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

  • 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?
    Correct. My point in the Denver game was that people went "12 offensive boards, he played his butt off", totally ignoring the missed shots because he's not expected to score anyway.

    The reality was that his "monster night" was really pretty blah because once the misses came out of the rebounds you ended up with a standard 3-4 FGA night and a 8-9 rebound night. Decent, but not a tied-for-best-ever-game by Jeff.

    A few nights later he gave us a legit one of those and the difference was extremely noticeable.


    But the other problem here is that it's not just rebound misses, he is missing A LOT OF FIRST CHANCES at the rim during this stretch.

    If Jeff's offensive rebounds are being made worthless by put back misses, and his ability to score on feeds at the rim from PnR Tins or double-team passing from JO is also non-functional, then just what is Jeff bringing to the court?


    Besides, I'm not saying I don't think he's helping. Not every game has been Denver. He is passing out of a lot of his rebounds, and I think more so after that Denver game.

    All I wanted to say was that in December I noticed that Foster had a really, really ugly FG% and PPS number for a regular minutes guy, and worse when you realize his shot chart is almost all at the rim.

    I wasn't advocating any roster change at all. Just noticing an odd/frustrating trend.


    He's averaing only 21.4 minutes per game
    And Foster?

    23.1, he and Etan appear to have the same format for "starters minutes". I don't think Robertmto's point is lessened by the 21.4 figure.

    Comment


    • Re: Foster's shooting

      I would like to point out that the Pacers are 5-6 during the month of December. Following are the scores of the losses and Foster's contribution:

      12-1 Seattle 103-105 Lost by two points. Foster hits 1 for 1, with only 2 offensive boards. No contribution to loss, whatsoever.

      12-2 Denver 101-121 Lost by 20 pts. Foster goes 3-12, has 12 offensive boards. If he had made all 12 shots, we still lose by 2. No contribution to the loss.

      12-4 Lakers 87-101 Lost by 14 pts. Foster goes 1-1 with 1 offensive board. Certainly not a contribution to the loss.

      12-9 Cavaliers 75-107 Lost by 32 points. Jeff hits 2 of 2, with 2 offensive boards. Most definitely no contribution to the loss, here.

      12-11 Chicago 91-106 Lost by 15 pts. Foster hits 1 of 2 and has 0 offensive boards. Certainly not a contribution here to the loss.

      12-17 Jazz 94-104 Lost by 10 pts. Foster goes 0-3 with 5 offensive boards. If Jeff hits all 3 attempts, we lose by 4 pts. Not a contribution to this loss, either.

      December, I think, has been his worst month and he has nothing to do with the 6 losses. He has a hell of a lot to do with the 5 wins.

      I can take each player and break their stats down for these 11 games and show you where 4 players could have made the difference in a win or loss by their missed shots.

      I want to see this thread die as it grossly misrepresents the importance of Fosters missed put backs. In fact, I probably can show that his missed shots had no bearing on any loss for the entire season.

      Now if you want to talk about the reasons for the 13 losses this season, let's have it. I can point you to a much more common denominator.
      .

      Comment


      • Re: Foster's shooting

        I know I shouldn't, but what the heck.

        I did not see any of the games, so I have no idea when Jeff missed the shots in the game above, but just because his misses don't add up to the difference in the score, it doesn't mean they don't afect the outcome. We have all seen games where a basket at the right time can swing the tide of a game. The same can be said of misses. Could one of Jeff's misses have changed the tide of one of these losses? I have no clue, but maybe. I can't see how missing 9 shots couldn't affect the outcome.

        I did notice his lack of rebounds on many of those losses. That would have a bigger affect in my opinion.

        Comment


        • Re: Foster's shooting

          okay... I know this thread has been beaten to death but I thought I just would say a couple of quick things...

          You can not measure how Jeff Fosters engergy helps the starting line up play better and for that he is worth starting combined with the improvement of Grangers game going to the bench and being able to relax a little and just play ball.

          Still the argument is sound... if you just look at stats if a player had the following line you would say.. man he had a bad game...

          1-1 from the field 5 rb's 1 offensive... 2 pts..

          yet those would be the effective stats of a player that got 6 offensive boards but missed 5 of the 6 put backs.

          Yet just glancing at the box score you know he's in the game for rebounding and you see 10 boards 6 offensive you say wow another great game....

          yes missing easy put backs off of offensive rebounds do not hurt the team... but they don't help either.

          edit: these easy misses can also be discouraging to the team as well and can counter act the positvie energy he does bring to the table..
          You didn't think it was gonna be that easy, did you? ..... You know, for a second there, yeah, I kinda did.....
          Silly rabbit..... Trix are for kids.

          Comment


          • Re: Foster's shooting

            Originally posted by Roferr View Post
            I want to see this thread die as it grossly misrepresents the importance of Fosters missed put backs. In fact, I probably can show that his missed shots had no bearing on any loss for the entire season.

            Now if you want to talk about the reasons for the 13 losses this season, let's have it. I can point you to a much more common denominator.
            Wishes are not always meant to come through, IMO it is not you who decides if this thread dies, it is the other participants.

            If you consider that the argument made was not that Foster caused the losses, but that Foster missed a lot of bunnies, then your argument loses most of its merit, as you have not shown that Jeff did not miss a lot of bunnies, you have not included the missed bunnies in the wins either so the stats given are incomplete and certainly inconclusive.

            Few things in this thread are hard facts, one of them is the amount of missed bunnies by Jeff over the alledged period, another is that it is of no significant importance to the overall result of the games played, perhaps in a way not directly related to it (as what were his totals in rebounding, what was his defensive task etc) so no one is trying to paint a bleek picture of Jeff, just wondering why the hell someone who supposedly can hit a midrange jumper all the time in practise and before the season but misses 9 layups/dunks in one game.

            I suggest you read what is written before you start blowing of steam, it is usually a far better way to become a respected member of this community.
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

            Comment


            • Re: Foster's shooting

              Originally posted by quiller View Post
              okay... I know this thread has been beaten to death but I thought I just would say a couple of quick things...

              You can not measure how Jeff Fosters engergy helps the starting line up play better and for that he is worth starting combined with the improvement of Grangers game going to the bench and being able to relax a little and just play ball.

              Still the argument is sound... if you just look at stats if a player had the following line you would say.. man he had a bad game...

              1-1 from the field 5 rb's 1 offensive... 2 pts..

              yet those would be the effective stats of a player that got 6 offensive boards but missed 5 of the 6 put backs.

              Yet just glancing at the box score you know he's in the game for rebounding and you see 10 boards 6 offensive you say wow another great game....

              yes missing easy put backs off of offensive rebounds do not hurt the team... but they don't help either.

              edit: these easy misses can also be discouraging to the team as well and can counter act the positvie energy he does bring to the table..

              You're blowing things way out of proportion. Of course, missed put backs can hurt the team. However, let's put it in context: Foster misses a grand total of 21 shots in the 6 losses in Dec. The rest of the squad misses 243! Now, which do you think is more important? A player who averages 3.5 misses per loss or someone who averages 9-11 misses per game.

              Jeff has 8.6% of the misses in almost an entire month, and that hurts the team! Every missed shot hurts the team, in you manner of reasoning. How many of those missed 243 shots could have changed the momentum? How many of those 243 shots could "counter act the positive energy? Man, talk about grabbing at straws.
              .

              Comment


              • Re: Foster's shooting

                Originally posted by able View Post
                Wishes are not always meant to come through, IMO it is not you who decides if this thread dies, it is the other participants.

                If you consider that the argument made was not that Foster caused the losses, but that Foster missed a lot of bunnies, then your argument loses most of its merit, as you have not shown that Jeff did not miss a lot of bunnies, you have not included the missed bunnies in the wins either so the stats given are incomplete and certainly inconclusive.

                Few things in this thread are hard facts, one of them is the amount of missed bunnies by Jeff over the alledged period, another is that it is of no significant importance to the overall result of the games played, perhaps in a way not directly related to it (as what were his totals in rebounding, what was his defensive task etc) so no one is trying to paint a bleek picture of Jeff, just wondering why the hell someone who supposedly can hit a midrange jumper all the time in practise and before the season but misses 9 layups/dunks in one game.

                I suggest you read what is written before you start blowing of steam, it is usually a far better way to become a respected member of this community.

                What I posted were hard facts. How can you dispute them? If you want to dispute them, come up with your own stats, don't make a general rationalzation.

                Of course Jeff's misses hurt the team, but I've shown where his "misses", not anyother facet of the game, were not responsible for any loss in December. Now, if you can prove me wrong, have it.
                .

                Comment


                • Re: Foster's shooting

                  Originally posted by able View Post
                  Wishes are not always meant to come through, IMO it is not you who decides if this thread dies, it is the other participants.

                  If you consider that the argument made was not that Foster caused the losses, but that Foster missed a lot of bunnies, then your argument loses most of its merit, as you have not shown that Jeff did not miss a lot of bunnies, you have not included the missed bunnies in the wins either so the stats given are incomplete and certainly inconclusive.

                  Few things in this thread are hard facts, one of them is the amount of missed bunnies by Jeff over the alledged period, another is that it is of no significant importance to the overall result of the games played, perhaps in a way not directly related to it (as what were his totals in rebounding, what was his defensive task etc) so no one is trying to paint a bleek picture of Jeff, just wondering why the hell someone who supposedly can hit a midrange jumper all the time in practise and before the season but misses 9 layups/dunks in one game.

                  I suggest you read what is written before you start blowing of steam, it is usually a far better way to become a respected member of this community.


                  Although this wasn't addressed to me, I would like to have a shot at it. I thought that Seth started this thread to bash Foster, and I still do, now I was hammered for this and now when a new poster posts and backs up with stats blowing the thread starter out of the water he is told his opinion has no merit and to STFU. I think that you need to go back and read the original post in this thread and with an open mind and judge it for what it is. Yes you are a MOD, but I don't believe that Rofer deserved your insulting post. Why not a PM to him?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Foster's shooting

                    I think we have agreed that Foster is a poor finisher at the rim, much poorer than he should be. Some have contended that it doesn't matter since he only takes a couple shots a game.

                    But it is important to factor in the shots he doesn't take. Often he will dribble or pass out from under the basket rather than put a shot up. Frequently he will be open under the basket after a pick and roll, but no one passes it to him because they know it is a lost cause.

                    It is important to note that his terrible shooting percentage comes AFTER extreme shot selection (ie passing up all but the absolute easiest of shots).

                    This is a problem because sometimes the flow of a particular play will leave Jeff with the best shot, and (almost exclusively) the shot is either missed or passed up.
                    The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                    RSS Feed
                    Subscribe via iTunes

                    Comment


                    • Re: Foster's shooting

                      Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                      I think we have agreed that Foster is a poor finisher at the rim, much poorer than he should be. Some have contended that it doesn't matter since he only takes a couple shots a game.

                      But it is important to factor in the shots he doesn't take. Often he will dribble or pass out from under the basket rather than put a shot up. Frequently he will be open under the basket after a pick and roll, but no one passes it to him because they know it is a lost cause.

                      It is important to note that his terrible shooting percentage comes AFTER extreme shot selection (ie passing up all but the absolute easiest of shots).

                      This is a problem because sometimes the flow of a particular play will leave Jeff with the best shot, and (almost exclusively) the shot is either missed or passed up.
                      OK, then why is he still on the team, if he is so bad?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Foster's shooting

                        Originally posted by able View Post
                        Wishes are not always meant to come through, IMO it is not you who decides if this thread dies, it is the other participants.

                        If you consider that the argument made was not that Foster caused the losses, but that Foster missed a lot of bunnies, then your argument loses most of its merit, as you have not shown that Jeff did not miss a lot of bunnies, you have not included the missed bunnies in the wins either so the stats given are incomplete and certainly inconclusive.

                        Few things in this thread are hard facts, one of them is the amount of missed bunnies by Jeff over the alledged period, another is that it is of no significant importance to the overall result of the games played, perhaps in a way not directly related to it (as what were his totals in rebounding, what was his defensive task etc) so no one is trying to paint a bleek picture of Jeff, just wondering why the hell someone who supposedly can hit a midrange jumper all the time in practise and before the season but misses 9 layups/dunks in one game.

                        I suggest you read what is written before you start blowing of steam, it is usually a far better way to become a respected member of this community.

                        I've read what has been written. There has been many posts that have hinted that Jeff is a reason for some losses and some that come right out and all but says its.

                        Jeff missed 3.5 spg in the losses in Dec., compared to: JO-7.5, Al-6.5, Tins-9.3, Jax-5.2, Granger-5.8, Daniels 3.2, Runi-2.7. Now, tell me just how important Jeff's measly 3.5 shots missed per game matters, compared to the other players.

                        I suggest to you that I have read what has been written, and that this thread about Jeff is substantially bashing him.

                        Edit: If this is an attempt at slapping me in the face, without disputing my facts with a version of your own, to show me that you are a Mod and the boss, well I highly resent it.
                        .

                        Comment


                        • Re: Foster's shooting

                          Originally posted by ALF68 View Post
                          OK, then why is he still on the team, if he is so bad?

                          I didn't say he was a bad player, I said that his shooting is measurably subpar and that that aspect of his game is a liability on offense.


                          It feels like some posters are taking criticism of Foster personally. It is okay for some aspects of a player's game to be poor. Dwayne Wade is a poor 3-point shooter. His inability to shoot from the arc has literally cost the Heat several games. Doesn't mean he isn't great. Every player on every team has a flaw that hurts their teams. That's why no team goes 82-0.

                          Foster is still a good player and a very valuable asset to the Pacers. But he has flaws, and it hurts the Pacers, and we are discusing it.
                          The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                          RSS Feed
                          Subscribe via iTunes

                          Comment


                          • Re: Foster's shooting

                            Some of you might think we have beaten this topic to death - but I think this is probably one of the better threads we've had in this forum in quite some time.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Foster's shooting

                              Originally posted by ALF68 View Post
                              ...I thought that Seth started this thread to bash Foster, and I still do
                              Originally posted by ALF68 View Post
                              ...I think that you need to go back and read the original post in this thread and with an open mind and judge it for what it is.

                              You're telling people to read with an open mind, but you think this thread was started to bash Foster even after the poster said it wasn't?

                              Please, just offer a rebuttal or read the forum guidelines.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Foster's shooting

                                Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                                I didn't say he was a bad player, I said that his shooting is measurably subpar and that that aspect of his game is a liability on offense.


                                It feels like some posters are taking criticism of Foster personally. It is okay for some aspects of a player's game to be poor. Dwayne Wade is a poor 3-point shooter. His inability to shoot from the arc has literally cost the Heat several games. Doesn't mean he isn't great. Every player on every team has a flaw that hurts their teams. That's why no team goes 82-0.

                                Foster is still a good player and a very valuable asset to the Pacers. But he has flaws, and it hurts the Pacers, and we are discusing it.
                                Thank you for providing a little perspective here.


                                I also was interested by you other point about his shot selection and his reluctance to shoot. Often, the first thing Jeff does when he gets the ball is look to Tinsley (or whoever else) at the top of the key, and kick the ball out to reset. Maybe the offense would be well-served if, like the Bulls Era Rodman, he did this almost exclusively and only took the put-back when it was an absolute gimme.

                                Because I think part of the reason that Jeff misses so many close-range shots is the energy he puts into actually getting the ball off the rim as opposed to a lack of skill or some sort of mental block. Many times, he spends upwards of 10 seconds fighting to align himself at the proper angle at which he believes a missed shot will come off the rim, and then battling with bigger, stronger and flat-out better athletes than himself for position to get the miss. So by the time he actually does grab the offensive rebound, he is somewhat spent physically from an extended shoving match with NBA athletes. And of course, he's not the biggest leaper anyway, but he can rarely muster the energy to jump a second time and dunk the ball with any authority after battling for the board. So I think when he makes his second jump to shoot, he's often just not physically able to jump with the proper balance, energy and height that you would ideally want to use to make a lay-up in the NBA.

                                And before anyone gets too defensive, I mean this all in a good way. I don't think he's out of shape or anything like that...I just think this exertion is a credit to the effort he puts forth on the boards.

                                The question then becomes whether or not our offense would be better-served if he immediately kicked the ball back out to reset the offense. Would we then have a better chance to score then Foster shooting a four-footer. I don't know. But whether we scored on a second run-through of our offense, that would be another 10-24 seconds our guys would be in possession of the ball and the other team A) would not be able to score, and B) would have to continue to play tired defense.
                                Read my Pacers blog:
                                8points9seconds.com

                                Follow my twitter:

                                @8pts9secs

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X