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

Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this) :)

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

  • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

    GS has an equal opportunity offense, I don't know were you get all that incorrect info.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

      Really I like Monta, but I'd rather have Curry.
      "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

      Comment


      • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        GS has an equal opportunity offense, I don't know were you get all that incorrect info.
        Really?

        Let's check GSW's shooting statistics according to ESPN:

        Monta Ellis 18.9

        David Lee 15.3

        Stephen Curry 13.4

        Dorell Wright 9.0

        Nate Robinson 8.1

        Klay Thompson 6.5

        Brandon Rush 6.1

        All the rest have less than 5 attempts per game.

        Now, let's check the Pacers:

        Danny Granger 15.6

        Roy Hibbert 11.4

        David West 11.0

        Darren Collison 9.6

        Paul George 9.5

        Tyler Hansbrough 7.5

        George Hill 7.3

        All the rest have less than 5 attempts.

        So, Warrior's first option (Monta) takes 10.8 attempts more than their 5th option (Nate Robinson). If you go down to their 7th option the differential moves to 12.8

        Look at the Pacers now. Our first option (Granger) takes 6.1 attempts more than our 5th option (Paul George). If you go down to our 7th option (George Hill) the differential moves to 8.3.

        And that's only taking into consideration the team's offensive option. I'm not talking about the shooting discrepancy in the Warrior's starting line-up. If I did the differential would move to 17.1 (!!!!) as Biedrins (their starting Center) is taking a shocking 1.8 FGAs and is 3rd to last in his own team. But that can be explained as the Warriors like to get small (especially late in the 3rd and in the 4th).

        On the contrary, our 5 most used offensive options coincides with our starting line-up. And surprise-surprise our 6th and 7th options are our 6th and 7th men. Makes sense, doesn't it?

        And don't get me started on Usage. Monta Ellis is 10th in Hollinger's list with a usage of 28.1. To make a comparison, Kevin Durant has a usage of 28.2.

        Links to the stats: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holli...rt%3dusageRate (Hollinger's list)

        http://espn.go.com/nba/team/stats/_/...state-warriors (GSW's shooting statistics)

        http://espn.go.com/nba/team/stats/_/...indiana-pacers (Indiana Pacers shooting statistics)

        Golden State does not have an equal opportunity offense. They have a shot happy offense. It just happens that Monta is happier than most to shoot.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

          Yes I quit I'm out
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
            That's true. However, fact is that he does not concentrate on setting his teammates up.
            He plays sg. His job is to shoot not pass, yet he still manages to get more apg then our pg. In comparison our best player Danny gets less then 2 apg... I'd hate for someone to take the ball out of his hands.

            I can't agree with the notion that Monta doesn't look for his teammates. Maybe in years past I'd have agreed but not this year.

            I actually believe having him around would help Danny's numbers go up in ppg and fg% and probably make him an all-star again. We all know that Danny's a better player than Deng. Deng just has someone that can draw attention away from him and get him open looks

            Originally posted by beast23 View Post
            Hmmm. Anytime we get railed into joining the discourse in a thread pertaining to a trading of players, or the acquisition, all of us lend comments based on our position of being a pseudo-GM. So, I guess if you gotta ask, well I suppose I am the effing GM.

            Since I have also been around since day 1 of the franchise with attendance of as many home games as anyone on the forum, I also think I have maintained a pretty decent pulse on the values of the community and the typical ticket-purchasing local spectator through the years.

            Nuntius latest post has addresses my position quite clearly.

            You say that "if Monta concentrated on setting up his teammates..." bla-bla-bla. My evaluation on that, and I repeat based on my perceptions, is that Monta would be totally unwilling to change his makeup, sacrifice primarily looking for his own scoring opportunities, and re-inventing his game to one of a primarily being a playmaker.

            Really, I don't see how one can use the words Monta and "playmaker"in the same sentence. If we were to substitute the words "play killer", then I can agree to that.

            As to his being a cancer, I can't speak on that; ok ow him no better than you do. But then again, having been in management for a boatload of years, I think those that have worked with me would say that I have decent team building skills. My assessment that Monta would wear thin on his teammates, an particularly Vogel, is based on my perception that whoever is on the floor with Monta would be forced to accept a significantly diminished role in the offense. We would lose to me what to me is the most important aspect of our offense... It would no longer be "equal opportunity" among it's participants

            Although I have always felt that Iverson was a genuinely bad person, and I have no inkling at all that would lead me to conclude that about Monta, that pulse that I believe I have on the ticket-buying fan leads me to conclude that Monta would not be received any better in a Pacer uniform than Iverson would have.
            If we win... they will come. Especially if the product is exciting.

            The problem I have with your theory is that it's based on Monta being a selfish malcontent which you have no proof of. So, pretty much all you got is he shoots too much and men can't change...

            Comment


            • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

              Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
              He plays sg. His job is to shoot not pass, yet he still manages to get more apg then our pg. In comparison our best player Danny gets less then 2 apg... I'd hate for someone to take the ball out of his hands.

              I can't agree with the notion that Monta doesn't look for his teammates. Maybe in years past I'd have agreed but not this year.
              He plays SG for a reason. That reason is that he likes to shoot and that he is good at it. It's not that the Warriors would not want to play him at PG. They'd love it as he would had a miss-match over most PGs. And they had the reason to play him at PG since Curry was injured. So, who got the PG starting spot when Curry was injured?

              Against New York it was Ish Smith. He did good (11 points, 6 rebounds, 4 assists and 2 steals) but he was later waived and he signed with the Orlando Magic. He played for 29 minutes and Charles Jenkins filled in for 4 minutes. Some of the PG minutes in this game were probably played by Monta as Nate Robinson was not picked up yet.

              Against Utah it was Charles Jenkins. He only played 9 minutes as Nate Robinson got his spot by playing good and helping them make the comeback. I'm sure that Monta logged some minutes as PG in this game though since Jenkins and Robinson combined for 36 minutes (9+27 respectively) and I doubt that Klay Thompson (played 22 minutes) played PG. By the way, Monta threw a bad pass 17 seconds before the end of the game (it was tied 87-87), Hayward was fouled on the fast break, he split his free throws to give Jazz a 1 point lead and then Monta missed on the buzzer resulting in a Jazz victory.

              Against Miami it was again Charles Jenkins starting again (he played 10 minutes). Nate Robinson filled in for 36 minutes as well. The Warriors won, as we all know, mainly because the Heat were horrible at the free line (whereas Nate Robinson, who led the Warriors in scoring with 24, had 14/14 FTs).

              Against Detroit it was Charles Jenkins again. This time he played 28 minutes and Nate Robinson played 19.

              Against the Nets Charles Jenkins started as well. He only played 11 minutes and Nate Robinson filled in for 26. Apparently, Monta played some PG during that game as well.

              What all this say to us? That the Warriors prefer to start Charles Jenkins or Ish Smith (a player who they later waived as they considered themselves covered after signing Nate Robinson) over playing Monta at PG and starting Klay Thompson or Brandon Rush at SG. So, what's the conclusion? They don't view him as a PG. And that's fine. Cause he is NOT a PG. So, why do people expect him to be the PG of our future?

              As for the assists part. Good scorers command double team. If you can pass out of a double team you're most likely passing to an open man who has an easy to shot. He'll probably make this shot so you got yourself an assist. That's the reason that Kobe had season in which he averaged 6 assists (04-05) and that his assist average is at 4.7 per game. It's not that he is a willing passer or that he could run the point. Hell, it's not that he likes to share the ball either. He just just is such a dominant scorer that commands double teams and can pass it out of it. Thus, he gets assists. That does not mean that either of them would be best at running them. Could they do it? Yeah, probably. But it would not be what they naturally do nor would it be in the best interests of their teams.

              Another point about the assists. The Warriors are a shot happy team. When they take the ball in a good spot, they shoot the ball right away. This results in 2 things. A higher number of 3 point shots taken and a higher number of assists. On the other hand, we are not shooting it the moment we get the ball. We often try to create a better shot and take it closer to the rack. This leads to a higher number of 2 point shots but a lesser number of assists.

              Let us look at the statistics now and see if the above theory is verified. Indiana Pacers average 15.5 3 point shots per game, 65.3 2 point shots per game and 17.7 assists per game. Golden State Warriors average 21.0 3 point shots per game, 60.9 2 point shots per game and 22.6 assists per game.

              As you can see, they take more 3 point shots, less 2 point shots and have more assists. It just explains the differences our play style. We want to take the highest percentage shot, they want to take a lot of shots. It also explains why we get to the foul line more as we're getting it stronger to the rack. We're getting 25.4 FTAs per game, they're getting 20.5 FTAs per game. All of this, was highlighted when we played them.

              As far as Danny's assist numbers are concerned. Danny is a Small Forward. Monta Ellis is a Shooting Guard. Their style of play is different so they're not going to have the same numbers of assists. Compare Danny with a player who resembles his play style. Which brings me to my next point:

              Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
              I actually believe having him around would help Danny's numbers go up in ppg and fg% and probably make him an all-star again. We all know that Danny's a better player than Deng. Deng just has someone that can draw attention away from him and get him open looks
              That's the player I believe that Danny resembles the most. Luol Deng is extremely comparable to Danny. Deng has 2.4 assists as a career average while Danny's is at 2.2. See? Comparable.

              I'm not sure which one of the two is better. They both are damn good. I do agree however that Danny would be a lot better if he had a player like Rose with him. I just don't see Monta being that kind of player.

              PS: All that said, Monta would make us a lot better on the fast break. And that's an area in which we need to improve on.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                Don't you guys ever get tired of talking about this?
                Sort of makes me wonder how many people on PD are in college or just out of college with very little repsonsibilities that require their attention.

                Comment


                • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                  Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                  Sort of makes me wonder how many people on PD are in college or just out of college with very little repsonsibilities that require their attention.
                  I'm in a university and we're currently on a break so you have a point here
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                    Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                    He wasn't 5-21 though. 3PA are factored in FGAs. He was 5-14 36%
                    Ok, you are correct. Of course, don't forget that 36% lowers his putrid FG% even more.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                      Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                      Umm how about you read what I posted? 0-6 is factored into the 5-14 already.
                      I really find this funny. While you are absolutely correct, 0-6 from three against the worst team in the entire league...maybe league history...is nothing to be proud of for your franchise player....

                      Comment


                      • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        Yes I quit I'm out
                        Liar!!!

                        You've already thanked two posts since you've been "out".


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

                        Comment


                        • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          I really find this funny. While you are absolutely correct, 0-6 from three against the worst team in the entire league...maybe league history...is nothing to be proud of for your franchise player....
                          See that is the problem. You guys consider him our franchise player and we just consider him the best player on our franchise.

                          Franchise player to me implies Derrick Rose, Koby Bryant, LeBron James, etc.

                          None of us who are defending Danny will ever tell you he is in that catagory. As I said before it's not his fault the Pacers have never obtained a player better than him. He can only be the player he is.

                          BTW, I thought he had a very bad game yesterday. Not only did he shoot to many three's he blew a fast break by not getting the ball up court to Collison. Believe me in my mind I was giving him an earfull for that one.


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

                          Comment


                          • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            See that is the problem. You guys consider him our franchise player and we just consider him the best player on our franchise.

                            Franchise player to me implies Derrick Rose, Koby Bryant, LeBron James, etc.

                            None of us who are defending Danny will ever tell you he is in that catagory. As I said before it's not his fault the Pacers have never obtained a player better than him. He can only be the player he is.

                            BTW, I thought he had a very bad game yesterday. Not only did he shoot to many three's he blew a fast break by not getting the ball up court to Collison. Believe me in my mind I was giving him an earfull for that one.
                            There were people claiming he is better than Reggie Miller. That got me riled up a bit I suppose.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              There were people claiming he is better than Reggie Miller. That got me riled up a bit I suppose.
                              You really should be happy that you haven't attended a couple of the last party's.


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

                              Comment


                              • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                0-6 from 3 and 4-15 from the floor? I suppose it's best he has a game like this in a blow out.

                                For those keeping score, that's 26%...worse then 6-20.
                                Granger was actually 5-14. He was 3-10 in the first half, (.300) and 2 of 4 (.500) in the second half. And of course he didn't need to play more in the second half.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X