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

Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

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

  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Originally posted by clownskull View Post
    well, if he can stay healthy, danny can move up to #5 on the pacers all time scoring list.
    currently, he is at #8 but is only 201 behind fleming and 211 behind mcginis and 246 behind j.o.
    he can get those if he can stay healthy.
    This got me interested.

    Granger is #2 all-time in 3PM at 934. Reggie has 2560. (Paul George is #8)
    Granger is #2 all-time in 3PA at 2436. Reggie has 6486 (Paul George is #9)
    Granger is #8 all-time in FTM at 2096.
    Granger is #10 all-time in FTA at 2475.
    Granger is #7 all-time in Steals at 537.
    Granger is #7 all-time in blocks at 459.
    George Hill is #8 all-time in eFG% at .513.
    Geroge Hill is #5 all-time in Ortg at 115.8.
    Ian Mahinmi is #1 all-time in Drtg at 97.6. (Tied with Artest)(3 current Pacers are in the top 10, Mt. Hibbert is not one of them)
    Granger is #7 all-time in OWS at 27.0.
    Granger is #10 all-time in DWS at 19.4.
    Granger is #10 all-time in WS at 46.4.
    Geroge Hill is #3 all-time in WS/48 at .166.



    Side Note: Reggie Miller, #7, has more defensive rebounds than Jeff Foster, #8. Obviously it is just a matter of longevity, but still surprising.

    Comment


    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      This got me interested.

      Ian Mahinmi is #1 all-time in Drtg at 97.6. (Tied with Artest)(3 current Pacers are in the top 10, Mt. Hibbert is not one of them)
      ??????

      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        I really do. It's very nice to see him draining threes like he did tonight. I actually think most of the skeptics are like me. They were burned bad by J Bender and JO. Recall all those summers where Bender was healthy and going to tear up the league? Promises, promises. Then there was Danny's failed comeback last year. Sure, I want him back 100% like most Pacer fans but I just can't get my hopes up after the past 10-15 years.
        I'm telling you that people who 100% would know say he's fine.

        The only thing last year was trying to avoid giving up the season and instead hoping it might be curbed enough for him to play without pain/swelling.


        And complaining about how his numbers are crap because of the circumstances is NOT THE SAME as not believing in his injury return. It would help your case if you weren't bashing his numbers as fake.

        Comment


        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

          Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
          Wow that shocks me a bit but i hope he can do it
          Yeah, it will shock a lot of people, I'm sure.

          People forget how good Danny was for us.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

            All things considered, I think Danny looks better so far than I think most of us were expecting him to.

            If he embraces the bench assassin role and stays healthy...... Oh man.....
            "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

            "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

            Comment


            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              First, the Shaq reference was AS GRANGER'S TEAMMATE, as in "having a good teammate helps your numbers, having bad teammates hurts your numbers", as in the entire point of my post.

              Second, none of it compared Granger to AI (or any other player) in the sense that any of this proved he was better or worse than them.

              Third, so teams knew that it was only AI and junk so they just phoned it in and let Iverson get all the points he wanted? That's what teams do to bad teams? They pick out the biggest threat and immediately let him do whatever he wants all night? The logic just gets more twisted and yet has no facts, stats or case studies to back it up. Just a gut feeling that teams probably do this.


              Certainly a guy like Ellis going from MIL where teams just let him do what he wants, to an above 500, playoff team, superstar having Dallas squad where teams are actually trying to defend you must mean that his numbers went in the toilet, proving that you do better when you play for teams that opponents don't try against. Except his FG% is way up, probably not because Dirk draws a bunch of attention but instead because opponents don't buy the Dallas record and actually feared the Bucks a lot more.

              Say this logic to yourself a few times, or go find other examples of players that put up good numbers, not "I took 30 shots to get 28 points" numbers, who got traded to good teams and see how much it hurt them to be playing on a team that opponents actually tried against.

              I know that Norris Cole would be an all-star if only he wasn't burdened with being on Miami where he can't shine thanks to all the effort opponents put into stopping him.
              I don't believe this is as simple as you always make it out to be. We are talking about NBA players, none of these players got to this point by being bad. When you do have a team that doesn't have a lot of talent by NBA standards someone who normally wouldn't get an opportunity to score will score, and maybe even at a decent clip (definitely not at an all-star level). The reason this may be is because they are the best option on that team so the offense is designed around getting them opportunities to score at a decently efficient rate. Dunleavy is a good example of this. He could shoot, and fit extremely well in the system JOB implemented. So he had a season where he averaged 19ppg and with great efficiency (one of his best). It wasn't because he would be able to do that anywhere. He would have only been able to do that in that system cause it fit him perfectly. Go somewhere where the system isn't designed for him to excel, and he becomes just a decent spot up shooter.

              I think sometimes people forget just how good even NBA scrubs are. The vast majority of them can score if you just create a system that is designed to take advantage of that person's skills. Doesn't mean just anyone can lead a team to the finals in the right system, but it can mean just about anyone can put up good numbers.

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                ??????
                Well, I can attempt to explain this.

                1) Ian came to Indiana when we were already an amazing defensive team. Hibbert, for example, still has had seasons under JOB in whcih we were awful defensively that bring his career DRTG down.

                2) Ian is going up against back-ups while Roy is going up against starters. That plays a difference especially since there are not a lot of back-up Centers that can score with great ease.

                3) The sample size is only a season and a half.

                4) Honestly, Ian is a very good defender. He isn't as good as Roy, of course, but he gets the job done. I am certainly surprised to see him that high in DRTG but I'm not surprised to see him high on that list at all.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                  ??????
                  He is also #5 in block% at 3.9, but that isn't surprising like who #2 is, David Harrison at 5.2.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    I'm telling you that people who 100% would know say he's fine.

                    The only thing last year was trying to avoid giving up the season and instead hoping it might be curbed enough for him to play without pain/swelling.


                    And complaining about how his numbers are crap because of the circumstances is NOT THE SAME as not believing in his injury return. It would help your case if you weren't bashing his numbers as fake.
                    His numbers were real, but they were inflated IMO due to Jim O'Brien's offense combined with the fact teams played with the Pacers for a few quarters until it was time to crack down. Don't you recall that year where it was one epic 4th quarter collapse after another? You don't really believe he would average over 20ppg on a team this talented, do you? How many basketballs are we playing with?

                    Edit: BTW, as Eleazer said, the system fit Dunleavy perfectly. It also fit Granger extremely well and they both thrived. An open floor like that without a post game will lead to pretty high numbers on offense. No defense was really being played and that's why we were terrible.
                    Last edited by BlueNGold; 12-22-2013, 11:37 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      Im curious to see how they handle tomorrows game considering its Dannys first back-to-back after just coming back. I kinda woulda thought they wouldve considered resting him on some of the earlier back-to-backs to err on the side of caution...but then again, they dont play again til saturday, so who knows...Im sure hes probably anxious to continue kicking the rust off and finding his rhythm...so should be interesting either way- whether he plays or doesnt...
                      The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        Ok, then why do they have to put him down and act like he wasn't a good player? Why act like all he did was shoot the 3 very well, but was otherwise not good at anything else? It is one thing to keep your hope in check, but that isn't what some of these posters are doing. Instead they are trying to say that Danny was never a good player to begin with. They aren't saying be cautious with your optimism, they are saying Granger wasn't a good player.
                        This is what bugs me, and the only reason this thread is so long.

                        The numbers that show Danny took more 2PA vs 3PA than Paul does and drew more FTAs than Paul does get dismissed as fake or circumstances, yet some posters are using the games they say they watched those numbers occur in as proof that Danny just shot the 3 and that's all, whereas Paul is doing all sorts of things on offense besides just shoot the 3. That's the kind of stuff I don't get. There's a weird anti-Granger movement going that's actively trying to discredit him when the only thing he did wrong was get hurt. He was just as big or a bigger reason why they went 6 games against Miami 2 years ago.

                        But of course since they were only a playoff team and not a real contender, Miami didn't really try hard and basically let Danny do whatever he wanted, much like the Bulls did the year before (didn't the Bulls just bench Deng to rest him for round 2 since the Pacers weren't a threat?)

                        And here's what I really don't get. While the Bulls were busy "not trying" and just let Granger shoot 48% on 90 shots, they for some reason decided to attack Hansbrough and held him to 33% shooting on 60 shots, and why did they refuse to let Collison play well, insisting on holding him to 35% from 2, or Paul 35% from 2 as well. And letting Danny have 3.2 assists/game with only DC getting more at 4.0...some master trick plan by the Bulls I guess.

                        When teams try or don't try really confuses me because I know people wouldn't just twist some logic to avoid having the actual results contradict them.



                        If you think my sarcasm is bad, you should hear guys like BillS or Trader Joe. The whole insane effort to twist every single statistical evidence contradicting the "Granger wasn't good" is making a lot of people nuts. We haven't just seen Danny play for bad teams, he's also been on playoff teams which includes his rookie year.
                        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-23-2013, 12:04 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          His numbers were real, but they were inflated IMO due to Jim O'Brien's offense combined with the fact teams played with the Pacers for a few quarters until it was time to crack down. Don't you recall that year where it was one epic 4th quarter collapse after another? You don't really believe he would average over 20ppg on a team this talented, do you? How many basketballs are we playing with?

                          Edit: BTW, as Eleazer said, the system fit Dunleavy perfectly. It also fit Granger extremely well and they both thrived. An open floor like that without a post game will lead to pretty high numbers on offense. No defense was really being played and that's why we were terrible.
                          Unreal....just unreal....

                          I dont know if people have just flat out forgotten how good he was or just never really paid attention due to all that had transpired previously combined with all the efforts being made to transform the roster and the culture...
                          The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                          Comment


                          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            His numbers were real, but they were inflated IMO due to Jim O'Brien's offense combined with the fact teams played with the Pacers for a few quarters until it was time to crack down. Don't you recall that year where it was one epic 4th quarter collapse after another? You don't really believe he would average over 20ppg on a team this talented, do you? How many basketballs are we playing with?

                            Edit: BTW, as Eleazer said, the system fit Dunleavy perfectly. It also fit Granger extremely well and they both thrived. An open floor like that without a post game will lead to pretty high numbers on offense. No defense was really being played and that's why we were terrible.
                            Yeah, but you ignored the part where I said "definitely not at an all-star level". Let alone an all-star selected by the coaches.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              I really do. It's very nice to see him draining threes like he did tonight. I actually think most of the skeptics are like me. They were burned bad by J Bender and JO. Recall all those summers where Bender was healthy and going to tear up the league? Promises, promises. Then there was Danny's failed comeback last year. Sure, I want him back 100% like most Pacer fans but I just can't get my hopes up after the past 10-15 years.
                              First of all...what the hell are u doing putting J. Bender in the same conversation as Danny Granger and Jermaine O'neal????? As much as I always liked the guy, what did Jonathan Bender ever really do for this franchise?????

                              Second of all....Jermaine O'neal and Danny Granger....both great players in their own right...one was the face of the franchise and lead the franchise into its darkest hour....the other became the face of the franchise in its darkest hour and gave all of us hope and reason to be proud because of what a great player he was and the way he went about his business-always a first class citizen never embarassing the franchise...and lead the franchise out of the post-brawl abyss to the place we are now-contenders who go about things the right way and in a way we can all be proud of...and he did so in the toughest of times under the toughest of circumstances..enduring JOB, Murphy, Dunleavy and all the other crap...and he did so without complaining or demanding a trade or whatever....Danny Granger lead that return to glory and epitomizes the patience required to get back to where we are today...For these reasons alone, he deserves nothing but respect and though he might not be the face of the franchise anymore he still is one of the alltime franchise greats for reasons that far exceed what he actually did on the court...he hasnt burnt u or anyone else....quite to the contrary...in fact it was he alone at times that was the only cause for hope...and after all...isnt that what fans really want and need any way???? hope??? and isnt pretty much our responsibility to hope for the best? And of all people, Danny certainly deserves such...and through the course of his career here he has rarely let us down...certainly not when he had any control over the situation...

                              Hes a class act...and deserves better than what you and some have given him on this board...he has earned the benefit of the doubt....and when u consider how hes likely the final piece in the championship puzzle...how anyone could not hold out hope and trust him after all hes been through with this franchise is beyond me...if its at all possible, Danny will come through...he always has...
                              The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                His numbers were real, but they were inflated IMO due to Jim O'Brien's offense combined with the fact teams played with the Pacers for a few quarters until it was time to crack down. Don't you recall that year where it was one epic 4th quarter collapse after another? You don't really believe he would average over 20ppg on a team this talented, do you? How many basketballs are we playing with?

                                Edit: BTW, as Eleazer said, the system fit Dunleavy perfectly. It also fit Granger extremely well and they both thrived. An open floor like that without a post game will lead to pretty high numbers on offense. No defense was really being played and that's why we were terrible.
                                What about his 2 seasons with Vogel? Or his 2 seasons with Carlisle? And "open floor" 3PA sure did lead to A LOT of FTAs for Danny in year 3 (6.9 per game).

                                Dunleavy also didn't exactly thrive. He sucked that first half season, had a good season, got hurt and had a horrible season, then had a poor comeback season, then a final decent year....shooting only. His assists were always low for a "great offensive awareness" player and he didn't draw FTAs all that well. He's been identical in 2 MIL seasons and so far in Chicago, except taking a couple less 2PAs a night which keeps him down a few points in PPG.

                                Now maybe I missed where Tibs is running the JOB offense which explains the similar numbers, or maybe the JOB system didn't really get guys better looks after all.


                                JOB's system only increased possessions (rate) and skewed the 3PA to 2PA, primary out of the 4 spot because many teams/styles shoot a lot of 3s. Often teams like to work off a star big to get the inside/out game going, which is where the Shaq thing came in when talking about a player making others better. Danny would have enjoyed more open shots playing with a team going inside to Shaq than in JOB's open system.

                                And in fact the OFF rating of JOB's final 2 teams (1 a split with Vogel) was worse than it is now. This team playing this style is able to score more points and in a more efficient manner, and it leads to a lot of open 3s.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X