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

Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

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

  • #61
    Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    Honestly, I don't think that Larry cares about that. His job as a GM is to bring in as much talent as possible and that's what he's trying to do. That's what the Granger trade indicated.
    Nuntius, I think the fact that you've only followed the team for a few years is limiting your perspective a bit here. Bird cares very much about bench dynamics and chemistry. When he was given the sole task of rebuilding the team in 2008, he had witnessed first hand how a brawl and chemistry issues destroyed a team, which forced us to sell low on our talent and get saddled by expensive mediocre players. When beginning the task of building that new core in 2008, Bird emphasized the importance of character and chemistry. His first move towards this was getting rid of JO in the trade that gave us Hibbert. He also kicked Tinsley to the curb.

    The core of this team was very carefully crafted so that we would have solid character guys who would have good chemistry on the court: Hibbert and PG were added through the draft, while West and Hill were excellent additions from the outside. The additions of West and Hill showed that Bird cares very much about bench dynamics. He wanted a couple of vets from the outside who could teach our young guys how to act and play like professionals. With Stephenson, Bird did what you're supposed to do with a second rounder - go for high upside. He banked on the fact that the vets could keep him in line, and for the most part over the last two years it worked out pretty well. Two ECF's appearances with Stephenson in the starting lineup.

    The 2013 playoff run was a complete validation of Bird's vision. That team had absolute perfect chemistry. No selfishness to speak of and everyone was on the same page. At some point this past season, they collectively choked on the pressure of the high expectations and it seems likely that there were some internal issues. That's on them, Bird can't wipe their a$$es for them. He built a team that proved it could succeed on the court and have good chemistry if everyone did what they were supposed to do.

    Trading Granger, the 8th or 9th best player on the team who wasn't even on the court when this team was at its apex in 2013, does not mean that Bird didn't care about chemistry. Instead, it meant that Bird had faith that the Hibbert/West/George/Stephenson/Hill was mature enough to get along without Granger, as they should have been. It ultimately didn't work out because Turner was so bad, but it was not a move that should have thrown a wrench in anything. I still think it was way down on the list of things that caused us to sink down the stretch.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-06-2014, 10:56 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Nuntius, I think the fact that you've only followed the team for a few years is limiting your perspective a bit here. Bird cares very much about bench dynamics and chemistry. When he was given the sole task of rebuilding the team in 2008, he had witnessed first hand how a brawl and chemistry issues destroyed a team, which forced us to sell low on our talent and get saddled by expensive mediocre players. When beginning the task of building that new core in 2008, Bird emphasized the importance of character and chemistry. His first move towards this was getting rid of JO in the trade that gave us Hibbert. He also kicked Tinsley to the curb.

      The core of this team was very carefully crafted so that we would have solid character guys who would have good chemistry on the court: Hibbert and PG were added through the draft, while West and Hill were excellent additions from the outside. The additions of West and Hill showed that Bird cares very much about bench dynamics. He wanted a couple of vets from the outside who could teach our young guys how to act and play like professionals. With Stephenson, Bird did what you're supposed to do with a second rounder - go for high upside. He banked on the fact that the vets could keep him in line, and for the most part over the last two years it worked out pretty well. Two ECF's appearances with Stephenson in the starting lineup.

      The 2013 playoff run was a complete validation of Bird's vision. That team had absolute perfect chemistry. No selfishness to speak of and everyone was on the same page. At some point this past season, they collectively choked on the pressure of the high expectations and it seems likely that there were some internal issues. That's on them, Bird can't wipe their a$$es for them. He built a team that proved it could succeed on the court and have good chemistry if everyone did what they were supposed to do.

      Trading Granger, the 8th or 9th best player on the team who wasn't even on the court when this team was at its apex in 2013, does not mean that Bird didn't care about chemistry. Instead, it meant that Bird had faith that the Hibbert/West/George/Stephenson/Hill was mature enough to get along without Granger, as they should have been. It ultimately didn't work out because Turner was so bad, but it was not a move that should have thrown a wrench in anything. I still think it was way down on the list of things that caused us to sink down the stretch.
      Sollozzo, I absolutely agree that my relative lack of experience in following the NBA and this team is limiting my perspective on this. I have read up on the post-Brawl and JOB era but that's not the same as witnessing it first hand like you and many others in this forum did. I totally understand that.

      I will also say once again that the wording that I used in the post that you quoted was harsh. I don't really believe that Bird doesn't care about chemistry and bench dynamics. I simply believe that he underestimated Granger's role on our team's chemistry and bench dynamics. He was the most tenured Pacer after all and that meant something in the locker room.

      Personally, I don't consider it a coincidence that everything started going downhill after the trade.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
        Sollozzo, I absolutely agree that my relative lack of experience in following the NBA and this team is limiting my perspective on this. I have read up on the post-Brawl and JOB era but that's not the same as witnessing it first hand like you and many others in this forum did. I totally understand that.

        I will also say once again that the wording that I used in the post that you quoted was harsh. I don't really believe that Bird doesn't care about chemistry and bench dynamics. I simply believe that he underestimated Granger's role on our team's chemistry and bench dynamics. He was the most tenured Pacer after all and that meant something in the locker room.

        Personally, I don't consider it a coincidence that everything started going downhill after the trade.
        To be fair we were struggling the last couple of weeks before the trade, but for certain the team took a nosedive after the trade occurred.

        Like you, I do not believe this was a coincidence either.


        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          To be fair we were struggling the last couple of weeks before the trade, but for certain the team took a nosedive after the trade occurred.

          Like you, I do not believe this was a coincidence either.
          I still think it was equal parts who was brought in vs. who was shipped out(I won't name names, but I don't think the guy whose name rhymes with Davoy Talon had anything to do with it). Granger had lost a lot of pull in the locker room coming back as poorly as he did, and Turner had an eerily similar skillset(obv. minus the defensive ability) to another guy already on the roster trying to show up every coach that didn't vote him into the ASG.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

            Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
            I still think it was equal parts who was brought in vs. who was shipped out(I won't name names, but I don't think the guy whose name rhymes with Davoy Talon had anything to do with it). Granger had lost a lot of pull in the locker room coming back as poorly as he did, and Turner had an eerily similar skillset(obv. minus the defensive ability) to another guy already on the roster trying to show up every coach that didn't vote him into the ASG.
            Not that I'm saying you are wrong but how do you know that?


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              That is basically what everyone on the Granger should start side were arguing. Fit > Individual Skill, the other side never seemed to understand this though.
              Well Lance "fit" just fine within the starting lineup of a team that went to Game 7 of the ECF's. He also "fit" beautifully when he played a major role on a team that started 33-7. That was the absolute best that this team has ever looked, and it happened with Lance exploding and playing a major role. The main reason, of course, was PG playing like an MVP.

              The "start Lance" crowd's argument did not neglect "fit". Instead, it centered around the fact that a young up and coming and improving player was a better bet than a broken down player battling injuries who couldn't even get on the court until December. No one is denying that a prime Granger would have "fit" nicely into this lineup. But last year's Granger wasn't going to be too god of a fit anywhere, as is evidenced by the fact that he was absolutely horrendous for the Clippers in the playoffs (with no Lance in his way).

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                Well Lance "fit" just fine within the starting lineup of a team that went to Game 7 of the ECF's. He also "fit" beautifully when he played a major role on a team that started 33-7. That was the absolute best that this team has ever looked, and it happened with Lance exploding and playing a major role. The main reason, of course, was PG playing like an MVP.

                The "start Lance" crowd's argument did not neglect "fit". Instead, it centered around the fact that a young up and coming and improving player was a better bet than a broken down player battling injuries who couldn't even get on the court until December. No one is denying that a prime Granger would have "fit" nicely into this lineup. But last year's Granger wasn't going to be too god of a fit anywhere, as is evidenced by the fact that he was absolutely horrendous for the Clippers in the playoffs (with no Lance in his way).
                I think the "other side" meant those who say things like "hated Lance" and "downplayed his talent."
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  To be fair we were struggling the last couple of weeks before the trade, but for certain the team took a nosedive after the trade occurred.

                  Like you, I do not believe this was a coincidence either.
                  I never believed that our slight struggles between the WC trip in January and the Granger trade were connected with what happened afterwards. We were 9-6 in that time span and we did had some marquee wins as well (Golden State in the Oracle, Portland in BLF). I mean, we definitely didn't play as well as we did when we were 33-7 but it wasn't anywhere near close to what we experienced at the end of the season.

                  Something definitely happened during the ASB and it's probable that we're never going to learn what that was.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                    I never believed that our slight struggles between the WC trip in January and the Granger trade were connected with what happened afterwards. We were 9-6 in that time span and we did had some marquee wins as well (Golden State in the Oracle, Portland in BLF). I mean, we definitely didn't play as well as we did when we were 33-7 but it wasn't anywhere near close to what we experienced at the end of the season.

                    Something definitely happened during the ASB and it's probable that we're never going to learn what that was.
                    I always thought that 9-6 span was the team coming back down to Earth more than anything. 33-7 is a difficult pace to play up to - especially when you rely so much on your starters. And as you mentioned, even though we were losing a bit more than we were earlier in the year it wasn't nearly as bad as what we saw post ASB.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Not that I'm saying you are wrong but how do you know that?
                      Pure speculation, and I could be wrong. Wells did say in the story he worked on with Brian Windhorst that Granger's presence was diminished in some faculty due to the amount of time he spent shelved, following that concept I speculated that Granger coming back poorly maybe didn't exactly appear to younger players as much of an impact as anticipated.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                        Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                        Pure speculation, and I could be wrong. Wells did say in the story he worked on with Brian Windhorst that Granger's presence was diminished in some faculty due to the amount of time he spent shelved, following that concept I speculated that Granger coming back poorly maybe didn't exactly appear to younger players as much of an impact as anticipated.
                        It's another way to make a great leap by making a lot of small leaps. Going from diminished due to not playing to lost a lot of pull due to coming back poorly doesn't seem like a big jump, but it is going from a comparative value (not as influential as he was before) to an absolute value (not very influential). It's a dangerous leap to make, especially when you change the why (from not playing to coming back playing poorly).
                        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


                        • #72
                          Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          I always thought that 9-6 span was the team coming back down to Earth more than anything. 33-7 is a difficult pace to play up to - especially when you rely so much on your starters. And as you mentioned, even though we were losing a bit more than we were earlier in the year it wasn't nearly as bad as what we saw post ASB.
                          Agreed. That span was a paradise compared to what we saw after the ASB.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Well Lance "fit" just fine within the starting lineup of a team that went to Game 7 of the ECF's. He also "fit" beautifully when he played a major role on a team that started 33-7. That was the absolute best that this team has ever looked, and it happened with Lance exploding and playing a major role. The main reason, of course, was PG playing like an MVP.

                            The "start Lance" crowd's argument did not neglect "fit". Instead, it centered around the fact that a young up and coming and improving player was a better bet than a broken down player battling injuries who couldn't even get on the court until December. No one is denying that a prime Granger would have "fit" nicely into this lineup. But last year's Granger wasn't going to be too god of a fit anywhere, as is evidenced by the fact that he was absolutely horrendous for the Clippers in the playoffs (with no Lance in his way).
                            A healthy, prime, veteran Granger would have been a better fit. But it should have been obvious to people Granger wasn't going to be back last year. That was a figment of imagination with some people. Why people kept thinking it was a possibility is beyond me.

                            On top of that, Lance is already about as good as prime Granger. Yes, Danny can shoot the ball better. Other than that, there is no basketball skill that Danny Granger has ever had that is better than Lance Stephenson.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                              Agreed. That span was a paradise compared to what we saw after the ASB.
                              The fact all other Pacers, except the guy who led FG%, rebounds (as a SG) and assists (as a SG), stunk it up as the season wore on was too bad. But it wasn't Lance's fault. The other players either didn't adapt (Hibbert), didn't have it mentally to overcome challenges (e.g. Paul's baby mama drama) or just mailed it in (non-aggressive Hill). Lance, OTOH, became a pain fighting with his team mates and acting like an idiot in the playoffs. But at least he showed some heart on the court. Reminds me of the effort level we saw from Artest.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                It's another way to make a great leap by making a lot of small leaps. Going from diminished due to not playing to lost a lot of pull due to coming back poorly doesn't seem like a big jump, but it is going from a comparative value (not as influential as he was before) to an absolute value (not very influential). It's a dangerous leap to make, especially when you change the why (from not playing to coming back playing poorly).
                                I think it's quite simple. He had to come back and prove he could play at a high level. He failed at that attempt. Lance succeeded. Granger was shipped out. None of this should have been a surprise a couple months into the season after Lance exploded.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X