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

All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    No doubt. It is good to relax because it helps focus on the point. Roy Hibbert, if surrounded by the right players, could not only be an all-star C but also an NBA champion. Don't most of us agree on that, including the Lance detractors?

    So, while he struggles in some situations, Roy is the poster-boy for the fact a player can indeed be an all-star player while not being effective in all situations. Yes, Ace, this is indeed a shout out to you and your theory. If someone is an all-star, they cannot always make it work whenever and wherever. Roy is proof of that. I'm not even saying Lance is an all-star...just all-star caliber which is borderline IMO...less praise than Roy gets. So, there should be even less expectations for Lance.

    But on top of that, we have seen Lance and Roy in the last post season and Lance clearly outplayed him. This isn't about ripping on Roy at all. This is questioning why people rip on Lance when Lance has shown more when the lights are at their brightest. He was born ready and he has only started to live.
    Lance WAS border line All-Star caliber last season (and deserving of a spot at the time, IMO). He hasn't been any other year of his career (although it's been short and there's not a whole lot he can do about that right now).

    As far as Lance showing more when the lights are the brightest, Roy Hibbert's playoff performance during the 2013 season far surpasses anything Lance Stephenson has ever been able to do in the post-season. Additionally, Roy also averaged a double-double in the 2012 playoffs and I felt he played pretty well in our first round exit to the Bulls in 2011. Truth be told, outside the Hawks series last season Roy really didn't play that poorly. He actually had some excellent games against the Wizards and Heat both offensively and defensively.

    I hate when people like to throw away everything Roy Hibbert has done in the playoffs over four seasons for one poor series against the Hawks last season.

    Comment


    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

      There are quite a few differences between Roy and Lance. The one clear cut difference is the fact that Roy has actually been a two time AS whereas Lance has been in consideration one time. Whether you believe he was snubbed or not, he didn't get in. Roy has shown that he has the ability to play at a level where others consider him an "AS caliber" player. Until Lance is constantly on the AS bubble (ala guys like Zach Randolph. Monta Ellis)on an annual basis, or actually makes an AS team, you can't make a comparison IMO.

      Second, no matter how much Roy may struggle or be inconsist offensively, he's probably the most imposing defensive player when it comes to defending the rim. That's always a constant with him. Up until he got injured, he was pretty much single handedly making us a top 10 defense by his presence in the paint. He hasn't played at that level since coming back from injury (I still think he's injured)but that's definitely not the norm when it comes to Roy. And that's what makes him an AS caliber player. What aspect of the game does Lance affect to that extent?

      You've now tried to compare and degrade CJ Miles, Stuckey, Solo, and now Roy in order to compare and justify the fact that Lance isn't playing well, and hasn't played well outside of a handful of games. At this point it seems like grasping at anything in order to prove that Lance is an AS caliber player that is somehow being restricted by where he's playing.

      Wasn't that the same narrative this summer and the end of last year? That Lance needed to go somewhere with a big or two that can catch and finish his passes in the paint, that he needed a PG that didn't "hide in the corner", and so on. At some point Lance deserves some type of credit for how he's played and the fact that many of the weaknesses he had here are still the same he has today. Not the coach, the system, or the players around him. Lance himself.

      If you want you want to say Lance is a borderline AS type of talent that's cool. I dont think he is and outside of the first half of last year--he's proven my opinion to be closer to the truth than yours. But dont mix in quotes like "he would've lead us to a championship", compare his game to a mini Lebron or a Magic Johnon type of player, and then back track and say "I just think he has a chance to make a few AS games". There's a HUGE discrepancy in talent and ability between those two statements.

      Lance is what he is-- a good starting 2guard in the league. He's probably not top 10 at his position, and he may or may not be better coming off the bench at some point. But he's s good player nonetheless. He was a key cog to our team because he brought a different skill set than the rest of our players, but he's not irreplaceable nor was he THE key cog. He's not a star player, but he's a strong contributor when he concentrates on the right things and plays the right way. He's young enough where this could change, and he could become an AS type of guy, but given the fact that this is the first month his numbers have improved from the previous month since January of last year, he's got a ways to go before staking that claim.

      Comment


      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

        Just for grins and giggles, I looked up Lance's Offensive and Defensive Rating on BB Ref. It was horrible. per 100 poss.

        ORtg - 89
        Drtg - 107

        Going from Ace's post, here are the Pacer player's ratings.

        Roy Hibbert
        ORtg - 101
        DRtg - 101

        CJ Miles
        ORtg - 84
        DRtg - 106

        Rodney Stuckey
        ORtg - 102
        DRtg - 106

        Solomon Hill
        ORtg - 99
        DRtg - 106

        Man, this is depressing. No surprising, but horrible.

        Looks like CJMiles has had a worse start than Lance, but everyone else, as bad as they've been, has been better. Sorta.

        Comment


        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

          Will Lance be auditioning for the Nets tonight?
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment


          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            There are quite a few differences between Roy and Lance. The one clear cut difference is the fact that Roy has actually been a two time AS whereas Lance has been in consideration one time. Whether you believe he was snubbed or not, he didn't get in. Roy has shown that he has the ability to play at a level where others consider him an "AS caliber" player. Until Lance is constantly on the AS bubble (ala guys like Zach Randolph. Monta Ellis)on an annual basis, or actually makes an AS team, you can't make a comparison IMO.

            Second, no matter how much Roy may struggle or be inconsist offensively, he's probably the most imposing defensive player when it comes to defending the rim. That's always a constant with him. Up until he got injured, he was pretty much single handedly making us a top 10 defense by his presence in the paint. He hasn't played at that level since coming back from injury (I still think he's injured)but that's definitely not the norm when it comes to Roy. And that's what makes him an AS caliber player. What aspect of the game does Lance affect to that extent?

            You've now tried to compare and degrade CJ Miles, Stuckey, Solo, and now Roy in order to compare and justify the fact that Lance isn't playing well, and hasn't played well outside of a handful of games. At this point it seems like grasping at anything in order to prove that Lance is an AS caliber player that is somehow being restricted by where he's playing.

            Wasn't that the same narrative this summer and the end of last year? That Lance needed to go somewhere with a big or two that can catch and finish his passes in the paint, that he needed a PG that didn't "hide in the corner", and so on. At some point Lance deserves some type of credit for how he's played and the fact that many of the weaknesses he had here are still the same he has today. Not the coach, the system, or the players around him. Lance himself.

            If you want you want to say Lance is a borderline AS type of talent that's cool. I dont think he is and outside of the first half of last year--he's proven my opinion to be closer to the truth than yours. But dont mix in quotes like "he would've lead us to a championship", compare his game to a mini Lebron or a Magic Johnon type of player, and then back track and say "I just think he has a chance to make a few AS games". There's a HUGE discrepancy in talent and ability between those two statements.

            Lance is what he is-- a good starting 2guard in the league. He's probably not top 10 at his position, and he may or may not be better coming off the bench at some point. But he's s good player nonetheless. He was a key cog to our team because he brought a different skill set than the rest of our players, but he's not irreplaceable nor was he THE key cog. He's not a star player, but he's a strong contributor when he concentrates on the right things and plays the right way. He's young enough where this could change, and he could become an AS type of guy, but given the fact that this is the first month his numbers have improved from the previous month since January of last year, he's got a ways to go before staking that claim.
            I find it difficult to believe you think I'm degrading Roy Hibbert when I just said this: "...could not only be an all-star C but also an NBA champion." and I just said this: "He can definitely be that guy in the middle on a contender or even winner of it all." What do I need to convince you I like Roy. Say something like he's as good or better than Wilt Chamberlain? All I am doing is stating the fact that, while an all-star, his game does not translate to all situations and there are large spans of time where he does not play well at all. You don't degrade players by telling it like it is.

            As for C.J. Miles and Stuckey, yes I consider them nothing more than a passing phase, probably shorter than the TJ Ford days. I actually think TJ was better than both of them. Anyway, they are backups who are forced into a starting role and one of the main reasons we are .300 right now. Do they deserve respect for their efforts? Sure. But I'm not degrading them calling them backups. That is what they are. I suppose they are starters if you're goal is to be the Philadelphia 76'ers and have guys like Evan Turner start. But that's simply not my standard. I would prefer that the Pacers be over .500 and contending.

            As for Solo, he has shown he can be a good backup. There are people who think he can be that 5th starter which might possibly be true but he's not there yet. There are people even comparing him to Paul George's defense which is completely ridiculous. Solo has a nice strong body, good handle for his size, passes adequately, has some aggressiveness at times....not bad. He may be the only real SF on this team right now. Combine that with the fact he is playing much better this year, people are getting completely carried away. Our team is .300 and if anything I think this team is losing momentum...not because we are trying to re-integrate the starters. We are losing momentum because other teams are getting their acts together and have more talent to boot. That will make things extremely difficult on the Pacers the rest of this year.

            Anyway, we are .300 and it's pretty tough to degrade something when my description is in line with our record. The same is true for the players. Don't let facts get in the way though...

            Comment


            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

              Fuxk Stephenson. That's what he get for being selfish

              Comment


              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                I find it difficult to believe you think I'm degrading Roy Hibbert when I just said this: "...could not only be an all-star C but also an NBA champion." and I just said this: "He can definitely be that guy in the middle on a contender or even winner of it all." What do I need to convince you I like Roy. Say something like he's as good or better than Wilt Chamberlain? All I am doing is stating the fact that, while an all-star, his game does not translate to all situations and there are large spans of time where he does not play well at all. You don't degrade players by telling it like it is.

                As for C.J. Miles and Stuckey, yes I consider them nothing more than a passing phase, probably shorter than the TJ Ford days. I actually think TJ was better than both of them. Anyway, they are backups who are forced into a starting role and one of the main reasons we are .300 right now. Do they deserve respect for their efforts? Sure. But I'm not degrading them calling them backups. That is what they are. I suppose they are starters if you're goal is to be the Philadelphia 76'ers and have guys like Evan Turner start. But that's simply not my standard. I would prefer that the Pacers be over .500 and contending.

                As for Solo, he has shown he can be a good backup. There are people who think he can be that 5th starter which might possibly be true but he's not there yet. There are people even comparing him to Paul George's defense which is completely ridiculous. Solo has a nice strong body, good handle for his size, passes adequately, has some aggressiveness at times....not bad. He may be the only real SF on this team right now. Combine that with the fact he is playing much better this year, people are getting completely carried away. Our team is .300 and if anything I think this team is losing momentum...not because we are trying to re-integrate the starters. We are losing momentum because other teams are getting their acts together and have more talent to boot. That will make things extremely difficult on the Pacers the rest of this year.

                Anyway, we are .300 and it's pretty tough to degrade something when my description is in line with our record. The same is true for the players. Don't let facts get in the way though...
                Outside of Solo, nobody has ever said any of those guys were long term answers for the Pacers from a starting wing perspective. CJ is probably our backup shooter off the bench for the next few years. Stuckey is probably gone after this year or is a 6th man scorer for us (which I'd like). I do think Solo could be a long term answer on the wing next to Paul if we upgrade our starting PF position back to an AS caliber type of 4 in the next few years.

                Any conversation about replacing Lance's production with anyone not named Solo is probably just wth this year in mind. Not the next 2-3. So there's no need to try and put them down or talk about their future with the team when comparing them with Lance who has no future on this team.

                This thread however is is about Lance Stephenson.
                Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 12-13-2014, 05:26 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                  Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                  Lance WAS border line All-Star caliber last season (and deserving of a spot at the time, IMO). He hasn't been any other year of his career (although it's been short and there's not a whole lot he can do about that right now).

                  As far as Lance showing more when the lights are the brightest, Roy Hibbert's playoff performance during the 2013 season far surpasses anything Lance Stephenson has ever been able to do in the post-season. Additionally, Roy also averaged a double-double in the 2012 playoffs and I felt he played pretty well in our first round exit to the Bulls in 2011. Truth be told, outside the Hawks series last season Roy really didn't play that poorly. He actually had some excellent games against the Wizards and Heat both offensively and defensively.

                  I hate when people like to throw away everything Roy Hibbert has done in the playoffs over four seasons for one poor series against the Hawks last season.
                  Roy did play well against Washington for the most part with only one bad game. He played OK against Miami but 2 of his games were truly horrible. Sorry, but this gets back to being an all-star. You aren't supposed to have so many off games based on Ace's theory. Overall including the entire post season, statistically Lance was clearly better last year.

                  But check their performance in the deciding games. Lance outplayed Roy in game 7 of the Atlanta series, game 6 of the Washington series and game 6 of the Miami series. Not only overall were his stats better, they were clearly better in the deciding games...when the pressure was truly on.

                  Comment


                  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    Outside of Solo, nobody has ever said any of those guys were long term answers for the Pacers from a starting wing perspective. CJ is probably our backup shooter off the bench for the next few years. Stuckey is probably gone after this year or is a 6th man scorer for us (which I'd like). I do think Solo could be a long term answer on the wing next to Paul if we upgrade our starting PF position back to an AS caliber type of 4 in the next few years.

                    Any conversation about replacing Lance's production with anyone not named Solo is probably just wth this year in mind. Not the next 2-3. So there's no need to try and put them down or talk about their future with the team when comparing them with Lance who has no future on this team.

                    This thread however is is about Lance Stephenson.
                    Lance's "replacements" are fair game. This is not the "Lance in a vacuum" thread.

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Lance's "replacements" are fair game. This is not the "Lance in a vacuum" thread.
                      I didn't say different. It just doesn't make sense to compare them unless you're comparing their production this year.

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                        I like Tyler Hansbrough . ....
                        I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                        Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                        Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                          You've convinced me. Since every noght some starter plays worse than Lance, it proves he's so good we should have offered him $12M for 2 years with a player option in the second year and waived Roy, David, and Solo. Surely then no starter would ever play worse than Lance.

                          Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Roy did play well against Washington for the most part with only one bad game. He played OK against Miami but 2 of his games were truly horrible. Sorry, but this gets back to being an all-star. You aren't supposed to have so many off games based on Ace's theory. Overall including the entire post season, statistically Lance was clearly better last year.

                            But check their performance in the deciding games. Lance outplayed Roy in game 7 of the Atlanta series, game 6 of the Washington series and game 6 of the Miami series. Not only overall were his stats better, they were clearly better in the deciding games...when the pressure was truly on.
                            To say Lance played better in each of those games is subjective, IMO. None of those games you mentioned did I feel Lance have a spectacular performance that set him above, but he definitely had an important contribution to the win. I also feel that one cannot accurately assess Hibbert's influence on the defensive end through a box score outside of blocked shots (which he had 5 and 3 in closeout games last season, respectively). Regarding the game 6 in Miami, I'm not sure how anyone could/would say a player outperformed another. The whole team came out and had a trash performance from top to bottom and we were throttled. Nobody played well after 6 minutes into that game. It was an embarrassment for everyone on the court, the coaching staff, etc.

                            The one time I do remember Stephenson truly leading our team in the playoffs was the closeout game against the Knicks in 2013. He came up with some incredible plays in the 4th quarter to close the game out. Although now I'm remembering that Hibbert block that was pretty crucial
                            Last edited by BenR1990; 12-13-2014, 06:46 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                              On the Big Screen - Roy Hibbert #3 in NBA in blocks. Damn, I wish we had Lance instead of this useless excuse for a center.

                              Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                                The Hornets aren't even close to being fixed. They just got to play Boston and the Knicks at home


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X