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

Post game thread

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

  • #16
    Re: Post game thread

    Al really did have an injury. I noticed him stretching his back, and sorta limping around during the New Jersey game. He also didn't start the second half that game, and wasn't even on the bench at the start of the second half.

    Another tidbit, I see Danny's 3-point shooting has been mentioned, but do you guys realize he's shooting 55% beyond the arc as of now? Peja who?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Post game thread

      Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
      Another tidbit, I see Danny's 3-point shooting has been mentioned, but do you guys realize he's shooting 55% beyond the arc as of now? Peja who?
      Peja makes $10,800,000.
      Danny makes $1,417,800.

      Somebody's not earning their money.
      Last edited by Anthem; 09-19-2008, 10:59 PM.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Post game thread

        FWIW this early in the season...

        Only 5 teams have played as many road games as the Pacers have, which is 6.
        None of those have a better road record than Indiana (3-3)

        Only two teams have played more road games (7).
        NO/OKC at 4-3 on the road and Portland 2-5

        Why Not Us ?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Post game thread

          Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
          Al really did have an injury. I noticed him stretching his back, and sorta limping around during the New Jersey game. He also didn't start the second half that game, and wasn't even on the bench at the start of the second half.

          Another tidbit, I see Danny's 3-point shooting has been mentioned, but do you guys realize he's shooting 55% beyond the arc as of now? Peja who?
          Yeah, you could tell that he was hurting. Left for the locker room at one point.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Post game thread

            I can't say anything about Al because I don't know. But I did see Harrison in street cloths on the inactive list vs. N.J.

            I didn't see him during the Bucks game but then I didn't see anybody on the I.L. either.

            I assume that Williams, Harrison & Harrington were on the I.L. & both Powell & Baston were active.

            BTW, I am so glad the NBA did away with that idiotic I.R.L. thing. Being able to activate & de-activate players nightly is nice.


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

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Post game thread

              wow...it's odd seeing peja's FT% @ 79% (even if its still early in the season)

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Post game thread

                My main point with Grangers shooting is that it needs to be cultivated.
                He is the best outside shooter the Pacers have. His 3 point shooting is very
                good for player in his second season.
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Post game thread

                  Originally posted by Frank Slade View Post
                  FWIW this early in the season...

                  Only 5 teams have played as many road games as the Pacers have, which is 6.
                  None of those have a better road record than Indiana (3-3)

                  Only two teams have played more road games (7).
                  NO/OKC at 4-3 on the road and Portland 2-5
                  Yeah, but @BOS is barely a road game. They have much less winnable road games left on the schedule, though WSH and CHI were reasonable ones to drop for sure.

                  I've been torn. They've had leads in the 4th of 3 of their losses. They do some things pretty well (defense for one) and at times they kinda click. Mostly it's ugly and disjointed. I keep coming back to that term because it really does apply well I think.

                  Right now they aren't a great TEAM, but they have the spirit and makeup to perhaps become one once they figure each other out a little bit. Gotta see them together at game 21 to really size up what they are going to be. Until then I'm hoping for .500 ball, or better considering the teams they face.


                  For tonight, quick grades

                  JO - A+, monster on the blocks, played a great all around game. Note that in the 4th they intentionally started running PnRs with Redd and JO's man to pull JO away from the lane. They also ran a ton of drive and kicks. Nobody wanted to put it up on the glass with JO around.

                  Granger - B. Yes, you like the makes. Yes, you like the defensive plays. But Danny also had a SarJas moment where he literally couldn't find his man after a rebound, and had many other rough mental mistakes on the night. Said it after the last game, same here - he's green and it shows. I'd kinda like to see him as a bench guy instead.

                  Please note that the 7 FGAs had a lot to do with him not finding his way into the offense, not that the team couldn't have used him. He takes himself out of plays still and needs to find his way into the flow because the passes will be there for him to get.

                  Daniels - B+
                  . Made some mistakes too and got beat off the dribble a few times, but he creates so well going into the lane and is the most likely to be in every single play.

                  Foster - B+
                  . Early on he was running a C. He slapped one rebound right out of JO's hands, off his head and out of bounds. He just wasn't really in the flow at all. But he found it big time in the 2nd half and really helped.

                  Armstrong - A-. Only because he didn't play more. But man does he get things going. Love his attitude on the bench, love it more in the game. He makes things happen.

                  Jack - B+. Showed some signs of finding his shot, but then he still forced a couple. At least once it was because they dumped the ball into his hands with 2-3 seconds on the clock, so not his fault there. He had a couple of crap TOs, but then he created some TO's himself. He also gave Redd the most trouble on the night (though Granger did get Redd into an up and down once). His attitude is 180 from last year, I'm impressed.

                  Tinsley - D-. Wow, he was pretty flipping awful most of the night. He struggled to really make clean offensive plays, especially in the first half. I know he's not a great jump shot guy or defender, but where is the crafty dribbling and passing?

                  Sarunas - F. Like Tinsley, but worse. He hit a couple of open 3's. But he was also the main reason that first round of subs couldn't cut into the lead, as someone would make a great score and then Sarunas would watch his man go right past him to the lane for a score of dish.

                  Powell - C
                  . Didn't really play enough, but he showed some signs of life. Mostly though he was still a step behind the action. Playing time will eventually fix that I think. He flashes talent from time to time.

                  Marshall/Baston
                  - incomplete. Rawle looked a little overmatched in the 2nd, but it could have been the general run that MIL was on. Baston fumbled one pass IIRC, but basically didn't get a chance to do anything bad or good.


                  Summary - almost all the damage by the Bucks came from the PG breakdowns. Maybe Greene is still hurting (I saw the brace on his hand during one shot), but I was desperate to see him in tonight's game. They need some PG defense and they need it badly.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Post game thread

                    Overall a much needed win. Even better evening the road record. You have to consider that the Bucks were down their two starting forwards. So, despite it being on the road, that would have emphasized a loss even moreso.

                    Two concerns I have at this point:

                    -The much discussed penchant for lethargic starts.

                    -Our perimeter D: Tinsley had a reasonably solid game but we know his D will always be a weak point and it nearly did us in. I agree that his decision making running the O in the last few minutes was not stellar.

                    Beyond that, I have this impression that DG, Jack, and Quis are solid defenders, and maybe I'm off base on this, they give great effort but seem to also be getting beat a lot off the dribble in the early season. Of course, they're often matched on the league's top scorers so it's no easy feat, but in other words, I feel like people are penetrating our D an awful lot and outside JO help and rotation are often lacking. You can also throw defensive rebounding under this topic, too.

                    Last night's positives were many, in the 2nd half anyway. Despite mistakes and/or deficiencies in certain areas or stretches of the game, I thought everybody who saw the floor contributed in some significant way and everyone brought intensity.

                    I agree that DG is turning into our most consistent long range threat. Add in Armstrong and hopefully Jack finding his stroke again and we should have enough to get by in that area.

                    Foster's presence with the starters (or whatever unit) is a major defensive upgrade. He and JO together make a good tandem with their ability to compensate for our many perimeter defensive lapses and deficiencies.

                    I'd take .500 in our first 20 given the difficulty and the integration of new elements within the team.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Post game thread

                      Originally posted by rcarey View Post
                      I'm happy to see Danny has developed a fairly reliable 3 point shot. However, I don't necessarily like seeing him rely so much on it and being camped out behind the 3pt line.
                      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Post game thread

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Yeah, but @BOS is barely a road game. They have much less winnable road games left on the schedule, though WSH and CHI were reasonable ones to drop for sure.

                        I've been torn. They've had leads in the 4th of 3 of their losses. They do some things pretty well (defense for one) and at times they kinda click. Mostly it's ugly and disjointed. I keep coming back to that term because it really does apply well I think.

                        Right now they aren't a great TEAM, but they have the spirit and makeup to perhaps become one once they figure each other out a little bit. Gotta see them together at game 21 to really size up what they are going to be. Until then I'm hoping for .500 ball, or better considering the teams they face.


                        For tonight, quick grades

                        JO - A+, monster on the blocks, played a great all around game. Note that in the 4th they intentionally started running PnRs with Redd and JO's man to pull JO away from the lane. They also ran a ton of drive and kicks. Nobody wanted to put it up on the glass with JO around.

                        Granger - B. Yes, you like the makes. Yes, you like the defensive plays. But Danny also had a SarJas moment where he literally couldn't find his man after a rebound, and had many other rough mental mistakes on the night. Said it after the last game, same here - he's green and it shows. I'd kinda like to see him as a bench guy instead.

                        Please note that the 7 FGAs had a lot to do with him not finding his way into the offense, not that the team couldn't have used him. He takes himself out of plays still and needs to find his way into the flow because the passes will be there for him to get.

                        Daniels - B+
                        . Made some mistakes too and got beat off the dribble a few times, but he creates so well going into the lane and is the most likely to be in every single play.

                        Foster - B+
                        . Early on he was running a C. He slapped one rebound right out of JO's hands, off his head and out of bounds. He just wasn't really in the flow at all. But he found it big time in the 2nd half and really helped.

                        Armstrong - A-. Only because he didn't play more. But man does he get things going. Love his attitude on the bench, love it more in the game. He makes things happen.

                        Jack - B+. Showed some signs of finding his shot, but then he still forced a couple. At least once it was because they dumped the ball into his hands with 2-3 seconds on the clock, so not his fault there. He had a couple of crap TOs, but then he created some TO's himself. He also gave Redd the most trouble on the night (though Granger did get Redd into an up and down once). His attitude is 180 from last year, I'm impressed.

                        Tinsley - D-. Wow, he was pretty flipping awful most of the night. He struggled to really make clean offensive plays, especially in the first half. I know he's not a great jump shot guy or defender, but where is the crafty dribbling and passing?

                        Sarunas - F. Like Tinsley, but worse. He hit a couple of open 3's. But he was also the main reason that first round of subs couldn't cut into the lead, as someone would make a great score and then Sarunas would watch his man go right past him to the lane for a score of dish.

                        Powell - C
                        . Didn't really play enough, but he showed some signs of life. Mostly though he was still a step behind the action. Playing time will eventually fix that I think. He flashes talent from time to time.

                        Marshall/Baston
                        - incomplete. Rawle looked a little overmatched in the 2nd, but it could have been the general run that MIL was on. Baston fumbled one pass IIRC, but basically didn't get a chance to do anything bad or good.


                        Summary - almost all the damage by the Bucks came from the PG breakdowns. Maybe Greene is still hurting (I saw the brace on his hand during one shot), but I was desperate to see him in tonight's game. They need some PG defense and they need it badly.
                        I agree Granger off the bench wouldn't be all that bad an idea. I also have no problem with Jack and/or Al off the bench either for that matter. Also really liked the way Powell was willing to get in their and play a junkyard dog role underneath. He wasn't overly successful but there was an all-out agression in his play that has been lacking on this team. Don't know if he can bring it consistently and also improve all around as you allude to. Perhaps playing just short spurts on a fairly regular he can have some positive impact and continue his development.

                        I understand your game grades and generally agree. Although I probably would knock Daniels down to say a B for the game. I realize he does a lot of things that aren't necessarily overt but are important. My rationale would be that Jackson and Foster in this game had more impact IMO so I don't see all three quite meriting the same mark.

                        Also, I don't know if I'd go quite so low on Saras and Tins, but I definitely think your criticisms are quite valid. Especially on D. We are getting absolutely smoked night in and night out from that position. And as you note that's probably the main factor in what I said in my first post about the perception of a very unstable perimeter/team defense. I, too, hope Greene will get into the mix for just that purpose.

                        And on that same theme regarding last night, if I were RC I would have at least given Quis a shot on Mo Williams to see if he could be effective. Mo probably would have had a major quickness advantage but Quis couldn't have fared any worse than the others. It appears RC is not sold on Quis's ability to man the point offensively I surmise. The way things are going I think it's worth a brief experiment.
                        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                        -Emiliano Zapata

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Post game thread

                          Dribble penetration was a major problem for us, obviously. Then again, we know that Tinsley and Runi are going to struggle against teams that have quick guards. It also seems to me that our SG position is long but a little slow, but then again most SGs look slow when trying to guard Michael Redd. A game like tonight really gets you itching to see spurts of Oriene Greene, but given how tight the game was, and Greene's lack of floor time up till now, I can definitely see why he didn't play.

                          Good win. I'll be happy as long as we can hang around .500 till the All-Star Break. Then hopefully we'll be a better team and will be able to make a push for a good seeding.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Post game thread

                            I didn't see the first half, but I thought Tins did well in the 3rd and the first half of the 4th (had to leave halfway through the 4th).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Post game thread

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                              Tinsley - D-. Wow, he was pretty flipping awful most of the night. He struggled to really make clean offensive plays, especially in the first half. I know he's not a great jump shot guy or defender, but where is the crafty dribbling and passing?
                              I didn't watch the game like most of you but Tinsley's line is pretty impressive: 15 points, 7 assists, 5 boards, 3 TO's; although his shooting was bad it doesn't seem like he did that badly. The thing that hurts Saras is his turnovers because he is supposed to be a decision maker but he's at Bush league right now.
                              You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Post game thread

                                Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                                I didn't watch the game like most of you but Tinsley's line is pretty impressive: 15 points, 7 assists, 5 boards, 3 TO's; although his shooting was bad it doesn't seem like he did that badly. The thing that hurts Saras is his turnovers because he is supposed to be a decision maker but he's at Bush league right now.
                                There's no stat for sloppy D or bad shots in crucial situations. If there were, his line would look a fair bit worse. I actually thought Tinsley did decent in the game, but I can see where others would be more critical.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X