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

Paul George's Defense Analyzed

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

  • Paul George's Defense Analyzed

    Here's a cool article I found from 8 Points 9 Seconds about Paul George's defense. I would post the whole thing in here, but there are pictures that make reading it on their website more useful.

    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...orges-defense/

    And Happy New Years to PD Nation!
    Last edited by adamscb; 01-01-2014, 12:56 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

    One of the most impressive things about the gifs was how Roy and Ian back up Paul. The combination is simply lethal which is why LeBron has issues. I think LeBron would be more successful against us if he didn't always try to get to the rim.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

      Here's an analysis…he

      That's a bit much

      tonight.
      "What you are witnessing right now is the old Danny Granger of old!!" - Chris Denari 01/01/2014

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

        Originally posted by RobRoy317 View Post
        Here's an analysis…he

        That's a bit much

        tonight.
        He is turning into a lazy diva. Some of his passes were jaw droppers- I don't know why he thinks it is acceptable to half *** passes in traffic. Toronto got several buckets off of his turnovers.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

          Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
          He is turning into a lazy diva. Some of his passes were jaw droppers- I don't know why he thinks it is acceptable to half *** passes in traffic. Toronto got several buckets off of his turnovers.
          PG had a bad game tonight but I think that you're being too harsh.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

            Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
            He is turning into a lazy diva. Some of his passes were jaw droppers- I don't know why he thinks it is acceptable to half *** passes in traffic. Toronto got several buckets off of his turnovers.
            I don't know if I'd go that far yet. He's still very young and learning. A lot of his game looks easy and effortless, it's when he makes a mistake that it looks bad. To relate, Yankees' fans said the same thing about Robinson Cano, and he's one of the best in the bigs.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

              Where is the article? The site 8points9seconds doesn't work for me.
              Pacers + Colts + Seahawks = Game mode on!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

                Here's the whole article, but without the GIF pictures that it mentions

                http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...orges-defense/

                Breaking Down Paul George’s Defense
                by Tim Sartori on December 30, 2013 at 1:16 pm

                Paul George has a reputation as one of the best wing defenders in the NBA. He gets copious praise for his ability to shut down players, even those who don’t play his position. With a well-above-average height and wingspan for his position (6’9” and nearly 7’, respectively) he has the prototype body for a lockdown defensive player, ala Scottie Pippen.

                I decided to take a look at where this reputation is coming from and, in particular, what areas of defense he excels in. Using Synergy’s advanced stats, paired with gifs for further explanation, I broke down George’s entire defensive game (using stats from both the 2012-13 and 2013-14 seasons for sample size), detailing how he has guarded players in isolation, pick and roll, spot-up, and off-screen situations.
                Defending Isolations

                Paul finished the 2012-13 season ranked 109th in defending isolations, per mySynergy, but only gave up only 0.76 points per possession. Also worth noting: his opponents shot a stunning 9.0% on 3-point shots in isolation against him.

                On the plays I looked at, he was still a bit laterally slow, perhaps still growing into his body. But the video shows that he improved by leaps and bounds throughout the season, as was evident when he did a great job guarding LeBron in the Eastern Conference Finals.

                Watch in the below GIF as he wisely gives LeBron a couple of feet of room, tempting him to take the jump shot while he retains the ensure he has the extra quarter-second to react when LeBron drives. Drive James does, and while George doesn’t move quickly enough to cut off the penetration he does stay with him enough to prevent LeBron from getting off a clean release (with a little help from Hibbert, but still).

                So far in the 2013-14 season, George is ranked 23rd in defending isolations in terms of points allowed per possession. His lateral quickness has increased to a point that, combined with his length, he is really a matchup nightmare even for quick, elite wings. Despite the small sample size (12-of-40 field goals), he is giving up only 0.68 points per possession in isolations — a very impressive figure.

                Paul has no problem giving plenty of room to shooters he doesn’t respect. Even to above-average shooters, he can sag off a little because his long arms allow him to still contest the shot. As mentioned, this extra quarter-second is critical in helping George get to spots before the player he is guarding.

                Check out these examples of him forcing two elite offensive players, James Harden and Dwayne Wade, into very tough shots. Even with each initiating some contact, George is able to disrupt what they wanted to do (Harden hates shooting midrange jumpers) and contest the attempt.

                Defending Pick-and-Roll Ball Handlers

                It is difficult to measure individual defense by looking at “defense-against-pick-and-roll-ball-handler” statistics because teams have different philosophies for defending the play. Depending on the strategy — which can vary according to the offensive players involved or where the action occurs on the court — the two defenders directly involved can have different responsibilities. And no matter the philosophy involved, both defenders are relying on one another, and their other three teammates, to do their jobs.

                As for Indiana, especially in the 2012-13 season, they would almost always just have George fighting over the screens for shooters he respected — as he does in the top GIF with Rudy Gay, who gets into the lane and scores — or going under them and daring the ball handler to take the shot, as shown below when he goes under the screen for Iguodala, who pulls up and misses the jumper.

                When it comes to sideline pick and rolls, many teams elect a defensive strategy called ”ice.” That is, they don’t allow ball handler to use the pick to attack the middle of the court but instead send them baseline, away from the pick, where the defender guarding the screener can prevent penetration until the ball handler’s defender recovers.

                This isn’t a common method used by Indiana, but watch here as Paul forces Kyrie Irving away from the screen to the baseline, denying him from getting into the lane. Hibbert, however, is overly concerned with a potential pick and pop from Tyler Zeller so he doesn’t sink down low enough to contain Kyrie, who hits the tough shot.

                This play notwithstanding, Indiana’s scheme was good enough in 2012-13 to keep opponents to 0.78 points per possession on pick-and-roll situations when Paul George was defending the ball handler, per mySynergy.

                This season, Paul has been ever better, allowing only 0.66 points per possession and 34.2% shooting when defending pick-and-roll ball handlers. This has been good for a league-wide ranking of 33rd in this category.

                The Pacers still look a bit disorganized at times defending this play, and George often gets caught on his man’s back when he lets him into the lane, but his effort to recover combined with his length and quickness (and we can’t forget Hibberts size and great defense helping out) makes it really tough for opponents even when he gets out of position.

                See here, for example, as he chases Harden around the screen and ends up on his back, but still has the length to bother him and force the miss.

                Getting caught behind his opponent remains a bit of an problem though, and he’s lucky he has Hibbert helping out because his ranking would surely be a bit lower without him.

                Check out these two instances of George getting caught behind his man and allowing good penetration into the middle of the floor:

                Defending Spot-Up Shooters

                Paul excels in defending the spot-up shot, and it’s really no secret why – he’s long, tall and quick, and therefore can affect shooters even when he is late to close out.

                Last season he gave up 0.9 points per possession on spot ups, and he’s doing roughly the same this season, having his league-wide rank hover around the 90th mark. But considering that over half of the spot-up shots he closes out are three-point shots, 0.9 points per possession is nothing to laugh at.

                In the 2012-13 season, his opponents connected on 34.6% of the three-point spot up shots that he was defending. This season, they’ve connected on 38.0% (but with a far smaller sample size).

                See here, for example, as he can afford to help one pass away off Manu, and still be able to close out strongly and force the miss.

                George needs to watch himself in these situations, however.

                He cannot cheat and over help. He is usually guarding the opponent’s best wing scorer and the last thing he needs to do is let that guy get going by watching a three-ball tickle the twice. Here, for example, George loses focus on the true priority and sinks too far to help deny a pass to a cutting Kenyon Martin. The alternate is much more of a threat, as Carmelo is able to catch a swing pass and get off a good look from three.

                Fortunately for Indiana, Anthony misses. George is so long that he is still able to at least offer a token contest, but Vogel would have much rather seen Martin try to do something with the ball 15 feet from the hoop than let Carmelo get a look like this.
                Defending Players Off Screens

                Defending shots off screens is all about effort and basketball IQ. Nobody is doubting George’s effort, but there’s a reason that his opponents connected on a whopping 45.0% of their three-point shots off screens with him defending in the 2012-13 season, per mySynergy, and that reason is that he’s still learning.

                Last season, Paul loved to cheat over the top of screens, making him vulnerable to his opponents flaring out and getting open looks. Here is a prime example, as he tries to cheat under an Al Jefferson screen, which Randy Foye wisely recognizes as he flares out and gets a fairly open look.

                And here is George doing it again, cheating even worse this time and giving J.J. Reddick — of all people — a wide-open three.

                This season, despite the small sample size, he has been much better.

                His opponents have connected on only 30.0% of field goals, and 31.6% of three-point shots off screens with him defending, which works out to 0.73 points per possession and ranks him 11th in league in this category.

                So what has caused this jump?

                Sample size is obviously a part of it, as opponents have only attempted 19 three-point shots off screens with him defending this year, but he has also been far more alert as to when the screen is coming, and is chasing good shooters through the screens more often than he did last season.

                Here’s a good example, as he chases Harden through the screen and gets out to contest the shot:

                Harden hits the three anyway. George seemed more worried about a drive than a shot, took a less-than-ideal angle to bother the release and also contested the lefty’s shot with the wrong hand. But he was alert to what was a tricky back screen and managed to at least get his hand up.
                Final Thoughts of George’s Defense

                Paul George is a very good defensive player (what’s new, right?). He’s above average in the four main areas and is only going to get better with more experience in, for example, learning when and when it’s not OK to fight through screens. He will also surely improve at making split-second decisions on the defensive end.

                He has to carry a big part of the offensive load, so for him to put this much intensity and energy into his defensive game is testimony to how hard he works. Also, if all the Pacers players would more consistently and completely use the same philosophy when defending the screen and roll, that would make the team — and its best player — even better defensively.

                When you consider that the Indiana Pacers are already the best defensive team in the NBA, that seems pretty scary.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

                  http://i44.tinypic.com/10z0qe1.png

                  Good read.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

                    Originally posted by picasso View Post
                    Excellent read. Thank you for that.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

                      Kind of a weird article I thought. He starts by saying PG has a reputation of being a great perimeter defender. Then gives a bunch of stats that sorta say he isn't, and that seems like that's the way the author is interpreting them. Then ends the article by saying he is a very good defensive player. Werid...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

                        Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                        Kind of a weird article I thought. He starts by saying PG has a reputation of being a great perimeter defender. Then gives a bunch of stats that sorta say he isn't, and that seems like that's the way the author is interpreting them. Then ends the article by saying he is a very good defensive player. Werid...
                        Synergy stat rankings are misleading since they rank not based off of useage or minutes so basically seeing him in the 30's or 40's for NBA defenders is not taking into account the most important aspect of the Pacers defensive scheme which is how much PG is on the best offensive weapon.

                        THe ppp is more important but even that is dependent on scheme and good example of that is Chalmers on the Heat. They trap the pg more than any other team so his ppp defense is really high. I still think he is a good defender but the numbers don't account for the scheme or how much is team defense vs individual defense.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

                          Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                          Kind of a weird article I thought. He starts by saying PG has a reputation of being a great perimeter defender. Then gives a bunch of stats that sorta say he isn't, and that seems like that's the way the author is interpreting them. Then ends the article by saying he is a very good defensive player. Werid...
                          My thoughts exactly.

                          I do know just by watching him how good of a defender he is. Pacers have no weak link defensively, so the shots have to come from somewhere. Perhaps that is why the stats aren't proving the point

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Pacers have no weak link defensively, so the shots have to come from somewhere. Perhaps that is why the stats aren't proving the point
                            I don't necessarily agree completely with this. The defensive scheme has a weak spot in that guys who can rolloff the perimeter defender and pull up for a mid-range jump shot before they get to the interior defense will be successful. We have no "weak link" because no single player has to be exceptional in all aspects of defending - we can close in on perimeter shooters because getting beat off the dribble is planned for.
                            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


                            • #15
                              Re: Paul George's Defense Analyzed

                              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                              Synergy stat rankings are misleading since they rank not based off of useage or minutes so basically seeing him in the 30's or 40's for NBA defenders is not taking into account the most important aspect of the Pacers defensive scheme which is how much PG is on the best offensive weapon.

                              THe ppp is more important but even that is dependent on scheme and good example of that is Chalmers on the Heat. They trap the pg more than any other team so his ppp defense is really high. I still think he is a good defender but the numbers don't account for the scheme or how much is team defense vs individual defense.
                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              My thoughts exactly.

                              I do know just by watching him how good of a defender he is. Pacers have no weak link defensively, so the shots have to come from somewhere. Perhaps that is why the stats aren't proving the point
                              Yeah I think all of us and the author as well are in agreement, PG is clearly a very good wing defender. The author just had some trouble using the advanced stats to show this and he didn't really do a good job of explaining why.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X