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

Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

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

  • #31
    Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    O'Brien said Williams, who played both forward positions before switching primarily to small forward last season, will be counted on in a variety of ways.

    "All of our guys, preferably, will be able to face up," O'Brien said. "Everybody has to be multifaceted, so I would not really get caught up on the numbers. Our (small forwards) and (power forwards) are going to be asked to shoot 3s and handle the ball up top. They are interchangeable."
    This was exactly how he ran the Celtics. His PFs were Antoine, Rodney Rogers (who was a Sam Perkins-type sniper at the time), Eric Williams and Walter McCarty.

    Spacing was the key to getting these guys good looks from three-point range. It wasn't exactly Mike D'Antoni, but like Phoenix of today, they always had an uncanny number of wide-open looks from the corner three (what Larry Bird used to call a "lay-up) as well as the wing on quick ball reversals, kick-outs from the post or drive-and-kicks. Kenny Anderson did a great job back then making sure defenders had to sag a little to cut down penetrating lanes and leaving the space for shooters. Unfortunately, I'm not sure Tins will be able to do the same.

    Regardless, JO'Bs system was really fine-tuned the year Boston made their ECF run. It turned a career 34.7% three-point shooter in Rodney Rogers into someone that shot 41.1%. Paul Pierce shot over 40% from three (career 36%). Erick Strickland shot 38.5% (career 35.1%). Walter McCarty shot 39.4% (career 34.6%). Even Antoine (only twice ever over 36%) shot 36.7%.

    This all adds up to one thing: These guys were getting good looks from the 3-pt line. Whether or not we can do the same thing without a back-court of Paul Pierce and Kenny Anderson remains to be seen (personally, I'm skeptical).

    But on our roster, I think he sees a chance to return to that by playing Troy, Shawne, Ike and Dunleavy at the 4. Ike obviously won't be launching treys, but he used to spot of Rodney Rogers from about 18 feet on the baseline and I imagine Ike would be money from that spot.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

      This article does not definitively say that all we're doing to do is chuck. It certainly says the 3 will be heavily used, but it does not say "while the 3 and 4 stand around the arc, so do the 1 and 2". I predict there will be a lot of penetration to our offense as well; attacking the basket to kick out, if stopped, to an open shooter.

      Everything I've read since we hired Jim tells me the idea is "shoot it if you're open, attack the basket if you're not". I'm perfectly fine with that. I expect him to use Tinsley and Marquis a lot in attacking the basket, and if they're doing that, it makes sense to have Danny and Shawne to kick it out to; they're both better shooters than those two anyway. If they kick it out and one of them is open, they fire. If they're not, they attack or pass. Nothing "chuckerific" about that.

      I'll sure as hell take that kind of offense over last year's bore-fest as long as we're playing our asses off (in a smart system) on defense. And with Harter here I think we will.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
        This was exactly how he ran the Celtics. His PFs were Antoine, Rodney Rogers (who was a Sam Perkins-type sniper at the time), Eric Williams and Walter McCarty.

        Spacing was the key to getting these guys good looks from three-point range. It wasn't exactly Mike D'Antoni, but like Phoenix of today, they always had an uncanny number of wide-open looks from the corner three (what Larry Bird used to call a "lay-up) as well as the wing on quick ball reversals, kick-outs from the post or drive-and-kicks. Kenny Anderson did a great job back then making sure defenders had to sag a little to cut down penetrating lanes and leaving the space for shooters. Unfortunately, I'm not sure Tins will be able to do the same.

        Regardless, JO'Bs system was really fine-tuned the year Boston made their ECF run. It turned a career 34.7% three-point shooter in Rodney Rogers into someone that shot 41.1%. Paul Pierce shot over 40% from three (career 36%). Erick Strickland shot 38.5% (career 35.1%). Walter McCarty shot 39.4% (career 34.6%). Even Antoine (only twice ever over 36%) shot 36.7%.

        This all adds up to one thing: These guys were getting good looks from the 3-pt line. Whether or not we can do the same thing without a back-court of Paul Pierce and Kenny Anderson remains to be seen (personally, I'm skeptical).

        But on our roster, I think he sees a chance to return to that by playing Troy, Shawne, Ike and Dunleavy at the 4. Ike obviously won't be launching treys, but he used to spot of Rodney Rogers from about 18 feet on the baseline and I imagine Ike would be money from that spot.
        WooHoo someone's backing me up I had forgotten about Rogers and Erick Strickland. And thanks for finding the percentages. Those guys all had the best times of there career under J'Ob (aside from PP). Our talent level (at least name wise) should be better then those Celtic teams

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

          Originally posted by JayRedd
          Regardless, JO'Bs system was really fine-tuned the year Boston made their ECF run. It turned a career 34.7% three-point shooter in Rodney Rogers into someone that shot 41.1%. Paul Pierce shot over 40% from three (career 36%). Erick Strickland shot 38.5% (career 35.1%). Walter McCarty shot 39.4% (career 34.6%). Even Antoine (only twice ever over 36%) shot 36.7%.
          I think this is extremely telling.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

            When we looked at this earlier this summer, using the Pacers FT% and FT rate from last season, I think the break-even point was closer to 41%.

            I can't find the thread, but it wasn't that long ago.

            I don't know how to make the Google search function do a search for "posts by user" like the old one did... IIRC, Seth and I were the ones discussing this.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

              If you want to argue attacking the basket vs. 3's, that's different than mid-range vs. 3's. You're not going to draw any more FT trips doing that than you are shooting 3's. Besides, I think Jim is going to tell people to drive if they're not open anyway, so it's moot.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                You're assuming that someone shoots the same % from 18, 20 and even 22 feet as they do from 23'9".

                I don't think that's true, at all.

                Problem is, so few players are willing to even take the 18/20-footer anymore because the coach would rather have them miss a three-pointer than miss a two-pointer. Its probably true that, because nobody even practices at these distances, today's generation of players is as bad as shooting for 18' as they are from 23'9".

                (Except for Rick Carlisle. He'd rather have the team dribble out out the 24 second clock than miss a shot. I kid... I kid...)

                = = = = = = = = =

                BTW, this is one of the biggest problems with American basketball over the past twenty years - no one can hit a mid-range jumpshot and since the defense knows you're only going to shoot from outside the arc or in the paint, they don't have to worry about guarding the whole court, just certain spots. And its not necessarily the players' fault because they are getting questionable into thinking this way, too.

                Lastly, more defenders typically are in position to defend a 18' jumper than a 23'9" jumper and you do see guys get fouled all the time on midrange jumpshots. Its not a smart foul, but it happens.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                  Well, that's shifting the argument though and taking it back to the beginning were the final score was 105-90.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                    On a side note: I think Shawne and Kareem will turn out to be or clutch/last second shooters. JO couldn't do it. Jamaal got in the lane, but didn't finish most of the time. Granger was called upon a few times, but seemed to look nervous in those situations (could improve). Maybe Dunleavy or Quis can handle it or step up, but I see Shawne and Kareem being those guys in the final seconds to have the skill AND the confidence to knock it down.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                      Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                      On a side note: I think Shawne and Kareem will turn out to be or clutch/last second shooters.
                      Let's see if he gets a roster spot first, okay.
                      Read my Pacers blog:
                      8points9seconds.com

                      Follow my twitter:

                      @8pts9secs

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                        Let's see if he gets a roster spot first, okay.
                        I'd say my assumption is quite reasonable compared to others I have come across.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                          Shawne hit (especially for a rookie) a big shot @ Miami this season. I think he had at least one other time where he hit a 3 in that manner (time running out, and he drills it).

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                            Found it (finally, now I've got to get back to work. )

                            http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...t=31412&page=2

                            Originally posted by Jay
                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Reason why it works (using realistic team PCT):
                            34 * 3 = 102 points
                            48 * 2 = 96 points
                            How many four point plays or fouls on three-pointers did the team benefit from?

                            They took 5172 2-pt FGAs last season and attempted 2125 FTs (making . Let's be conservative and say that only 2/3 of those applied to two-point shots (loose ball fouls, etc.)

                            They shot a poor FT %, but if you add 1080 points to the 2391 made two-point shots, you get 5862 points instead of 4782 points.

                            So the right math is:
                            34 * 3 points per make = 102
                            46 * 2.45 points per make = 112.7
                            (Note: the original post in the link above uses 2005-06 data.)

                            Which makes the breakeven point 37.6% 3-point shooting (or 41.6% 2-point shooting, depending on your viewpoint.)

                            Using the 2005-06 data, you break even at 40% from behind the arc, and keep in mind the Pacers only hit 72% of their FTs that season, a higher FT% or higher 2FG% raises the breakeven point. (The breakeven point was lower in 2006-07 because the Pacers only hit 46% of their 2pt FGAs. Which is awful. No wonder we were dead last in shooting percent.)

                            (Since I already did the research before I realized I was using the 05-06 stats, I'll leave this in anyway...)

                            Only two teams in league history have hit 40% as a team from behind the arc - the 2000-01 SA Spurs, who only attempted 1094 3FGAs but had excellent shooters such as Kerr, Ferry, Elliott, and even Antonio Daniels, Terry Porter, and Derek Anderson shooting >= 40%.

                            http://www.basketballreference.com/t...S&lg=n&yr=2000

                            And the 03-04 Kings with Peja (they shot 1498 as a team and Peja's 43% was about 1/3 of their total attempts.)

                            http://www.basketballreference.com/t...C&lg=n&yr=2003

                            While I'm playing around with the stat searcher at basketball reference, the all-time leader in 3FGAs was Jim O'Brien's 02-03 Celtics and the #4 alltime 3FGA team was JOB's 01-02 Celtics. (The 04-05 Sixers were only #42 all-time. Slackers.)

                            This scares me.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                              Originally posted by Jay View Post
                              Found it (finally, now I've got to get back to work. )

                              http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...t=31412&page=2



                              (Note: the original post in the link above uses 2005-06 data.)

                              Which makes the breakeven point 37.6% 3-point shooting (or 41.6% 2-point shooting, depending on your viewpoint.)

                              Using the 2005-06 data, you break even at 40% from behind the arc, and keep in mind the Pacers only hit 72% of their FTs that season, a higher FT% or higher 2FG% raises the breakeven point. (The breakeven point was lower in 2006-07 because the Pacers only hit 46% of their 2pt FGAs. Which is awful. No wonder we were dead last in shooting percent.)

                              (Since I already did the research before I realized I was using the 05-06 stats, I'll leave this in anyway...)

                              Only two teams in league history have hit 40% as a team from behind the arc - the 2000-01 SA Spurs, who only attempted 1094 3FGAs but had excellent shooters such as Kerr, Ferry, Elliott, and even Antonio Daniels, Terry Porter, and Derek Anderson shooting >= 40%.

                              http://www.basketballreference.com/t...S&lg=n&yr=2000

                              And the 03-04 Kings with Peja (they shot 1498 as a team and Peja's 43% was about 1/3 of their total attempts.)

                              http://www.basketballreference.com/t...C&lg=n&yr=2003

                              While I'm playing around with the stat searcher at basketball reference, the all-time leader in 3FGAs was Jim O'Brien's 02-03 Celtics and the #4 alltime 3FGA team was JOB's 01-02 Celtics. (The 04-05 Sixers were only #42 all-time. Slackers.)

                              This scares me.

                              But that's not what we are discussing. You would have to factor out layups, dunks, post play, and mid range jumpers before you got an accurate picture. The only thing we are talking about is long range 2pt shots (ie, 19+ feet) vs. 3pt shots. You very, very rarely see a foul that far out, so you can basically chuck out FT%.
                              The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                              RSS Feed
                              Subscribe via iTunes

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                                Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                                ........and you get 105 points, one better. That's the point.
                                Laughing outloud!

                                I had just finished doing the math on that and wondered what Naps point was. Then I figured he didn't do the math. (grin)

                                I was about to point that out in a post when I figured someone else would catch that, so instead of posting I went ahead and read some more. The very next post pointed the math out and I still find it funny!

                                Stat man not checking his stats! (rofl)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X