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

Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

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

  • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

    Originally posted by cgg View Post
    I'm not entirely sure yet, but they are the only two things that changed significantly statistically. My theory is the bigs are closer to the basket when they are being used, so they are in better position. Or something else about where people are on offense when Lances ha higher usage.
    Ok, that seems reasonable enough as a starting point for investigation. But focusing entirely on Lance might be the wrong track. Paul George actually accounts for a larger share of the increased usage, as you must know.

    In fact, over the last 3 seasons, the wing usage looks like this:

    11-12: primary wing (Granger), 25.9%: utility wing (George), 19.3%
    12-13: primary wing (George), 23.5%: utility wing (Stephenson), 15.2%
    13-14: primary wing (George), 28.3%: utility wing (Stephenson), 19.4%

    Lance's usage as the utility wing last season is in line with George's back in 11-12, when I assume no one disputes that we were a more post oriented team. So, blaming Lance for the bigs' lack of touches seems out of whack to me.

    Quite frankly, I'm amazed that no one seems willing to point to the elephant in the room, that Paul George is eating up a ton of possessions at a rate not commensurate with his current efficiency. Sure, I get that he's an emerging star, that he's learning on the job etc etc, but while learning maybe he could try to involve the bigs more? I mean, Occam's Razor would suggest that the guy with the highest usage (by a mile) on the team is most responsible for our offensive efficiency right? (Or lack of, LOL)

    Comment


    • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
      Ok, that seems reasonable enough as a starting point for investigation. But focusing entirely on Lance might be the wrong track. Paul George actually accounts for a larger share of the increased usage, as you must know.

      In fact, over the last 3 seasons, the wing usage looks like this:

      11-12: primary wing (Granger), 25.9%: utility wing (George), 19.3%
      12-13: primary wing (George), 23.5%: utility wing (Stephenson), 15.2%
      13-14: primary wing (George), 28.3%: utility wing (Stephenson), 19.4%

      Lance's usage as the utility wing last season is in line with George's back in 11-12, when I assume no one disputes that we were a more post oriented team. So, blaming Lance for the bigs' lack of touches seems out of whack to me.

      Quite frankly, I'm amazed that no one seems willing to point to the elephant in the room, that Paul George is eating up a ton of possessions at a rate not commensurate with his current efficiency. Sure, I get that he's an emerging star, that he's learning on the job etc etc, but while learning maybe he could try to involve the bigs more? I mean, Occam's Razor would suggest that the guy with the highest usage (by a mile) on the team is most responsible for our offensive efficiency right? (Or lack of, LOL)
      And that's exactly why I'm always talking about our wings taking over and turning this team into a jump-shooting one. Lance was not alone in this. Paul George played a big role as well and he loved long 2s even more than Lance did. Both of our wings played a big role in going away from our offensive identity last year.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

        Does anyone think Lance signed for shorter time to take advantage of the new nba TV contract coming up here in a few years? Its expected to almost double player salaries.

        Comment


        • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          Therefore, when our offense begun to rely on the long 2 a lot more our offensive rebounding opportunities also went down the drain.
          That actually sounds like a reasonable argument. But if your theory's true, the evidence is most damning towards Paul George.

          Here's PG's shooting breakdown from 13-14 vs 12-13:

          Code:
                                                        % of % of % of  % of % of % of 
          Season    Age  Tm  Lg Pos   G   MP  FG% Dist.   2P  0-3 3-10 10-16 16-25
          2010-11    20 IND NBA  SG  61 1265 .453  14.0 .651 .301 .096  .104 .149 
          2011-12    21 IND NBA  SG  66 1958 .440  14.2 .634 .297 .094  .092 .150 
          2012-13    22 IND NBA  SF  79 2972 .419  15.5 .601 .241 .085  .116 .159 
          2013-14    23 IND NBA  SF  80 2898 .424  15.8 .633 .208 .084  .150 .191
          PG increased his share of shots taken in the 16-25 feet range (aka long 2's). His average shooting distance has gone up from 15.5 feet to 15.8. Compare with Lance's:

          Code:
                                                        % of % of % of  % of % of % of 
          Season    Age  Tm  Lg Pos   G   MP  FG% Dist.   2P  0-3 3-10 10-16 16-25
          2010-11    20 IND NBA  SG  12  115 .333  12.7 .872 .333 .154  .051 .333 
          2011-12    21 IND NBA  SG  42  442 .376  12.9 .760 .320 .152  .080 .208 
          2012-13    22 IND NBA  SG  78 2278 .460  12.9 .686 .378 .094  .054 .161 
          2013-14    23 IND NBA  SG  78 2752 .491  12.2 .720 .371 .144  .077 .128
          Lance actually cut down on his long 2's (16-25 range) and it's a career trend for him. His average shooting distance went down from 12.9 feet to 12.2.

          Comment


          • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
            And that's exactly why I'm always talking about our wings taking over and turning this team into a jump-shooting one. Lance was not alone in this. Paul George played a big role as well and he loved long 2s even more than Lance did. Both of our wings played a big role in going away from our offensive identity last year.
            It's probably more accurate to say 1 wing (singular) rather than 2 wings (plural) since one guy takes a heck of a lot more long 2's than the other, as the shooting numbers show.

            Mind you, PG's accuracy in the long 2 range is pretty decent (as far as long 2's go) so it's hard to blame him, but indeed it contributes to a change in identity.

            Comment


            • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
              Wait, what's the correlation between usage and Oreb rate that you're drawing here? It's not one I'm familiar with. The link between Oreb and FGA is clear though.

              But yes, glad I'm not the only one who noticed that our Oreb rate went to crap.
              I mentioned this earlier in the season...but I think that the lower OffReb was attributed to the swapping out of Hansbrough for Scola. Hansbrough was one of our top Offensive Rebounders despite playing back up PF minutes. Couple that with Scola being an average rebounder,,,,much less an average ( at best ) offensive Rebounder...and we see the resulting loss in Offensive Rebounding #s.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                And that's exactly the difference between last year's and this year's identity. This team will always play better when the ball goes to the post.
                Question, did we stop going into the post because Hibbert was completely ineffectual, or did the team become ineffectual because we stopped going into the post. I'd be really interested to see a breakdown of usage by month for last season. I felt we became more wing-oriented as it became more obvious that Hibbert had the yips. Someone said earlier that Hibbert isn't the best player on this team, but he may be the most important, which makes some sense to me. He became truly awful last season regardless of usage, and if I was Lance or PG I would have become very hesitant to pass him the ball for two reasons 1.) he never passed back out even when he didn't have position and 2.) he couldn't hit the ocean from a boat.
                Danger Zone

                Comment


                • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                  Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                  That actually sounds like a reasonable argument. But if your theory's true, the evidence is most damning towards Paul George.

                  Here's PG's shooting breakdown from 13-14 vs 12-13:

                  Code:
                                                                % of % of % of  % of % of % of 
                  Season    Age  Tm  Lg Pos   G   MP  FG% Dist.   2P  0-3 3-10 10-16 16-25
                  2010-11    20 IND NBA  SG  61 1265 .453  14.0 .651 .301 .096  .104 .149 
                  2011-12    21 IND NBA  SG  66 1958 .440  14.2 .634 .297 .094  .092 .150 
                  2012-13    22 IND NBA  SF  79 2972 .419  15.5 .601 .241 .085  .116 .159 
                  2013-14    23 IND NBA  SF  80 2898 .424  15.8 .633 .208 .084  .150 .191
                  PG increased his share of shots taken in the 16-25 feet range (aka long 2's). His average shooting distance has gone up from 15.5 feet to 15.8. Compare with Lance's:

                  Code:
                                                                % of % of % of  % of % of % of 
                  Season    Age  Tm  Lg Pos   G   MP  FG% Dist.   2P  0-3 3-10 10-16 16-25
                  2010-11    20 IND NBA  SG  12  115 .333  12.7 .872 .333 .154  .051 .333 
                  2011-12    21 IND NBA  SG  42  442 .376  12.9 .760 .320 .152  .080 .208 
                  2012-13    22 IND NBA  SG  78 2278 .460  12.9 .686 .378 .094  .054 .161 
                  2013-14    23 IND NBA  SG  78 2752 .491  12.2 .720 .371 .144  .077 .128
                  Lance actually cut down on his long 2's (16-25 range) and it's a career trend for him. His average shooting distance went down from 12.9 feet to 12.2.
                  Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                  It's probably more accurate to say 1 wing (singular) rather than 2 wings (plural) since one guy takes a heck of a lot more long 2's than the other, as the shooting numbers show.

                  Mind you, PG's accuracy in the long 2 range is pretty decent (as far as long 2's go) so it's hard to blame him, but indeed it contributes to a change in identity.
                  I see. That's a very interesting breakdown, my friend.

                  I did notice that Lance cut down on his shots at the rim a bit (0-3 range) but what I didn't notice was that he also cut down on his long 2s (16-25 range) and turned both of those shots into 3-16 range ones.

                  Can you find a month to month breakdown for those shot charts? I think that I remember Lance attempting more close shots in the first half of the season and more long shots in the second half of the season.

                  You do have a point, though. The evidence is indeed more daming towards PG although he is indeed good at hitting those shots like you mentioned.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    I mentioned this earlier in the season...but I think that the lower OffReb was attributed to the swapping out of Hansbrough for Scola. Hansbrough was one of our top Offensive Rebounders despite playing back up PF minutes. Couple that with Scola being an average rebounder,,,,much less an average ( at best ) offensive Rebounder...and we see the resulting loss in Offensive Rebounding #s.
                    Don't forget that Hans was good for at least 2 OReb a game where he would brick his own shot at the rim, get it back, brick it again, get it back, brick it again and get fouled (or embarrassingly blocked!). It artificially inflated our OReb and shot numbers.
                    Danger Zone

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      I mentioned this earlier in the season...but I think that the lower OffReb was attributed to the swapping out of Hansbrough for Scola. Hansbrough was one of our top Offensive Rebounders despite playing back up PF minutes. Couple that with Scola being an average rebounder,,,,much less an average ( at best ) offensive Rebounder...and we see the resulting loss in Offensive Rebounding #s.
                      Yeah, for a backup PF Hans was actually surprisingly effective on the boards. He had 161 ORBs in 12-13, which was second on the team (more than David West, who almost doubled Hans' minutes). But the guy with the single largest decline was (surprise, surprise) Roy. He pulled 296 ORBs in 12-13, and only 202 in 13-14.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                        Originally posted by cgg View Post
                        I'm not entirely sure yet, but they are the only two things that changed significantly statistically. My theory is the bigs are closer to the basket when they are being used, so they are in better position. Or something else about where people are on offense when Lances ha higher usage.
                        I also felt our offensive rebounding philosophy was different last year as opposed to 12-13, and I felt it was because we were trying to give up less fast break points. In 12-13 we seemed more aggressive around the rim, last year I felt that players were frequently dropping back as soon as the ball was in the air. I thought it was a coaching change and was done because our defense was so good we didn't want to give up easy points. I have absolutely no basis or stats to back that up, just the impression i had.
                        Danger Zone

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                          Can you find a month to month breakdown for those shot charts? I think that I remember Lance attempting more close shots in the first half of the season and more long shots in the second half of the season.
                          Haha, that's probably more work than I'm willing to do

                          With all that, I'm not down on Paul G. He's still our undisputed best player. But he's a much better defender than he is an offensive player, and if his offensive game doesn't grow soon, well we'd be in trouble. (EDIT: Larry telling PG to develop a post game is a fantastic idea that hopefully would reverse PG's trend)

                          It's also troubling to me that Vogel apparently lets PG do whatever he wants on offense. Is it a reward for his defensive efforts? Does Roy want the same deal? Undoubtedly Roy is better on defense than offense too.
                          Last edited by wintermute; 07-19-2014, 12:25 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                            Btw, the long 2 argument also works against Roy. He's shooting farther and farther away from the basket. Not sure why

                            Code:
                                                                            % of % of % of  % of % of % of 
                            Season    Age  Tm  Lg Pos   G    MP  FG% Dist.    2P  0-3 3-10 10-16 16-25
                            2008-09    22 IND NBA   C  70  1009 .471   5.2 1.000 .483 .352  .083 .081 
                            2009-10    23 IND NBA   C  81  2035 .495   6.9  .992 .380 .352  .129 .132 
                            2010-11    24 IND NBA   C  81  2244 .461   7.5  .996 .292 .433  .133 .138 
                            2011-12    25 IND NBA   C  65  1937 .497   6.0  .999 .358 .455  .118 .067 
                            2012-13    26 IND NBA   C  79  2269 .448   6.4  .995 .360 .424  .130 .081 
                            2013-14    27 IND NBA   C  81  2409 .439   8.0  .993 .245 .442  .155 .151

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                              Btw, the long 2 argument also works against Roy. He's shooting farther and farther away from the basket. Not sure why

                              Code:
                                                                              % of % of % of  % of % of % of 
                              Season    Age  Tm  Lg Pos   G    MP  FG% Dist.    2P  0-3 3-10 10-16 16-25
                              2008-09    22 IND NBA   C  70  1009 .471   5.2 1.000 .483 .352  .083 .081 
                              2009-10    23 IND NBA   C  81  2035 .495   6.9  .992 .380 .352  .129 .132 
                              2010-11    24 IND NBA   C  81  2244 .461   7.5  .996 .292 .433  .133 .138 
                              2011-12    25 IND NBA   C  65  1937 .497   6.0  .999 .358 .455  .118 .067 
                              2012-13    26 IND NBA   C  79  2269 .448   6.4  .995 .360 .424  .130 .081 
                              2013-14    27 IND NBA   C  81  2409 .439   8.0  .993 .245 .442  .155 .151
                              Did not expect that at all. Roy's FG% constant decline is really worrying. As a quick aside, in the 12-13 season, 126 players played over 2,000 minutes, and Roy had the Best OREB rate of all of them per 36 minutes. Not so much in 13-14 (he was 17th with 123 players playing over 2000 minutes)
                              Danger Zone

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                                Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                                Question, did we stop going into the post because Hibbert was completely ineffectual, or did the team become ineffectual because we stopped going into the post. I'd be really interested to see a breakdown of usage by month for last season. I felt we became more wing-oriented as it became more obvious that Hibbert had the yips. Someone said earlier that Hibbert isn't the best player on this team, but he may be the most important, which makes some sense to me. He became truly awful last season regardless of usage, and if I was Lance or PG I would have become very hesitant to pass him the ball for two reasons 1.) he never passed back out even when he didn't have position and 2.) he couldn't hit the ocean from a boat.
                                Personally, I believe that the latter is clearly the case. Bigs always perform better when they are involved in the game offensively. Guards and wings will always be involved offensively because they are the ones handling the ball. This isn't the same with bigs. They are not the ones handling the ball so they rely on their teammates to get them the ball. Therefore, the rest of the team has to give them the ball from time in order to involve them offensively. A team plays much better when every single one of their players is an offensive threat. Taking your teammate out of the game by never passing him the ball is never beneficial.

                                Mind you, when I'm talking about our team's bigs I'm not speaking only about Hibbert. David West had several games in which he wasn't as involved offensively as he was last year. In 13-14 West had 22 games in which he attempted less than 10 shots. In the 12-13 the amount of games in which West attempted less than 10 shots plummets to 9. Moreover, in 12-13 he attempted less than 8 shots only 2 times (7 shots against Cleveland in April 9, 2013 and 6 shots against Memphis in December 31, 2012 due to foul trouble). In 13-14 he attempted less than 8 shots 8 times. In fact, David even had a game in which he only attempted 3 shots (against Milwaukee in November 15, 2013).

                                David West's usage plummeted from 24.4% in 12-13 to 21.9% in 13-14 despite not "having the yips" (to use your own phrase) like Hibbert. Why did this happen then?

                                It's simply because the usage of wings rose. Our wings took over the offense and this wasn't very beneficial for the team as a whole. That's my opinion, at least.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X