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

Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

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

  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
    Lance made jumpers last night, which was great, but he also made a lot of stupid passes. Don't get me wrong, I'm elated to have Lance, but he's quickly getting overrated on PD.
    I think we passed that point early last year.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

    Comment


    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

      Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
      A lot? I saw two. Which is less than the number of "stupid" shots that West took, less than the number of "stupid" fouls West gave, and "a lot" less than the number of "stupid" shots that Orlando Johnson (who is quickly getting overrated on PD) took.

      Funny how he's "quickly getting overrated" by a board that largely dismissed anything positive he did as a flash in the pan by a player who wasn't worth a single kind word or bit of credit. It's like the crow did nothing to the appetite. Just enjoy his early contributions; Vogel certainly does, as he called him the Pacers' "most efficient offensive player this year."

      Last I checked passing is part of offense, but I'm sure your unbiased opinion is more knowledgeable than the coach's.
      Right. I'M the biased one.

      Comment


      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

        I think we'll be able to keep Lance. Once West and Hibbert get going offensively, Lance will score less.
        First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

        Comment


        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
          Seriously, stop making **** up. None of that is true. You could say George has changed, but reality is he is just a better version of what he was. Hibbert isn't a different player, he is just a better version of what he was. Those 4 starters are not different players, they are just this years version of the same player. Some of them might be better, but that just means there is less of a reliance on Granger. The style they play hasn't changed all that much, just a different shot distribution, and the style matches Granger's game very well as it should considering he was the main cog in its first iteration. Sure things have changed, but we aren't talking about significant changes. We are talking about adjustments that should be simple for a player with the skillset of Granger to adjust to.
          Making **** up? Seriously? You don't think PG is a completely different player than he was in 2011? I honestly don't know what to say to that. Same with Roy. DG hasn't played in a year and has knee issues, yet you think he'll be the same player? Who's making **** up? Not to mention, even if he is the same player physically and skill wise he would need a significant change in mentality to fit in with that group now. Unless you want him taking the most shots on the team. You can pretend none of that matters all you want, but anyone that's played competitive sports knows that those dynamics matter. It's the same questions Miami had about enough balls to go around. And they've struggled with it at points. But Im sure Indy won't have any issues because ........ well, I guess because you say so.

          Comment


          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            That's not at all true. The reality is one person does not like Granger. The rest of us either want Granger or Lance to play more minutes with the starters...whether that means start and/or finish. Honestly, this is going to be a moot point. Granger isn't going to be 100% this year and if he shows he can play pretty well, he's going to find himself traded unless he will accept a big pay cut. So, best case for him...he is out of Indy. Worst case he is out of the league. Lance is a young player who will play with Paul for another decade well after Granger hangs it up.

            Sorry, but these are the facts.
            Sorry but these aren't facts. You have no way of knowing that Granger won't ever be 100% again just like I don't know that he will. Based off his progression in the preseason prior to the calf strain, I think he was heading there but who knows. IMO there is almost no chance that he's traded this year. We're all in for a title run so if he's healthy we need him and we can't afford to take back any salary anyway so this debate over Danny and Lance will eventually be resolved on the court because they're both going to be Pacers for the entire year. Right now with Granger out and Lance playing so well it's easy to side with Lance. The truth is that we're still only talking about 3 games which I think is Lances longest run of consistent good games ever. If this is his average play 20 games in then I'll trust that it's for real just like I'll trust that Grangers return is for real when he shows us 20 solid games. Know one knows anything yet but it's going to be interesting and the forum is only going to get more polarized once Granger returns to form.
            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

            Comment


            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
              These long discussions are never really very profitable unless we zero in on the real question: who finishes?

              If you think Lance should finish, if would help if you added that to your comments. Then your arguments will be received better from the pro-Lance crowd. Otherwise, all these "Granger should start" arguments feel like a Trojan Horse.
              At this point, I want Lance to finish the game.

              I agree with the notion that "Who Starts" doesn't matter ( since that Player will get his 28-30 mpg ).....it's "Who finishes" that matter.

              However that doesn't change my opinion that I want Lance to come off the bench and play the majority of the 28-30 mpg that he is alotted to play with the 2nd Unit.

              Did Manu come off the bench and then close games for the Spurs?

              If that translates into Lance not Starting and playing 18 of his 28-30 mpg with the 2nd unit ( thus putting the ball in his hands for the majority of the time when he's coming off the bench ) and then only about 10-12 mpg with the Starters......then that is the role I want him to play on this Team.
              Last edited by CableKC; 11-03-2013, 11:23 AM.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                At this point, I want Lance to finish the game.

                I agree with the notion that "Who Starts" doesn't matter ( since that Player will get his 28-30 mpg ).....it's "Who finishes" that matter.

                However that doesn't change my opinion that I want Lance to come off the bench and play the majority of the 28-30 mpg that he is alotted to play with the 2nd Unit.

                Did Manu come off the bench and then close games for the Spurs?

                If that translates into Lance not Starting and playing 18 of his 28-30 mpg with the 2nd unit ( thus putting the ball in his hands for the majority of the time when he's coming off the bench ) and then only about 10-12 mpg with the Starters......then that is the role I want him to play on this Team.
                we all want em both to get big minutes.

                /close thread

                Comment


                • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                  I have said all along I see Lance starting as a point guard one day. Another thing I'm very adamant about was what I said about Hill's contract- that it was grossly overpaid. IF Lance continues this production, I think it would be in the Pacers best interest to trade Hill, resign Lance, and start him at point. I don't know how the player movement would work, but I like Lance much better at point for the Pacers, and that's not even taking into account the ridiculous contract Hill got.
                  Senior at the University of Louisville.
                  Greenfield ---> The Ville

                  Comment


                  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    At this point, I want Lance to finish the game.

                    I agree that who "Starts and who finishes" doesn't matter...as long as the Player gets 28-30 mpg.

                    However that doesn't change my opinion that I want Lance to come off the bench and play the majority of the 28-30 mpg that he is alotted to play with the 2nd Unit.

                    Did Manu come off the bench and then close games for the Spurs?

                    Cuz that is the role I want him to play on this Team.
                    How many more minutes is lance going to get with the second unit? With the minutes Lance and PG play, is there any reason for one of Lance or PG to not be on the floor at all times?

                    IMO, the difference between the Pacers and the Ginobli / SA comparison is Tony Parker. If the Pacers had a pg (ball handler and distibutor) of his caliber there would be a lot less need for Lance with the starters. GH is a good player, but he's not that level of pg. PG is improving, but he has not shown to be there yet - he's averaging 4.3 assists, but 3.3 turnovers per game. Lance is 4.0 / 1.7. And 8 of his 12 assists have been to someone in the starting lineup - so he's not "doing all his damage" with the second unit. Or at least not exclusivly him and 4 reserves as people want to make it seem. Of course there is often a mix of starters and reserves on the floor together. All the more reason its unnecessary to remove a ball handler from the starters to supplement the 2nd unit. GH is averaging a whopping 2.0 / 2.0 as the starting pg. These are a small sample size, but they mostly line up with our knowledge of those players skill sets.


                    PG and Lance play enough minutes that one should always be on the floor. You don't need to disrupt the starting lineup to make that happen. IMO, the important thing is to have our most complete lineup on the floor as much as possible against the other teams starters come playoff time. A starting lineup featuring DG, PG, and GH is vulnerable to pressure D that sometimes creates turnovers but very often eliminates time to run their offensive sets and causes more rushed shots. It also gets less easy baskets, because GH doesn't push the ball and PG is still not great at it.
                    Last edited by rm1369; 11-03-2013, 11:51 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                      we all want em both to get big minutes.

                      /close thread
                      re-open thread/

                      I agree on the notion that both get big minutes....but what McKeyFan is saying is that there is a difference between both getting minutes and who finishes ( cuz there can only be 5 Players on the floor at the end of the game, right ). What I am adding to that is that when it comes to who Lance plays with........specifically if he "Starts" and plays the majority of his minutes with the Starters ( and therefore take the ball out of his hands ) as opposed to "Being the 6th Man" ( and therefore putting the ball in his hands more frequently ) matters, because that will determine who he plays with on the floor.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        re-open thread/

                        I agree on the notion that both get big minutes....but what McKeyFan is saying is that there is a difference between both getting minutes and who finishes ( cuz there can only be 5 Players on the floor at the end of the game, right ). What I am adding to that is that when it comes to who Lance plays with........specifically if he "Starts" and plays the majority of his minutes with the Starters ( and therefore take the ball out of his hands ) as opposed to "Being the 6th Man" ( and therefore putting the ball in his hands more frequently ) matters, because that will determine who he plays with on the floor.
                        Doesn't it also then mean it shifts who he is on the floor against? That's my issue. IMO we have a very complete, well rounded starting lineup that is capable of hurting teams in multiple ways. Once you move DG in place of Lance you MAY still have a pretty good lineup, but I don't see how anybody can honestly argue its is better. Especially considering our starting pg is really a 2 and DG adds nothing as a ball handler. Once substitutions start you can manipulate lineups fairly easily to keep balance, but by definition you are playing a significant amount of time (a min of 7 mins each in the 1st & 3rd qtrs?) against the other teams best lineup without our best lineup. That doesn't make sense to me. I understand the SA argument, but they had an elite level pg and didn't need Ginoblis ball handling. Ginobli was a sneaky player but certainly not a great defender and my memory is they often started a better defender in his place. I'd argue the Pacers also drop off defensively with the suggested change - especially against Miami where you ask Granger to guard Wade (bad idea) or guard Lebron instead of PG (bad idea).
                        Last edited by rm1369; 11-03-2013, 12:16 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                          Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                          How many more minutes is lance going to get with the second unit? With the minutes Lance and PG play, is there any reason for one of Lance or PG to not be on the floor at all times?
                          How many minutes ( on average ) is a 3-man combination of CJ, Scola, Mahinmi and OJ/Solo/Copeland ( whoever the 10th Wing ) is going get to play together?

                          Are we talking about 16 to 18 mpg where we will see at least 2 to 3 of those Players on the floor together? If so....that is how many minutes that I want to see Lance on the floor with them.

                          There is a valid argument when Lance is on the floor with GH/PG/West/Hibbert that the ball should not be in his hands for the majority of the time when all 5 of them are in the lineup. But it makes sense that when Lance is on the floor with some 3-man combination of CJ/Scola/Mahinmi and OJ/Solo/Copeland that Lance should have the ball in his hands.

                          Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                          IMO, the difference between the Pacers and the Ginobli / SA comparison is Tony Parker. If the Pacers had a pg ( ball handler and distibutor) of his caliber there would be a lot less need for Lance with the starters. GH is a good player, but he's not that level of pg. PG is improving, but he has not shown to be there yet - he's averaging 4.3 assists, but 3.3 turnovers per game. Lance is 4.0 / 1.7. And 8 of his 12 assists have been to someone in the starting lineup - so he's not "doing all his damage" with the second unit. Or at least not exclusivly him and 4 reserves as people want to make it seem. Of course there is often a mix of starters and reserves on the floor together. All the more reason its unnecessary to remove a ball handler from the starters to supplement the 2nd unit. GH is averaging a whopping 2.0 / 2.0 as the starting pg. These are a small sample size, but they mostly line up with our knowledge of those players skill sets.
                          When it comes to the Starting Lineup since any one of them ( GH/PG/West/Hibbert/Lance ) can and are capable of initiating the offense and promote the ball movement, I don't rely on the "assists per game" stat as much when it comes to the Pacers and the way that Vogel runs this offense. Vogel doesn't depend on a ball-dominant Point Guard that runs and dominates the offensive flow of the Team like DWill, John Wall or CP3 does.....so GH averaging 2 to 4 Assists per game doesn't change my opinion of whether GH or Lance should be the dominant "ball-handler".

                          Also...to clarify my earlier post in regards to comparing Lance to Manu....I'm referring to the role that Manu had on the Spurs...not as much the makeup of the Team. I know that GH doesn't compare to Parker or is on the same level as him Manu was the 6th Man on the Team, he played Starter Minutes and closed the games for Pops. That is the role that I want Lance to follow. It doesn't mean that Granger is the better player than Lance is just because Granger would be Starting and playing more minutes with the Starters.....it just means that I want to better utilize Lance's skillset and his ability to help the 2nd unit more than Granger would. At this point, I look at Granger purely as a scorer and/or ( at worst ) a spot up shooter that waits for the rest of the Starting lineup to create a shot for him. Granger doesn't have the ability to make the 2nd Unit more effective compared to Lance due to Lance's ability to create for others.

                          Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                          PG and Lance play enough minutes that one should always be on the floor. You don't need to disrupt the starting lineup to make that happen. IMO, the important thing is to have our most complete lineup on the floor as much as possible against the other teams starters come playoff time. A starting lineup featuring DG, PG, and GH is vulnerable to pressure D that sometimes creates turnovers but very often eliminates time to run their offensive sets and causes more rushed shots. It also gets less easy baskets, because GH doesn't push the ball and PG is still not a great at it.
                          IMHO......Lance should play the majority of the time with the Players that he has the most opportunities to create offense for that can't create offense on their own, which is some 3-man combination of Scola, Mahinmi, Solo, Copeland, ( to a lesser extent ) CJ and OJ. However, that doesn't exclude Lance from closing a game with GH/PG/West/Hibbert and/or playing up to 10-14 mpg with that lineup.

                          I know that it's just a matter of opinion....but I look at it as a way of spreading out the talent/skillset among the different lineups. I agree that the most effective lineup is GH/Lance/PG/West/Hibbert and that they should close games....but I also think that Lance isn't effectively being used when he's playing with the Starting lineup since he won't have the ball in his hands the majority of the time when he's on the floor with them. Having Lance play more minutes with a lineup where where he can have the ball in his hands more frequently to create for others makes as much ( if not more ) sense. I guess it's just a way of making the entire lineup more effectively run. When Lance is on the floor with the majority of the 2nd unit...I'm not as concerned about losing any leads because I know that there is someone that can create offense and scoring opportunities for them.
                          Last edited by CableKC; 11-03-2013, 02:20 PM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                            CableKC - I take it you are not of the opinion that GH struggled in the playoffs advancing the ball against Miami's pressure D? If that's the case, then I disagree, but at least understand your view on Lance. I happen to think it was a huge issue at times and that's why I believe Lance should be out there with the starters. I agree they are less dependent on individual shot creation, but that type of offense typically requires time to operate and I feel they were often robbed of that time by GHs "struggles" with advancing the ball.

                            Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting the ball was taken from him a lot (although it was on occasion) I'm suggesting that he has to work harder than most PGs to advance the ball because he doesn't have that "ball on a string" type handle that allows him to disregard the pressure. He has to be very deliberate and that takes time. Or you give him help and without Lance that help comes from PG. I love PG and he's improving, but I don't want him asked to consistently bring the ball up against Lebron in the playoffs.

                            I honestly don't see the dynamic being much different than the Lebron / Wade one (obviously lance isn't that of player yet). Both players are capable of initiating the offense and you rarely see the team not have one of them on the floor at all times. The offense can then be initiated by either of them or the "pg" that is in with them. No need to disrupt the starters to have a creator on the floor with the bench. Especially when the rotation tightens come playoff time.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                              The Granger/Lance debate is getting more hilarious each day. Stephenson is an all-star THIS YEAR. Granger, even at 100%, is not an all star. You don't cut out minuets from your all-star player to accommodate a role player coming back from injury EVER!!!
                              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                              Comment


                              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                                Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                                The Granger/Lance debate is getting more hilarious each day. Stephenson is an all-star THIS YEAR. Granger, even at 100%, is not an all star. You don't cut out minuets from your all-star player to accommodate a role player coming back from injury EVER!!!
                                Specially if you are thinking about starting a guy who's fans keep making excuses that "he always starts slow" shooting about .300 for months while jacking up as many shots he can in the process.

                                Note that I'm not even talking about his D that we all know is not that great even when he was healthy (he is not healthy).
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X