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

A short question about Troy Murphy

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

  • #46
    Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

    There is a time and place for a guy like Murphy. Its too bad about his contract but I'm getting tired of seeing a player get totally bashed because of his contact. Its not the player's fault he's getting overpaid. Its management's fault.

    Murphy can start at center for a lottery team. He can start at PF for a playoff team. He can be the first big off the bench for a playoff team making a deep playoff run. None of that is changed by his salary. However, his salary makes him difficult to trade.

    I do think we'll see a better version of Troy Murphy (a) with a full training camp under his belt - he's a system player and a mid-season trade, after playing in Nellie's system where he didn't fit in, was a difficult situation for him, and (b) Jim O'Brien's system is well-suited to Murphy and I think they both know it.

    In fact, I think Murphy will be a better C in O'Brien's system than Bynum...

    Murphy can probably get back to being a 14-8 player (I don't see him as a double-digit rebounder in the EC), and while he'd still be overpaid, getting 14 and 8 from your starting C is better than getting 5 and 8, like you get from Foster.

    Overpaid? Yes. A productive player? He can be. Negative trade value? Negative trade value sometimes means something different - he's worth more to your team (in my profession, we call that the value of an asset in-place) than anybody elses (in other words, value of the asset in-exchange.)

    And unlike problem children like Artest and SJax, there is no compelling need to dump him for the best available offer. He's not causing any problems for the team. His salary is irrelevant to everyone but the Simons. Its not like we're going to get under the cap with or without him, so there is never going to be "flexibility."
    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


    • #47
      Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
      If we went to every team in the league, one at a time, and asked "What would you give us for Troy Murphy?" would we get anything back that we'd like?
      I guess it depends on how much you like the sound of laughter.

      Or coffee. Usually when you stop by someone's office for a meeting they offer you coffee.
      Read my Pacers blog:
      8points9seconds.com

      Follow my twitter:

      @8pts9secs

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
        I guess it depends on how much you like the sound of laughter.

        Or coffee. Usually when you stop by someone's office for a meeting they offer you coffee.
        Well that settles it. We'll trade Murphy some coffee.

        ----

        [LB walks into Ainge's office]

        LB: Hey, buddy, how ya been? How's the wife, the kids? They good?

        Ainge: Oh, they're great. Everything's just great. Sit down, would ya Larry. And would you like some--

        Bird [seizing the moment]: WHATWOULDYOUGIVEMEFORTROYMURPHY?

        Ainge: --coffee?

        Bird: DONE! Toss in Ratliff if you gotta make the salaries work. Great doing business with ya, Danny. I'm off to Europe. -leaves-


        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          Right. And now we're right back where we've started, except that we still haven't answered the question.

          If we went to every team in the league, one at a time, and asked "What would you give us for Troy Murphy?" would we get anything back that we'd like?
          So, are you complaining that Murphy is overpaid ( something that we are likely be stuck with for a long time no matter how much we think that hate it ) and that we can't move him cuz he is overpaid?

          or

          Are you "subtlely" complaining about TPTB ( the only Front Office stupid enough to take on "said" contract ) for accepting it in the first place and sticking us with an overpaid contract ( that is very difficult to move ) for a Jumpshooting PF that can hit the occasional 3pt shot, occasionally pull down a rebound while playing very little defense?

          My short answer to your thread is that there are very little teams that would take on Troy Murphy without giving us an equally bad contract. So that brings up the valid question....would you trade Troy Murphy for 2 or 3 equally bad contracts? or would you keep him since we will likely get back an equally bad player?
          Last edited by CableKC; 06-26-2007, 12:03 PM.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

            I don't like Murphy that much, but we got a new coach and new system, It has to work or we're screwed LOL
            R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              So, are you complaining that Murphy is overpaid ( something that we are likely be stuck with for a long time no matter how much we think that hate it ) and that we can't move him cuz he is overpaid?

              or

              Are you "subtlely" complaining about TPTB ( the only Front Office stupid enough to take on "said" contract ) for accepting it in the first place and sticking us with an overpaid contract ( that is very difficult to move ) for a Jumpshooting PF that can hit the occasional 3pt shot, occasionally pull down a rebound while playing very little defense?
              Heh. I'm not subtle.

              I'm just frustrated that our highest-paid player isn't a part of our current or future plans, and he's not tradable.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                Right. And now we're right back where we've started, except that we still haven't answered the question.

                If we went to every team in the league, one at a time, and asked "What would you give us for Troy Murphy?" would we get anything back that we'd like?
                The problem with your scenario, and this has been borne out time and again on here, is that we fans always want to rape the other team of their assets, so it's hard trying to answer your question and trusting people to respond objectively.

                First of all, EXCELLENT post, Jay. I think some of you might want to re-read it. He covered everything that has been mentioned to this point in a succinct, objective and to the point way. Too many have the "he's paid too much blinders on" and can't see anything else.

                Now as to the original question. like I said, and has been said by other's, it's all relative to team needs.

                I gave the Houston scenario, which is plausible. It's concievable that Luther Head could be part of the deal. We could use him.

                Look at Philly. Look at the discontent all season with Dalembert by Philly fans and his high salary. (Another player judged by his salary.) Another plausibility. We coiuld us him.

                I could go on ad nauseum, but hopefully you get my point.

                It's almost impossible to answer your question because there are literally thousands of possible trades scenarios that could make it a great deal for both guys. What you seem to be implying is "What could we get for Troy in a one for one trade"? We get your point. He's paid too much. HArd to get good one on one value. But once agin, I refer you to some of the very well made posts saying why that may not be that big of a deal and how value is relative.

                So to answer your question. it could be ANYONE given the scenario.

                [So yes, he can be tradable and yes, for my money, you are highly subjective on a player who, objectively, has had to fight through multiple injuries, multiple coaches and multiple systems you simply right him off as not being a viable part of our future. Closed minded, from where I sit. For the zillionth time, i refere you to some of the above posts, which you've yet to adress as to WHY Troy's game is where it is.]
                Last edited by Skaut_Ech; 06-26-2007, 12:14 PM.
                Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  Heh. I'm not subtle.

                  I'm just frustrated that our highest-paid player isn't a part of our current or future plans, and he's not tradable.
                  Since he's not tradeable.....isn't he pretty much part of our future plans?

                  If anything...he's gonna be a supporting role-player ( overpaid as it is ) for whatever young core of players that we have in the future.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

                    the best hope we can have is that within o'brien's system he can excel leading us to either decide he is worth the cost or give us teams that would be interested in taking him off our hands.
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

                      Originally posted by kerosene View Post
                      I think Murphy leads the league in getting his shots blocked. If not overall then perhaps BPM (blocked per minute)?
                      Links?
                      .

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

                        Originally posted by d_c View Post
                        Here's the Troy Murphy as a Warrior story straight from a Warrior fan.

                        Murphy was definitely a fan favorite his first two years in the league with the Warriors. He made good plays. Seemed pretty mobile for a guy his size and seemed like he had a good feel for the game. Dunked on Dale Davis and stared at him. Fans loved him.

                        Then the Warriors' management (as has happened a lot) deluded themselves into thinking that Murphy might be another Brad Miller (Miller when he was at the top of his game, anways).

                        They bulked him up after his rookie year. They had him try to play inside. It worked reasonably well his 2nd year (which I still think was his best year in the NBA). The summer before his 3rd year, they decided that he was never going to be much of an inside scorer, so they had him practice 3s the whole summer.

                        Seemed like a good idea, but that was when his injuries started creeping in. Plantar fascitas (sp?) limited him to something like 26 games in his 3rd year. He came back towards the end of the year. Immediately, it became obvious that he had a lost a lot of mobility and lift.

                        Immediately following, Mullin dishes out a $58M deal to a player who just came off a season in which he played only 26 games. He got totally abused by Dan Fegan at the table. Big mistake.

                        Murphy comes back the following season and lays one huge stinkbomb. Despite averaging a double/double, he shoots 41% from the field (that's 41% from the starting PF). He gets his shot blocked by players big and small. He gets booed and this is when fans start to realize that he's gotten complacent, lazy and slothlike. We also began to notice that he was an extremely poor finisher inside. He wasn't very clever around the basket. He'd always use the same shooting motion and release point whether he was 10 feet or 2 feet away from the basket. This (plus his loss of mobility and lift) made it very easy for defenders big and small to anticipate when to block his shot. He got roofed quite often to put it kindly.

                        The year after that he played a little bit better. Better shooting %, slightly better defense. He got off to a BLAZING start, but it became obvious that he started wearing down as the season progressed. That's when it became clear to everyone that Murphy had neither the stamina or athleticism to be a starting PF. Physically, he just became very below average by NBA standards and he didn't have enough of a basketball game to compensate for it.

                        The next year, Nellie came aboard and everyone from RealGM to Marc Stein figured this was exactly what Murphy needed. Nellie recognized the lack of athleticism on the part of Murphy and Dunleavy. He figured the only way to get something out of them was to play each at center and powerforward in hopes of gaining a quickness advantage. Opening night: We get blown out by a Laker team that was played w/o Kobe. Murphleavy looked horrible. Nellie totally scraps the plan after 1 game.

                        He tries different combos with Murphy starting at C, starting at PF and coming off the bench. Finally, Nellie's had it; he straight up tells Mullin "I can't win with these guys." Mullin tried all summer long to peddle Murphy for Harrington to no avail (Hawks wanted no part of Murphy's contract). He still wanted to do the deal into the season, but the Pacers probably wanted Ike involved as well as a swap of Dunleavy for Jackson. Mullin was very reluctant to do this, but Nellie came as close as you could to saying "Make this trade or I'm quitting" without actually making that ultimatum. Then the trade.

                        That's kind of the Troy Murphy story in GS.

                        Eureka! A very sensible post.
                        .

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

                          Originally posted by Roferr View Post
                          Links?
                          Not Murphy, not O'Neal,

                          ZAZA.


                          http://www.82games.com/random3.htm

                          Team Player FGA Blk'd Blk%
                          ATL Pachulia 386 51 13.2%
                          PHI Salmons 289 37 12.8%
                          NJN Krstic 455 56 12.3%
                          ATL Williams 244 30 12.3%
                          POR Patterson 298 34 11.4%
                          HOU Swift 255 28 11.0%
                          MEM Wright 246 27 11.0%
                          ORL Howard 455 49 10.8%
                          BOS Jefferson 307 33 10.7%
                          SAC Abdur-Rahim 365 39 10.7%


                          This obviously wasn't for last season (Swift, Ruben Patterson, maybe others were on different teams)
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

                            Sure, Murphy is overpaid. It's not his fault and it doesn't do any good to keep harping on it. Every team has a bad contract or two and some teams have several.

                            He's had a half season with us playing under a coach-by-numbers guy. Granted, he didn't look all that great. However, with a new coach, I'm looking at the glass as half full. He's not as worthless as you keep trying to make him seem.

                            I can see him excelling in a particular role coming off the bench for 20 mpg or so or playing more minutes playing match-up with a particular team.

                            Some posters have portrayed Murph in depth and I feel he is not the albatross that you do.
                            .

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

                              Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                              Not Murphy, not O'Neal,

                              ZAZA.


                              http://www.82games.com/random3.htm

                              Team Player FGA Blk'd Blk%
                              ATL Pachulia 386 51 13.2%
                              PHI Salmons 289 37 12.8%
                              NJN Krstic 455 56 12.3%
                              ATL Williams 244 30 12.3%
                              POR Patterson 298 34 11.4%
                              HOU Swift 255 28 11.0%
                              MEM Wright 246 27 11.0%
                              ORL Howard 455 49 10.8%
                              BOS Jefferson 307 33 10.7%
                              SAC Abdur-Rahim 365 39 10.7%


                              This obviously wasn't for last season (Swift, Ruben Patterson, maybe others were on different teams)
                              Not even being for last season, it still gives a solid picture. Murph and JO aren't even close to getting their shots blocked the most, in fact JO placed in the top 10 in the least blocked shots, close in.

                              Thanks for the link.
                              .

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: A short question about Troy Murphy

                                Originally posted by Roferr View Post
                                Not even being for last season, it still gives a solid picture. Murph and JO aren't even close to getting their shots blocked the most, in fact JO placed in the top 10 in the least blocked shots, close in.

                                Thanks for the link.
                                Wrong O'Neal.

                                Jermaine himself is linked in the description at the top, and if I'm reading it right, his blocked percentage is 7%. 11% inside, 6% on jumpers, and since he shoots twice as many jumpers as inside shots, it comes out as 7%.

                                IOW, since his offensive game has moved away from the basket, his blocked percentage has gone down. Too bad his FG% has, too.
                                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X