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

Foster's shooting

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

  • #91
    Re: Foster's shooting

    Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
    Shooting percentages of other guys who only shoot at the rim and score primarily on putbacks:

    Erick Dampier .671
    Tyson Chandler .654
    David Lee .642
    Andris Biedrins .613
    Etan Thomas .602
    Samuel Dalembert .599

    I could go on. Foster was 34% in the last month, right? And he is at 46% on the season. Someone commented that one extra make per game would bump it up to 55%. But the truth is, even 55% is bad for that type of player, let alone 46% or 34%.

    Well lets look at those players career average

    Dampier - 46.9%
    Chandler - 51.8%
    David Lee - 61.7%
    Biedrins - 61.8%
    E. Thomas - 51.8%
    Dalembert - 53.6%

    So using your logic the only players getting the job done over their whole career are Biedrins and Lee - two second year players.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Foster's shooting

      Originally posted by BlueNGold
      I guess I should post this here:

      We are 2-8 in games Foster played LESS than 20 minutes.
      We are 12-5 in games Foster has played MORE than 20 minutes.

      It has been consistent, even in those games early in the season when Foster got big minutes.

      The ONLY teams we have lost to when Foster played more than 20 minutes are: Orlando, NJ, Denver, Chicago, Cleveland

      Foster's value is certainly not tied to his ability to shoot.
      You're absolutely correct!

      He does so much more than take 4 shots a game. He probably gives the team 4-5 more offensive sets by tipping the ball back out to keep it alive. He sets dozens of picks a game, freeing up his teammates for an uncontested shot. He does a marvelous job of defending the other team's big man. His general all out hustle is the heart and soul of the club.

      I can't understand why anyone would isolate his missing two shots a game from all the positive things that he does and dwell on it.
      .

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Foster's shooting

        Originally posted by ALF68
        I'm not a diehard of anything! Using YOUR FLAWED LOGIC, every aspect of the game is relevant should also apply to Jack or JO should make shots that they regularly miss.
        It does apply. Everything applies.


        Originally posted by ALF68
        You seem to want to make it sound like Foster is costing the Pacers games by missing a few bunnies.
        If that's what I wanted to say I would say it, but it's not.

        Originally posted by ALF68
        He is taking on average 4 shots a game not enough to make a difference either way. I resent that you attack me for questioning someone's intent when you don't have a clue on what is going on.
        I resent it too. I'd rather stick to basketball than having to defend false accusations, but hey. And it is enough to make a difference if a game is decided by four or less points. Or eight points if you're counting every shot.

        Originally posted by ALF68
        Posters like you, who are trying to equate a pimple on someones posterier as cause of death when in fact they were hit by a train.
        Posters like me what? You never got to whatever you were going to say.

        I'm not saying the reason we lose is because Foster blows layups. I'm saying that Foster can easily make a lot of the shots he misses. That's it; please don't read any further into that.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Foster's shooting

          Originally posted by Roferr View Post
          As long as you put it as a "correctable issue", I can buy that. That is what's so maddening. He's missing them point blank. There's times he seems hurried and other times that he just tries to muscle it up. With his jumping ability, there should be no reason that he couldn't control the ball on some occasions and go right back up for a dunk.

          However, a lot of his tips aren't controlled tips....they are a wild stab to hit the backboard to keep the ball alive for another rebound for him or his teammate, but they count as fga's.

          If he only shot the ones that he could actually control and get off a decent shot instead of wildly tipping it, his FG pct would be much higher.


          That is exactly what I've been saying. I'm not trying to bash or nitpick Jeff. It's just one of a handful of things that the team can improve on. Others are

          1)Fast break execution.
          2)1st quarter defense.
          3)Al's post play.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Foster's shooting

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            That is exactly what I've been saying. I'm not trying to bash or nitpick Jeff. It's just one of a handful of things that the team can improve on. Others are

            1)Fast break execution.
            2)1st quarter defense.
            3)Al's post play.

            And it is enough to make a difference if a game is decided by four or less points. Or eight points if you're counting every shot.

            Sounds like nitpicking to me.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Foster's shooting

              If I'm the coach I tell Jeff he needs to dunk every shot he gets within 5' of the basket. If he doesn't dunk it (or attempt the dunk) he comes out. The guys got plenty of hops why is he such a weiny in traffic? Remember when he was younger it was said he could dunk from the free throw line. Dunk the damn thing Jeffry!

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Foster's shooting

                Originally posted by Roferr View Post
                You're absolutely correct!

                He does so much more than take 4 shots a game. He probably gives the team 4-5 more offensive sets by tipping the ball back out to keep it alive. He sets dozens of picks a game, freeing up his teammates for an uncontested shot. He does a marvelous job of defending the other team's big man. His general all out hustle is the heart and soul of the club.

                I can't understand why anyone would isolate his missing two shots a game from all the positive things that he does and dwell on it.
                I can understand why people focus on his shortcomings. It's because his game is usually unpleasant to watch. He has a horrible looking shot and misses too many layups. He might only score 4 points in a game. ...and it is frustrating that someone so athletic, so highly paid and with so much time, cannot develop a jumper better than mine.

                But without Foster, this team would be a mess. He brings nearly every intangible a team could possibly want. He has quick hands, length, athleticism and a nose for the ball, he is a sturdy defender with quick feet, he is a team player, he can guard a large variety of difficult to defend players...and the man just plays as hard as he can all the time.

                If he ever developed a solid jumper he would be an all star. There is hope. He certainly has improved his free throw stroke.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Foster's shooting

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Well lets look at those players career average

                  Dampier - 46.9%
                  Chandler - 51.8%
                  David Lee - 61.7%
                  Biedrins - 61.8%
                  E. Thomas - 51.8%
                  Dalembert - 53.6%

                  So using your logic the only players getting the job done over their whole career are Biedrins and Lee - two second year players.
                  thats not fair - Etan is shooting well this year (the first year he has played starters minutes)
                  STARBURY

                  08 and Beyond

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Foster's shooting

                    Heh, I'd love to ask Jeff this question:

                    KM: "Hey Jeff, how's yer ol' lady?"

                    Jeff: "My... ol' lady?"

                    KM: "Ya, yer ol' lady... cuz if yer *******'n is anything like your layups, you couldn't hit the g-spot on a 12-lb p****y."

                    [Shameless "Me, Myself, and Irene" reference]
                    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Foster's shooting

                      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                      Here's a stat.


                      25 misses at the rim. That would be near 2 extra points/game if he'd made all of them. Even if half of them were eventually "makes" then it'd still be 1 extra point/game. It's not the worst of the Pacers' problems but that doesn't make it any less significant.



                      46% is not a good shooting percentage for anyone who takes most of their shots within 3 feet of the basket.
                      No, those were just for December, and of those 11 games I think 2, perhaps 3 featured no misses (like 2-2, 1-1, and the 3-3 the other night).

                      Call it 9 for sure. Call it 24 for the nice divide by 3. 8 shots every 3 games he has left at the rim, so in those bad December games he has consistantly left 5-6 points on the floor, not 1 or 2.

                      From 10 feet I understand, from 1 foot not so much. It's worse than missing a couple of FTs.

                      In any case I clearly didn't make this a blame Foster for losses thread. I just said dude is missing a ton of layups for some reason, and it's a fact.


                      And I'm pretty certain he didn't need PD to point it out as an issue, I'd guess that it's something that has been bugging him too. 1-2 games you just figure that was the night, but then it just kept happening.


                      Like I say, Tinsley has long been the king of missing quality looks near the rim. People question his shot SELECTION, but the issue is actually his shot EXECUTION. You back a guy to the block and have a free space for the quick bank shot you simply must make that.

                      But in December Tins is still shooting better than Jeff and a lot smaller PCT of his shots come from in close. Hopefully the Philly game was the beginning of a fix for Jeff.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Foster's shooting

                        Originally posted by Robertmto View Post
                        thats not fair - Etan is shooting well this year (the first year he has played starters minutes)
                        He's averaing only 21.4 minutes per game

                        Comment


                        • Re: Foster's shooting

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          No, those were just for December, and of those 11 games I think 2, perhaps 3 featured no misses (like 2-2, 1-1, and the 3-3 the other night).

                          Call it 9 for sure. Call it 24 for the nice divide by 3. 8 shots every 3 games he has left at the rim, so in those bad December games he has consistantly left 5-6 points on the floor, not 1 or 2.

                          From 10 feet I understand, from 1 foot not so much. It's worse than missing a couple of FTs.

                          In any case I clearly didn't make this a blame Foster for losses thread. I just said dude is missing a ton of layups for some reason, and it's a fact.


                          And I'm pretty certain he didn't need PD to point it out as an issue, I'd guess that it's something that has been bugging him too. 1-2 games you just figure that was the night, but then it just kept happening.


                          Like I say, Tinsley has long been the king of missing quality looks near the rim. People question his shot SELECTION, but the issue is actually his shot EXECUTION. You back a guy to the block and have a free space for the quick bank shot you simply must make that.

                          But in December Tins is still shooting better than Jeff and a lot smaller PCT of his shots come from in close. Hopefully the Philly game was the beginning of a fix for Jeff.


                          In any case I clearly didn't make this a blame Foster for losses thread. I just said dude is missing a ton of layups for some reason, and it's a fact.

                          When you start a thread and devote it entirely to bashing Jack, maybe then I will believe your above statement. Sorry, just ain't buying it.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Foster's shooting

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Well lets look at those players career average

                            Dampier - 46.9%
                            Chandler - 51.8%
                            David Lee - 61.7%
                            Biedrins - 61.8%
                            E. Thomas - 51.8%
                            Dalembert - 53.6%

                            So using your logic the only players getting the job done over their whole career are Biedrins and Lee - two second year players.
                            I know I didn't make that list but in a word, yes. Its not like the guys who aren't second year players on that list have a legacy as being solid scoring threats. They're pretty much all guys who haven't lived up to the potential people saw in them (except Thomas).

                            Comment


                            • Re: Foster's shooting

                              Isn't it assumed that any points you get off of an offensive rebound are "bonus" points? Meaning, these are points that you should not expect to be getting in the first place. So if Foster gets a offensive board and "Fosters" the lay-in and the defense then gets the ball, how does that hurt us?

                              Yes you miss out on two points that you could have had, but it's sort of like winning the lottery, losing the winning ticket and then claiming that you just lost $14 million. You really didn't lose anything because it was money you never actually had in the first place.


                              But...of course, a team does in fact assume that it will get some offensive rebounds during a course of a game. I've seen the figure that a good rebounding team will get 1/3 of it's own missed shots back. That seems a little high to me, but let's just say it's somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of shots missed are rebounded by the offense.

                              So then, I'd say you can start to look at how valuable Jeff is on offense by how many more offensive rebounds he gets than the average big man. Last season, Foster grabbed 3.6 offensive boards per night, which put him at 3rd overall in the NBA. But when you adjust for minutes played, Jeff was first in the League with 6.8 offensive rebounds per 48 minutes. By comparison, of all the NBA players that saw at least 500 minutes of action last year, only Erick Dampier, Chuck Hayes, Tyson Chandler and Andris Biedrins also got over 6.0 offensive rebounds per 48 minutes. And only 17 players total even averaged above 5.0 per 48.

                              Based on that, it's safe to assume that Jeff is surely one of the truly elite offensive rebounders in the NBA. Meaning, he is getting rebounds that few others players are capable of getting. So if he's getting rebounds that would normally be going to the defense anyway, who cares if he only makes one out of every two of those? Or one out of every nine of those for that matter? Yes, it becomes a problem if he's missing put backs on offense rebounds that Udonis Haslem, for instance, would also get and dunk.

                              But every time he gets a board that most other players couldn't get to, it's all gravy---whether he scores for two, gets fouled and makes 1 of 2 FTs, or he just "Fosters" it completely. It's all gravy.


                              The continually missed dump-offs from penetrators AND the inability of his offensive game to keep his defenders honest AND his inability to hit 10-footers to keep his defender from clogging the paint are different subjects altogether.
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment


                              • Re: Foster's shooting

                                I can't believe this debate is still going on!

                                I think it's safe to say we've beaten this topic to death!

                                Look, Naptown brought up a very good point - Foster does seem to be missing alot of easy baskets under the rim. Now, maybe the problem has been that he's tipping the ball in traffic as UB suggests, or perhaps it's an issue of him not being aggressive and ascertive enough as I and a few others have suggested. Regardless of the reasons "Why?", very few can dispute this has been a problem w/him for the month of December. I was glad to see he seemed to have corrected that problem in the game against the 76ers recently, but who's to say his one or two putbacks wouldn't have swung things a different way - perhaps in the Pacers' favor?

                                All I know is the more times that round ball finds the bottom of the net, the better my boyz' chances of winning. So, yeah, Foster's missed gimme's are a concern for me as a fan. I still love the guy, though. He remains one of my favorite Pacers. What he does away from the basket and off the ball...his contributions are immeasurable! But the bottom line is you gotta make those easy baskets, buddy whether we think they'll make a difference in the short or long term or not because in the final analysis, you never know how much of a difference, if any, one basket might make.

                                (And for a clear example of just what I mean, you need look no further than the miraculous 0.1 sec tip-in by David Lee of the Knicks in 2OT! (Click on the Bobcats/Knicks 2OT game link.) Now, there's a tip-in that mattered!!)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X