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 Hater Thread

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

  • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
    No he hasn't.

    You just don't know what we mean by create your own shot, or understand the importance of it.
    Ok, so what is creating your own shot to you? Because to me its being able to get the ball from any position into a position you are capable of scoring at, do you not agree with that? Popovich really must of been crazy to like such an average offensive player so much.

    Or is creating your own shot pounding the air out of the ball for 18 seconds and then going 1 on 1 to you?
    Last edited by BlueCollarColts; 07-30-2014, 02:25 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
      Yes, that is a lot. When a team consistently gets more possessions...game in, game out......it shows a significant difference.

      Denevr had almost 600 more possessions last season. That's not significant?

      Atlanta had almost 300 more? That seems pretty significant.

      First off you do not understand statistics. You cannot compare a single game statistic to a season long statistic, and claim it proves your point. You are comparing apples to oranges. Two entirely different categories that cannot be compared because they are measuring different things. There is a reason why people typically use per game or per possession (or 100 possessions) statistics over yearly statistics. This is because small difference add up over time, and can cause huge differences in year end totals. Theoretically each game is discreet. This means one game does not affect the next game. I say theoretically because they are not perfectly discreet, but they are close enough that we can ignore the imperfections. This is why per game averages tend to be much more revealing about how good a team is at doing something.

      300 possessions over an 82 game season is less than 1 extra possession per quarter, a little over 3 more per game. That is a very small difference. Over the course of a season it will add, but the whole season is made up of 82 pieces. The effect that each individual piece has on the other 81 pieces is so small it isn't worth making a big deal about.

      Now the following statistics were all taken from Basketball-Reference. The Hawks total turnovers reflects their increased pace, but otherwise equal turnover%.
      Turnovers
      Pacers - 14.3% 1237TO 14.5 TOPG Pace 92.5
      Hawks - 14.3% 1251TO 14.5 TOPG Pace 94.6
      Denver - 14.0% 1305TO 15.4 TOPG Pace 98.1


      P.S. Of our top 10 players (minutes played) last season Lance had the second higher TO%, only Mahnmi was higher at 18.0 vs 18.7. Hill was the second lowest, only below West, at 11.2 vs 11.7. So yeah, what are we arguing about? If anything not having Lance will help our turnover situation. The teams problem with pressure isn't Hill's dribbling, it is off the ball movement. No one moves off the ball to give whoever is being pressured a passing lane. Passing is the most effective way to beat a double as it moves the ball faster than dribbling and forces the defense to adjust and move. An offense where players move and pass will always beat out an offense that relies on an individual's ability to dribble the ball.

      Comment


      • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

        I really wonder why certain people around here even root for the Pacers anymore if they hate certain players, hate our style of play, etc.

        Comment


        • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

          In the ECF, if the Pacers were getting trounced and needed a basket they handed the ball to Stephenson. This happened a number of times. Normally this happened after Miami got it going...perhaps a DWade/LeBron fast break.

          George Hill would look sheepishly at the other players and hand it to Lance...then he'd go run to (i.e. hide in) the corner. Lance may or may not have been effective from there, but it showed something. The Pacers thought Lance might be their only option to answer. The only guy on the team with the guts to take it right into the teeth of the Miami defense. You all are smart enough to know this is a fact. Answering in the playoffs is what a team needs to be able to do to move on. The team had better find the back bone to deal with the pressure...and they better develop a lot better offensive scheme this coming year.

          Comment


          • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

            [QUOTE=BlueNGold;1896806]In the ECF, if the Pacers were getting trounced and needed a basket they handed the ball to Stephenson. This happened a number of times. Normally this happened after Miami got it going...perhaps a DWade/LeBron fast break.

            George Hill would look sheepishly at the other players and hand it to Lance...then he'd go run to (i.e. hide in) the corner. Lance may or may not have been effective from there, but it showed something. The Pacers thought Lance might be their only option to answer. The only guy on the team with the guts to take it right into the teeth of the Miami defense. You all are smart enough to know this is a fact. Answering in the playoffs is what a team needs to be able to do to move on. The team had better find the back bone to deal with the pressure...and they better develop a lot better offensive scheme this coming





            I agree with you 100%. It is obvious that Hill does not have the backbone to answer in those situations.

            Comment


            • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

              Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
              I really wonder why certain people around here even root for the Pacers anymore if they hate certain players, hate our style of play, etc.
              Maybe because not everyone is wired to think with their heart.

              Conversely some people on here are such sunshiner fanboys than any bit of critical analysis is interpreted as "hating".

              Comment


              • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                Maybe because not everyone is wired to think with their heart.

                Conversely some people on here are such sunshiner fanboys than any bit of critical analysis is interpreted as "hating".
                While I despise the term "hater", there is a point where it leaves the realm of critical analysis and becomes a constant attempt to defend one's own view of a player's faults while believing that acknowledging any positives would undermine the cause.

                There's also this idea that anyone who defends a player against criticism must be a "sunshiner fanboy" (a term I also despise). And, yes, there's a point where players can do no wrong for some people. However, for the most part, recent months have been filled far, far more with criticism and defense than blind praise and reality checks.
                BillS

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

                Comment


                • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  First off you do not understand statistics. You cannot compare a single game statistic to a season long statistic, and claim it proves your point. You are comparing apples to oranges. Two entirely different categories that cannot be compared because they are measuring different things. There is a reason why people typically use per game or per possession (or 100 possessions) statistics over yearly statistics. This is because small difference add up over time, and can cause huge differences in year end totals. Theoretically each game is discreet. This means one game does not affect the next game. I say theoretically because they are not perfectly discreet, but they are close enough that we can ignore the imperfections. This is why per game averages tend to be much more revealing about how good a team is at doing something.

                  300 possessions over an 82 game season is less than 1 extra possession per quarter, a little over 3 more per game. That is a very small difference. Over the course of a season it will add, but the whole season is made up of 82 pieces. The effect that each individual piece has on the other 81 pieces is so small it isn't worth making a big deal about.

                  Now the following statistics were all taken from Basketball-Reference. The Hawks total turnovers reflects their increased pace, but otherwise equal turnover%.
                  Turnovers
                  Pacers - 14.3% 1237TO 14.5 TOPG Pace 92.5
                  Hawks - 14.3% 1251TO 14.5 TOPG Pace 94.6
                  Denver - 14.0% 1305TO 15.4 TOPG Pace 98.1


                  P.S. Of our top 10 players (minutes played) last season Lance had the second higher TO%, only Mahnmi was higher at 18.0 vs 18.7. Hill was the second lowest, only below West, at 11.2 vs 11.7. So yeah, what are we arguing about? If anything not having Lance will help our turnover situation. The teams problem with pressure isn't Hill's dribbling, it is off the ball movement. No one moves off the ball to give whoever is being pressured a passing lane. Passing is the most effective way to beat a double as it moves the ball faster than dribbling and forces the defense to adjust and move. An offense where players move and pass will always beat out an offense that relies on an individual's ability to dribble the ball.
                  If you're gonna throw out these stats, why not factor in usg? Why not think about what the player is asked to do within the offense?

                  I understand these statistics better than most people on here and I don't even think about them unless they are brought up. Why? Because I have lived in the gym since I was a small kid and know the game like the back of my hand. Your side just uses any stat you can find, all the time. You have no understanding of what they mean at all. And it's clear because you are always just using the ones that suit you. You aren't looking for an answer, you are looking for confirmation of your opinion and you use them accordingly. That is not how they work and is the flaw in having so many of them. Any opinion can find a statistic that supports it.

                  Example.....

                  On one hand, Atlanta and Denver only got a few extra possessions a quarter, and it's not significant.

                  But George Hill scoring 4 more points a game and getting an extra .6 shots a quarter (the difference between 2012-13 and last season and the whole premise of your argument) is greatly significant, and it's gonna fix our stagnant offense. It deserves to be talked about in every Lance thread it is so important.

                  C'mon man. This stuff is so lame.

                  Here is a fact about George Hill and turnovers.

                  90% of the time, George Hill brought the ball up across half court, gave it to PG or Lance, and went to the corner. Why wouldn't he have low turnovers?

                  Lance on the other hand, was asked to create his own shot, he was the guy that was given the ball against pressure defense, he was the guy asked to create something with the shot clock running down, so........why wouldn't he have more, even a lot more? George Hill has never been asked to do any of that. He has always been asked to do the same thing. Bring it up, and give it to someone else. Run a pick and roll occasionally, and spot up for threes. They don't have similar roles and never have. In 2012 Lance was still the same guy asked to do the same things he did last year, he was just called on less to do it, because of his lack of experience.

                  And somebody next year is gonna be asked to do those same things Lance does, and they are gonna have to be VERY good to replace him adequately. We are gonna face the same obstacles, and we are gonna have to find a solution. Last year, Lance was our solution to pressure defense. You think the game is as simple as player A has this many and player B has this many. Well it's not. And removing Lance isn't gonna automatically fix the turnover issue, that's ridiculous. Lance was our best player at moving without the ball and our best ball handler, and you honestly think we are better equipped to take care of the ball now? You can't add and subtract your way to success Eleazar. Lance wasn't the reason all these other players struggle with pressure and movement. It is their own talent that is the problem there.



                  This is an endless debate with your side on this issue. And it's truly pointless. And I'm growing bored with it tbh. I'd much rather talk with people who actually know me and my history with the game, and realize I do have better knowledge than most because of that history and have some respect for that. It is much more enjoyable than trying to convince some dude watching on tv with bbref bookmarked on his browser and have to constantly explain to him what "create your own shot" means or why George Hill doesn't turn it over much. This stuff is basketball common sense.

                  Ya'll can sit here and think I have no clue what I am talking about if you want, but you're wrong. I have always been an unpopular poster on here because I have my own opinion and do not fallow the mass way of thinking, EVER. And I'm not afraid to speak my mind or take on anyone in a debate. And like I said before, my post history speaks for itself.

                  This is gonna be my last post on the Lance issue until the season starts.

                  Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                  Ok, so what is creating your own shot to you? Because to me its being able to get the ball from any position into a position you are capable of scoring at, do you not agree with that? Popovich really must of been crazy to like such an average offensive player so much.

                  Or is creating your own shot pounding the air out of the ball for 18 seconds and then going 1 on 1 to you?
                  Being good at creating your own shot means the other team has to game plan for you, consider double teaming you, because you can't be guarded by one player, CONSISTENTLY. Not once or twice or even 10 times a year, but game in game out.
                  Last edited by Taterhead; 07-31-2014, 11:12 AM.
                  "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

                    Lance on the other hand, was asked to create his own shot, he was the guy that was given the ball against pressure defense, he was the guy asked to create something with the shot clock running down, so........why wouldn't he have more, even a lot more? George Hill has never been asked to do any of that. He has always been asked to do the same thing. Bring it up, and give it to someone else. Run a pick and roll occasionally, and spot up for threes. They don't have similar roles and never have. In 2012 Lance was still the same guy asked to do the same things he did last year, he was just called on less to do it, because of his lack of experience.
                    GHill was asked to do that during the 12-13 season, when Lance was the guy who stood in the corner. GHill's 12-13 role became Lance's 13-14 role, and Lance's 12-13 role became GHill's 13-14 role.

                    You mentioned usage, which is something stats also track.
                    GHill 12-13 usage%: 18.8
                    Lance 12-13 usage%: 15.2

                    GHill 13-14 usage%: 14.8
                    Lance 13-14 usage%: 19.4

                    GHill's PER36 TO 12-13: 1.6
                    GHill's PER36 TO 13-14: 1.4
                    Lance's PER36 TO 12-13: 1.7
                    Lance's PER36 TO 13-14: 2.7

                    So Lance turned the ball over more than GHill when both had smaller roles and when both had larger roles.

                    And then we can compare production
                    GHill 12-13 PER36: 15pts 4reb 5assists
                    Lance 13-14 PER36: 14pts 7reb 5assists

                    GHill 13-14 PER36: 12pts 4reb 4assists
                    Lance 12-13 PER36: 11pts 5reb 4assists


                    Amazing how similiar all those stats are....
                    Last edited by Since86; 07-31-2014, 11:20 AM.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      GHill was asked to do that during the 12-13 season, when Lance was the guy who stood in the corner. GHill's 12-13 role became Lance's 13-14 role, and Lance's 12-13 role became GHill's 13-14 role.

                      You mentioned usage, which is something stats also track.
                      GHill 12-13 usage%: 18.8
                      Lance 12-13 usage%: 15.2

                      GHill 13-14 usage%: 14.8
                      Lance 13-14 usage%: 19.4

                      GHill's PER36 TO 12-13: 1.6
                      GHill's PER36 TO 13-14: 1.4
                      Lance's PER36 TO 12-13: 1.7
                      Lance's PER36 TO 13-14: 2.7

                      So Lance turned the ball over more than GHill when both had smaller roles and when both had larger roles.
                      No he wasn't, they don't even play the same position, lol. How is their role the same in the offense? You think we have both of our guards playing the exact same role?

                      Usg% doesn't explain your role.

                      Again, my point.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                        Lance is a PG/SG hybrid, just like GHill.

                        Usage DOES explain offensive roles. It quantifies how much each player is used offensively.


                        Your point is basically, "I'm right, you're wrong, nana nana, boo boo, you butt hurt poopy head"
                        Last edited by Since86; 07-31-2014, 11:28 AM.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                          This is gonna be my last post on the Lance issue until the season starts.
                          Oh yeah?

                          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                          No he wasn't, they don't even play the same position, lol. How is their role the same in the offense? You think we have both of our guards playing the exact same role?

                          Usg% doesn't explain your role.

                          Again, my point.
                          oops

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Lance is a PG/SG hybrid, just like GHill.

                            Usage DOES explain offensive roles. It quantifies how much each player is used offensively.


                            Your point is basically, "I'm right, you're wrong, nana nana, boo boo, you butt hurt poopy head"
                            His point is actually, "I'm right you're wrong, and I shouldn't be wasting my time discussing this with peons who cannot comprehend my elite level of basketball knowledge".

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                              Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                              Oh yeah?



                              oops
                              Since86's inability to interpret stats has nothing to do with Lance.

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Lance is a PG/SG hybrid, just like GHill.

                              Usage DOES explain offensive roles. It quantifies how much each player is used offensively.


                              Your point is basically, "I'm right, you're wrong, nana nana, boo boo, you butt hurt poopy head"
                              Offensive roles is not how much you are used on offense, it is what you do on offense.

                              Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                              His point is actually, "I'm right you're wrong, and I shouldn't be wasting my time discussing this with peons who cannot comprehend my elite level of basketball knowledge".
                              Yes that is my point.

                              Neither of you can make a single solid post about basketball without some stat you pulled off a website.
                              Last edited by Taterhead; 07-31-2014, 11:45 AM.
                              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                                Neither of you can make a single solid post about basketball without some stat you pulled off a website.
                                That's because "I know basketball, trust me." Doesn't prove nor refute anything. It's a hollow statement without some sort of source.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X