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

Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

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

  • #76
    Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

    Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
    Yeah. Aggressive George Hill is appropriately paid. Based on Lance leaving I would expect this version of Hill to appear much more often.
    I like George Hill a lot, but "Aggressive George Hill" happens maybe 5 times a year. The rest of the time he is "Passive George Hill" and barely worth 6M/yr. The fact we have seen him play really well doesn't mean it happens enough to warrant that level of pay. The good news is that...compared to years past...he's a bargain. Certainly a bargain compared to Hibbert.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      I like George Hill a lot, but "Aggressive George Hill" happens maybe 5 times a year. The rest of the time he is "Passive George Hill" and barely worth 6M/yr. The fact we have seen him play really well doesn't mean it happens enough to warrant that level of pay. The good news is that...compared to years past...he's a bargain. Certainly a bargain compared to Hibbert.
      When did the "George Hill is rarely aggressive" talk start? Look Hill took a back-seat to Stephenson last season, but the year before he was perfectly fine at being aggressive and averaged 14/5/4. In the playoffs, he upped his scoring average to about 15 ppg that season as well. When Stephenson emerged Hill took too much of a backseat to Lance, and that effected his numbers, but without Lance that won't continue.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

        Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
        When did the "George Hill is rarely aggressive" talk start? Look Hill took a back-seat to Stephenson last season, but the year before he was perfectly fine at being aggressive and averaged 14/5/4. In the playoffs, he upped his scoring average to about 15 ppg that season as well. When Stephenson emerged Hill took too much of a backseat to Lance, and that effected his numbers, but without Lance that won't continue.
        Yeah I mean he played 2 more MPG and took a whopping 2 extra shots per game. Wow, now that is aggression! C'mon man, that's nothing to be excited about. If he was a 20PPG scorer and dropped to 10PPG, then OK I'd understand that POV. But he never has been, and never will be a "go to" type of scorer. He was the 4th option on that team and will be the 4th option on this team as well, unless CJ or Stuckey prove to be a viable option, and then he will be a 5th option again.

        Hills aggression has always been an issue and was talked about that year as well. He is this teams version of Derrick McKey offensively, he always leaves you wanting more. You forget going into the offseason our teams biggest question mark was considered to be PG, and there was a reason the team gave Lance a bigger role at his expense in the first place.
        Last edited by Taterhead; 07-28-2014, 11:29 PM.
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
          Yeah I mean he played 2 more MPG and took a whopping 2 extra shots per game. Wow, now that is aggression! C'mon man, that's nothing to be excited about. If he was a 20PPG scorer and dropped to 10PPG, then OK I'd understand that POV. But he never has been, and never will be a "go to" type of scorer. He was the 4th option on that team and will be the 4th option on this team as well, unless CJ or Stuckey prove to be a viable option, and then he will be a 5th option again.

          Hills aggression has always been an issue and was talked about that year as well. He is this teams version of Derrick McKey offensively, he always leaves you wanting more.
          It's not the George Hill HaterThread, TaterHead!
          PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
            Yeah I mean he played 2 more MPG and took a whopping 2 extra shots per game. Wow, now that is aggression! C'mon man, that's nothing to be excited about. If he was a 20PPG scorer and dropped to 10PPG, then OK I'd understand that POV. But he never has been, and never will be a "go to" type of scorer. He was the 4th option on that team and will be the 4th option on this team as well, unless CJ or Stuckey prove to be a viable option, and then he will be a 5th option again.

            Hills aggression has always been an issue and was talked about that year as well. He is this teams version of Derrick McKey offensively, he always leaves you wanting more. You forget going into the offseason our teams biggest question mark was considered to be PG, and there was a reason the team gave Lance a bigger role at his expense in the first place.
            He attempted nearly 4 more shots per game, not sure where 2 came from, but yes 4 is a big difference unless you want him to be a chucker.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              I like George Hill a lot, but "Aggressive George Hill" happens maybe 5 times a year. The rest of the time he is "Passive George Hill" and barely worth 6M/yr. The fact we have seen him play really well doesn't mean it happens enough to warrant that level of pay. The good news is that...compared to years past...he's a bargain. Certainly a bargain compared to Hibbert.
              Amare Stoudemire is a bargain compared to Hibbert.

              With no Lance I have a really good feeling that we will see aggressive George Hill. We shall see.
              Last edited by joew8302; 07-29-2014, 05:01 AM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                Yeah I mean he played 2 more MPG and took a whopping 2 extra shots per game. Wow, now that is aggression! C'mon man, that's nothing to be excited about. If he was a 20PPG scorer and dropped to 10PPG, then OK I'd understand that POV. But he never has been, and never will be a "go to" type of scorer. He was the 4th option on that team and will be the 4th option on this team as well, unless CJ or Stuckey prove to be a viable option, and then he will be a 5th option again.

                Hills aggression has always been an issue and was talked about that year as well. He is this teams version of Derrick McKey offensively, he always leaves you wanting more. You forget going into the offseason our teams biggest question mark was considered to be PG, and there was a reason the team gave Lance a bigger role at his expense in the first place.
                It's not just all about shot attempts (that said, Hill did take 3.4 less per game last season and that's a pretty significant difference). With Lance taking over some of the ball handling duties, Hill become significantly less involved in our half court sets. Much like Lance, Hill is a type of player that needs to have the ball in order to be aggressive. There was very little that Hill could provide for us offensively when Lance was dominating the ball and it really limited his opportunities to contribute on that end. I don't expect to see a Portland game performance out of him every night, but that night showed Hill is still plenty capable of scoring 20+ points if needed to when he's primarily running the offense. I would argue that the performance by Hill in the second Portland game was equal to or better than any single performance Stephenson had last season, triple-doubles included. Hill rebounded, passed, scored, and did everything you could ask of a point guard from an offensive standpoint in that game.

                Lastly, I don't think the Pacers can label anyone as the second, third, or fourth option on this team. The players who fit those specific roles will change each and every game depending on who has the hot hand and where there are favorable match-ups. I feel Hill is capable of being a second option if needed or a third, fourth, or fifth. Getting back to having a balanced attack instead of two primary players is one of the reasons I expect the Pacers to do a lot better than most people are predicting this coming season. I expect Hill to be a 15 PPG scorer this season with around 5 assists a night and if he can do that, I think our record will reflect nicely.
                Last edited by BenR1990; 07-29-2014, 12:45 AM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                  Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                  Amare Stoudemire is a bargain compared to Hibbert.
                  uno, due, trezegol!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                    Yeah I mean he played 2 more MPG and took a whopping 2 extra shots per game. Wow, now that is aggression! C'mon man, that's nothing to be excited about. If he was a 20PPG scorer and dropped to 10PPG, then OK I'd understand that POV. But he never has been, and never will be a "go to" type of scorer. He was the 4th option on that team and will be the 4th option on this team as well, unless CJ or Stuckey prove to be a viable option, and then he will be a 5th option again.

                    Hills aggression has always been an issue and was talked about that year as well. He is this teams version of Derrick McKey offensively, he always leaves you wanting more. You forget going into the offseason our teams biggest question mark was considered to be PG, and there was a reason the team gave Lance a bigger role at his expense in the first place.
                    14 ppg on 11 shots to 10 ppg on 8 shots is a pretty wide difference. He was clearly the third option offensively in 12-13, and the clearly the 5th option last year. There's a big difference there.

                    I like the Derrick McKey comparison. I find that very interesting and can see a lot of similarities regarding offensive aggression. With that said, it's equally as interesting to think that the same people that thought Hill wasn't aggressive enough when he was scoring those 14 ppg on those 11 shots, thought Stephenson was dynamic and extremely aggressive when he averaged less points on less FGA.

                    I do agree with any and everyone that says we need to see more of the G.Hill we saw early in 12-13. He should look for his offense early and often.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                      Amare Stoudemire is a bargain compared to Hibbert.

                      With no Lance I have a really good feeling that we will see aggressive George Hill. We shall see.
                      $23,410,988

                      It is what Amare gets this season, bargain indeed, this is a LS thread, please we now all know RH has insulted, you, hurt you or your feelings or both, but please talk about something else for a few days
                      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                        Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                        He attempted nearly 4 more shots per game, not sure where 2 came from, but yes 4 is a big difference unless you want him to be a chucker.
                        Maybe it's just me, but I don't bother getting too excited about the thought of giving a bigger role to average offensive players. I don't feel it's smart to hang my hat on a career 10-12 ppg scorer becoming an aggressive offensive force.

                        And no that isn't a big difference at all. 10, 12 and 14 PPG all fall in the "average" category and are pretty natural fluctuations for a player like him.

                        I want Hill to make his team better, and I don't think he can do that by taking more shots. He can do that by taking a smaller role and becoming great at it, instead of failing over and over again at a larger role.

                        When we are playing the Cavs and their 3rd option is Kyrie Irving, and ours is George Hill, maybe you'll see why I feel that way, lol
                        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          14 ppg on 11 shots to 10 ppg on 8 shots is a pretty wide difference. He was clearly the third option offensively in 12-13, and the clearly the 5th option last year. There's a big difference there.

                          I like the Derrick McKey comparison. I find that very interesting and can see a lot of similarities regarding offensive aggression. With that said, it's equally as interesting to think that the same people that thought Hill wasn't aggressive enough when he was scoring those 14 ppg on those 11 shots, thought Stephenson was dynamic and extremely aggressive when he averaged less points on less FGA.

                          I do agree with any and everyone that says we need to see more of the G.Hill we saw early in 12-13. He should look for his offense early and often.
                          If you can't see the difference in a 23 year old who's improving rapidly vs. a veteran who isn't, then I am not sure what to say.

                          Hill has only scored over 12PPG once in his career, he's only scored over 10PPG once in his 3 years here, and it was just 14. Let's stop acting like he is some offensive force.
                          "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                            Hill has only scored over 12PPG once in his career, he's only scored over 10PPG once in his 3 years here, and it was just 14. Let's stop acting like he is some offensive force.
                            Yeah, that is not true. Check your numbers again.

                            Over twelve twice in his career and over ten two of his three seasons in Indy. The year he didn't, he spent most of he year as sixth man, and he was still at 9.6, so not sure what you are looking at.
                            Last edited by kent beckley; 07-29-2014, 11:50 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                              And no that isn't a big difference at all. 10, 12 and 14 PPG all fall in the "average" category and are pretty natural fluctuations for a player like him.
                              So do you think Lance is an "average" player too, or are you going to somehow think of an excuse as to why Lance, and his 14pt 13-14season/11pt 12-13 season, falls outside of this?

                              I bet you'll have some excuse as to why Lance isn't judged by that standard.

                              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                              If you can't see the difference in a 23 year old who's improving rapidly vs. a veteran who isn't, then I am not sure what to say.

                              Hill has only scored over 12PPG once in his career, he's only scored over 10PPG once in his 3 years here, and it was just 14. Let's stop acting like he is some offensive force.
                              Not only are you completely wrong about GHill's scoring average, you also don't realize that GHill averaged 12.4pts when he was 23. So GHill's 12.4pts at age 23 is just scoffed at, while Lance's 13.8pts at age 23 shows him "rapidly improving." Oh btw, GHill did that averaging 7 less minutes per game than Lance. GHill's per36 scoring average from that season was 15.2 while Lance's this last season was 14.1.
                              Last edited by Since86; 07-29-2014, 11:57 AM.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                                If you can't see the difference in a 23 year old who's improving rapidly vs. a veteran who isn't, then I am not sure what to say.

                                Hill has only scored over 12PPG once in his career, he's only scored over 10PPG once in his 3 years here, and it was just 14. Let's stop acting like he is some offensive force.
                                Okay
                                1. I never said he was an offensive force, just that he's produced higher numbers when given more opportunities.
                                2. Lance has only averaged double figures ONCE in his career lol. (funny fact, Hill averaged 12+ ppg as a 23 yr old player on a championship contender as well. I don't see you tooting his horn for that) You choose to grade Stephenson on things that you think he'll do, but you'll only grade Hill on what he's done. When Hill has had a bigger offensive role - he's produced (in 12-13 w/ the Pacers, in 2 seasons with the Spurs) the same thing can be said for Lance last season. Neither player has produced to be considered an offensive force, but both have shown they can produce offensively on winning teams.

                                Neither has completely out produced the other when given the same opportunities. It shouldn't matter what the age difference is because when given similar opportunities - they have produced at similar rates. It's a fact. And that's the only thing that was being discussed here.

                                Edit: Since86 beat me to a few of my points
                                Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 07-29-2014, 12:13 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X