking shots on bad team. He'll get his n the flow

    By the way I just found out that I'm a JR Smith's fan lol thinking that he was the NBA's 6th man last year doesn't make me a fan.

  9. #1108
    Member Johanvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    3,232

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Apologies if it's been posted before

    Come On Danny son!!!!!!!!!!

    You **** up once, you lose two teeth

  10. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Johanvil For This Useful Post:


  11. #1109

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In case you didn't get to see it:

    @Chris_Broussard: @dgranger33 told me he'll fit n seamlessly w/Indy. Said he's not the DG of 4/5 yrs ago, chucking shots on bad team. He'll get his n the flow

    By the way I just found out that I'm a JR Smith's fan lol thinking that he was the NBA's 6th man last year doesn't make me a fan.
    I don't know if thats a direct quote but to define a person as a chucker is basically saying he is a low efficiency scorer. This is how most fans define it IMO. I define it as being a below average scorer for your position and useage. To me Danny is around the average or above for his career.

    If he did say he was chucking up shots on a bad team then he did it with efficiency that was above the league average for starters at his postion. So does that make him a low efficiency scorer like you want us to believe? I think I just proved that he isn't and any stat geek would say that if you lowered a persons USG% then his TS% would go up so I expect Granger to be above his normal TS% by years end.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Gamble1 For This Useful Post:


  13. #1110
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,570

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In case you didn't get to see it:

    @Chris_Broussard: @dgranger33 told me he'll fit n seamlessly w/Indy. Said he's not the DG of 4/5 yrs ago, chucking shots on bad team. He'll get his n the flow

    By the way I just found out that I'm a JR Smith's fan lol thinking that he was the NBA's 6th man last year doesn't make me a fan.
    Granger is saying himself that he was a chucker on a bad Team ( 4 to 5 years ago ) but then says himself that he is not the Granger of 4 to 5 years ago. So, does that mean that Granger is saying now that he won't be what he says he was 4 to 5 years ago ( as in a chucker )?
    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.

  14. #1111

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Gamble1 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I just want somebody to define what a chucker is.. A low efficient scorer? If thats the case shouldn't you just use his true shooting percentage and call a spade a spade based on the league average for starting NBA sf's?

    In the 11-12 season the league average TS% for NBA starting sf's was 54% with a USG% of 21%. Dannys was TS% was 54.2% with a useage of 25.92%

    This is above guys who often get labeled with the chucker tag such as Melo (TS% of 52.5) and Rudy Gay (TS% of 52.1).

    FOr the past 5 years the league average for TS% (for starting sf's) is hovering around 55% and Grangers career average is .563%.

    To say he is a chucker would imply that he is below average scorer and I don't see much statistical evidence for that conclusion Vnzla. Now Monta Ellis or JR Smith thats a different story IMO.
    I've long considered Danny the C word because of what he does (or doesn't do) on offense besides shooting. He has tunnel vision is the best way I can describe it. Monta certainly shot a lot and took many bad shots playing for bad teams, but he doesn't have tunnel vision. The year he's having now is what I expected would happen if he got on a good team with a good coach.

    Seems like everyone has a different definition though.

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


  16. #1112

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Johanvil View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Apologies if it's been posted before

    Come On Danny son!!!!!!!!!!

    They should play this tonight especially with the game being on ESPN. Maybe it will help remind ESPN we have a former All-Star coming back.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Pacerfan For This Useful Post:


  18. #1113
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Granger is saying himself that he was a chucker on a bad Team ( 4 to 5 years ago ) but then says himself that he is not the Granger of 4 to 5 years ago. So, does that mean that Granger is saying now that he won't be what he says he was 4 to 5 years ago ( as in a chucker )?
    Probably, I guess we will just have to wait and see but the fact is that he was one(a chucker)

  19. #1114

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ Jones View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I've long considered Danny the C word because of what he does (or doesn't do) on offense besides shooting. He has tunnel vision is the best way I can describe it. Monta certainly shot a lot and took many bad shots playing for bad teams, but he doesn't have tunnel vision. The year he's having now is what I expected would happen if he got on a good team with a good coach.

    Seems like everyone has a different definition though.
    LOL.. OK the word chucker implies putting up a shot. NOt passing or assists or rebounding but shooting. I have no problem with saying that Danny was a below average rebounder or creator for a starting sf but here is the thing. Danny was a much more efficient scorer on a bad team than Monta Ellis was on a bad team or any other example of a chucker you want to use.

    Monta Ellis was asked to do more than Granger so I have no problem saying he is a better creator for others or iso guy or his assist % is better but thats not the reason why he is considered a chucker in a lot of peoples eyes. IF 98% of people consider a defintion to mean one thing and 2% think it means another thing who is wrong?

    I highly doubt "everyone" has a different definiton. In fact I think if we took a poll the vast majority would call a chucker a low efficient scorer.
    Last edited by Gamble1; 12-20-2013 at 01:46 PM.

  20. #1115
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,554

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    We could completely rehash the ball hog thread, I guess, and argue why number of assists is not a good reflection of number of passes.

    I'll stick with the idea that if you're not shooting every time you have the ball and you're not turning over the ball every time you don't shoot then you must be doing something constructive with it the remainder of the time. Analysis was done to show that Danny was shooting completely in line with what was expected at his usage rate and was turning the ball over completely in line with his useage rate. That refutes the idea that he only ever shoots the ball.

    We're almost at the point where someone who never saw Danny play and was getting everything from this thread would think he was basically Tyler Hansbrough with a jump shot, but not as good on defense.
    BillS

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

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


  22. #1116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We could completely rehash the ball hog thread, I guess, and argue why number of assists is not a good reflection of number of passes.

    I'll stick with the idea that if you're not shooting every time you have the ball and you're not turning over the ball every time you don't shoot then you must be doing something constructive with it the remainder of the time. Analysis was done to show that Danny was shooting completely in line with what was expected at his usage rate and was turning the ball over completely in line with his useage rate. That refutes the idea that he only ever shoots the ball.

    We're almost at the point where someone who never saw Danny play and was getting everything from this thread would think he was basically Tyler Hansbrough with a jump shot, but not as good on defense.
    That goes for any basketball player not just the NBA, if somebody can't do that they shouldn't be playing the game.

  23. #1117
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Probably, I guess we will just have to wait and see but the fact is that he was one(a chucker)
    Fine. Why do we need to keep discussing it then? It is what it is.

  24. #1118

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Guess I'll throw in my 2 cents. I'm sure Danny has read this thread at least a couple times, considering he has posted here before. I mean do you really think he doesn't? Some people here will check every minute during an argument because they can't stand being talked down to. I find it pathetic that people rip on him. He got injured on a player going underneath him (lebron) playing his a** off in the playoffs. He is a great player who signed a fair deal and has been nothing but a professional. I just hope that when you have a tough time in your life, going broke or medical conditions etc., that your family/work/team doesn't turn on you.

    Danny lowered his shot total when the team got better, the last year he was healthy. He has said that it is Paul George's team. Seriously, what do people expect? Has he ever complained about anything during his time here? He hasn't even complained that he is probably not a part of the teams future. He hasn't done anything wrong.

    Whether he gets injured again or has an awful year, Danny Granger has my full support. I'm really looking forward to seeing him play. If being a Pacers/Danny Granger "homer" is wrong, I don't want to be right!

  25. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jimmy For This Useful Post:


  26. #1119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Fine. Why do we need to keep discussing it then? It is what it is.
    Because of the Brussard tweet about DG yesterday? that should open the door for people to say that he was a chucker without getting overreactions, I thought it was important.

  27. #1120
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,011

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ Jones View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I've long considered Danny the C word because of what he does (or doesn't do) on offense besides shooting. He has tunnel vision is the best way I can describe it. Monta certainly shot a lot and took many bad shots playing for bad teams, but he doesn't have tunnel vision. The year he's having now is what I expected would happen if he got on a good team with a good coach.

    Seems like everyone has a different definition though.
    So by that definition Paul is a chucker too. Would you call him that? I doubt so.

    Danny's shot attempts and usage rate then are pretty much identical to PG's this year.
    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.

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


  29. #1121
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,554

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That goes for any basketball player not just the NBA, if somebody can't do that they shouldn't be playing the game.
    Then aplly it to the second part of the paragraph:

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Analysis was done to show that Danny was shooting completely in line with what was expected at his usage rate and was turning the ball over completely in line with his useage rate. That refutes the idea that he only ever shoots the ball.
    If Danny is shooting the ball about the same as anyone else with his useage rate, and if he is turning the ball over about the same as anyone else with his useage rate, what is he doing the rest of the time that makes him something worse than about anyone else with his useage rate?

    Regarding the quote, I think Danny thought he was shooting the ball more than he was comfortable with. That's why he's saying he wouldn't do it now. Whether you use the term "chucker" or not, that seems to mean he expects not to be focusing on shooting the ball. If you take the first part of the tweet as some kind of proof of his previous status, why would you discount the second part of the statement?
    BillS

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

  30. #1122
    You can call me Taz cinotimz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,324

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So by that definition Paul is a chucker too. Would you call him that? I doubt so.

    Danny's shot attempts and usage rate then are pretty much identical to PG's this year.
    And Dannys 2011-12 season that he seemed to have a problem with was very similar to Pauls numbers last year....go figure...and which team was more talented??? Its like people either never actually watched or have no real clue what theyre watching because they already have their mind made up...from the time Vogel took over things have evolved pretty dramatically...yet some would have u believe everyone evolved EXCEPT Danny...which is completely baseless

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


  32. #1123
    I'm on a MAC! graphic-er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,412

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    All I know is that tonight i get to wear my Danny Granger Jersey for the first time in almost 2 years? I'm super pumped! I think the last time I wore it was in the 11-12 playoffs.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to graphic-er For This Useful Post:


  34. #1124

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In 11-12, West was coming off of the injury and only averaged 29 MPG compared to 33 MPG last year. He clearly wasn't 100% yet. Roy was at his 12 PPG ceiling, PG was just a second year player, and Hill/Collison combined for 20 points, which was about what you'd expect for them. Lance was still just a paid cheerleader for the most part. In that season, DG was clearly still the best offensive option on that team and I'd say the overall results were pretty favorable. Now, a ton of stuff has obviously changed in the two years since then, but I have no problem with the amount of shots DG took that year.
    I saw PG as the future and Roy was emerging as an all-star level player, and we had acquired an all-star level player in D. West. I hoped Danny could change his game and become a bit more of a facilitator and that he'd force less shots and I didn't see that happen. That was probably unreasonable expectations on my part though.

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why would Danny have taken a back seat in 11-12? On what team would the guy who was previously the team's best player suddenly take a back seat just when the team was starting to move forward without some drastic change (like a #1 draft pick coming in)?
    Because I felt like Paul would become the player he is now, and the sooner he took over the reign the better. Again, probably unreasonable expectations from me, but I felt like it was in the best interest of the team at the time. And with the way Paul took off the next year in Danny's absence it's hard for me to sit here and say I was wrong. Of course someone will argue Danny's absence had nothing to do with Paul's rise, but I don't buy that. Paul's not your typical superstar. He needed his feet put to the fire to realize how good he was. If Danny was healthy and playing I don't think Paul would be the player he is today...yet.

    This is not just on Danny though. It's coaching too, and my expectations were unreasonable. He just played how he normally plays and I was wrong to expect different of him at the time. Still doesn't change me not liking how he played and was used that year.






    Quote Originally Posted by Gamble1 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    LOL.. OK the word chucker implies putting up a shot. NOt passing or assists or rebounding but shooting. I have no problem with saying that Danny was a below average rebounder or creator for a starting sf but here is the thing. Danny was a much more efficient scorer on a bad team than Monta Ellis was on a bad team or any other example of a chucker you want to use.

    Monta Ellis was asked to do more than Granger so I have no problem saying he is a better creator for others or iso guy or his assist % is better but thats not the reason why he is considered a chucker in a lot of peoples eyes. IF 98% of people consider a defintion to mean one thing and 2% think it means another thing who is wrong?

    I highly doubt "everyone" has a different definiton. In fact I think if we took a poll the vast majority would call a chucker a low efficient scorer.
    Fair enough. I may just have a broader definition. If you only use scoring efficiency to determine what the C word is then Danny would not be one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So by that definition Paul is a chucker too. Would you call him that? I doubt so.

    Danny's shot attempts and usage rate then are pretty much identical to PG's this year.
    We already went over this when you called me a child with a worthless POV (let me guess... no slap on the wrist for that?) But no, by my definition Paul is not a chucker because he does other things offensively that help his team besides score the ball.

  35. #1125
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,011

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ Jones View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We already went over this when you called me a child with a worthless POV (let me guess... no slap on the wrist for that?) But no, by my definition Paul is not a chucker because he does other things offensively that help his team besides score the ball.
    So Danny is a chucker when he shoots 19 shots per game, Paul isn't a chucker when he shoots 19 shots per game, when they have the ball in their hands the same amount of the time. Just making sure we're all on the same page.

    Gotta love when people pick and choose their definitions arbitrarily.

    EDIT: About doing other things offensively, do you realize that PG is only averagine ONE more assist than Danny did? I guess that one assist really carries some heavy weight.
    Last edited by Since86; 12-20-2013 at 04:13 PM.
    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.

  36. The Following 2 Users Say 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
  •