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 cdash View Post
    Who do I want taking the winning shot? Well Horry did earn that "Big Shot Rob" nickname, but honestly I would like to see their stats in end of game situations where the game was on the line. I suspect it's Horry, but without the stats I don't have a clue. Say this isn't a forum and you and I and sitting next to each other at a game, and those two are on the same team and we come down to that situation--then I think both you and I are praying that Horry takes the shot over Murphy.
    Edit: We can honestly probably move the stats discussion to the stats thread Peck started.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
      Absolutely rediculous the man crush some folks have on lance "and 1" stephenson. his handle is no where near "born ready" its a BS and 1 remix.

      ive said it clear as day since bout mid season of the sir lance lot campaign - lance has way too much brooklyn boogy showmanship in his game for my preference.

      indiana and new york basketball at its core do not mix. the fancy showmanship passses in favor of fundamamental sound basketball is a stark contrast to my basketball soul. i get bird and magic can make it happen for the team. lance was all about showboating and hotdoggin and ear blowin is just not for me.

      simply put lance is not all selfish, most of its just immaturity, that one day for the sake of his career i hope he realizes. lance is a good player when his head is focused on team work.

      It is about the TEAM and not the espn top ten. I believe Lance someday will appreciate the heartland of basketball and if the timing works out right may be back with the Pacers at some point in his career - that is if he can make it that far.




      At this juncture I had a hunch on it and it has come to fruition. Lance Turner is the better basketball player right now. And may have been last year as well. I believe Lance selfishly lashed out at Turner. Lance would not let Turner sabotage his contract season. Trust me. deep under the surface there may be some truth to this.

      Bottom line here is. Lance Turner is not as bad a player as philly and indy made him out to be. Brad Stevens has resurrected Turners career. Granted he cannot play a lick of defense - but the kid can pass and initiate an offense.

      Turner would have meshed well with Hill given time. Allowing G Hill to play some off guard yet defend the point. What Turner lacked in defense somewhat was restored by solid rebounding numbers for a guard.

      I appreciated Danny Granger as many of you did and some even more. Not a shot I would kick dirt on DG. However, Turner got a bad shake here. From the fans, albeit at times very justified, but mostly from Lance he would not have Evan steal his fame.

      All that aside, once lance finds his real reason he loves this game, would welcome him back with the Pacers any day. real good kid overall. just too quirky and immature at this time.




      * Will not matter cause next season many pacers fans are finally going to get their wish. Eric Gordon in blue and gold. Pacers have #1 medical staff in the NBA. Gordon needs Indiana as much as the pacers need him at shooting guard.
      Evan Turner*

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by mattie View Post
        I'm telling you guys, if you just block him your forum experience will improve exponentially.
        Says the guy who insults anyone who doesn't agree with him. BnG is just guilty of taking your bait and continuing to argue with you and CDash. The Lance haters made this thread the wasteland it is.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          But when it comes to Lance discussion, he isn't the most rational person in the world.
          I'm not claiming to be rational about Lance. I'm just claiming to be a fan. I want him to succeed (here). I think he has talent that can work at the highest level of the game. He's a fun player to watch. I think he's a messed up kid that people hate and I'd like to see him turn it around.

          BTW the first Lance Pacer fan might have been McKeyFan. I was a detractor. I did not believe Lance could defend either guard position. I was wrong about that one. I also doubted his shooting ability. I may have been right about that one...time will tell. Nevertheless, i got to see the rest of his game...and like Larry Bird I think he has some unique tools that...with some maturity...he could be a great piece with Paul George. Is he a reach AND a risk? Yep.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by cdash View Post
            Who do I want taking the winning shot? Well Horry did earn that "Big Shot Rob" nickname, but honestly I would like to see their stats in end of game situations where the game was on the line. I suspect it's Horry, but without the stats I don't have a clue. Say this isn't a forum and you and I and sitting next to each other at a game, and those two are on the same team and we come down to that situation--then I think both you and I are praying that Horry takes the shot over Murphy.
            But Murphy never played in really consequential games (i.e. the playoffs). You cannot really compare them. Murph never had a chance to show it.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
              Says the guy who insults anyone who doesn't agree with him. BnG is just guilty of taking your bait and continuing to argue with you and CDash. The Lance haters made this thread the wasteland it is.
              Hey, I'm trying to have discussion here. I just don't agree with him. You, what are you bringing? You come in here with one or two sentences and complain about other posters. Contribute to the discussion maybe?

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                But Murphy never played in really consequential games (i.e. the playoffs). You cannot really compare them. Murph never had a chance to show it.
                You can compare them. You aren't going to find too many circumstance that are totally like for like. It just isn't feasible. You do the best with the information you have at hand.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  You can compare them. You aren't going to find too many circumstance that are totally like for like. It just isn't feasible. You do the best with the information you have at hand.
                  But what if Murphy's percentage is better if you compare his end of game numbers...and that was because he played on bad teams where star players for the opposing team took the night off to rest up for more important games?

                  What if Horry's percentage is better because he played with Tim Duncan and got open looks compared to Murphy? How do you know? What if Horry played less minutes and therefore his legs weren't as tired?

                  Where in the world does this rabbit hole end?

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    I'm not claiming to be rational about Lance. I'm just claiming to be a fan. I want him to succeed (here). I think he has talent that can work at the highest level of the game. He's a fun player to watch. I think he's a messed up kid that people hate and I'd like to see him turn it around.

                    BTW the first Lance Pacer fan might have been McKeyFan. I was a detractor. I did not believe Lance could defend either guard position. I was wrong about that one. I also doubted his shooting ability. I may have been right about that one...time will tell. Nevertheless, i got to see the rest of his game...and like Larry Bird I think he has some unique tools that...with some maturity...he could be a great piece with Paul George. Is he a reach AND a risk? Yep.
                    McKeyFan was on the boat early, I agree. I still think Lance has a lot of tools. I agree that Lance's biggest problem is Lance. And shooting. I don't know what the hell happened in Charlotte, I know fit and lack of spacing played a part, but going from 35% (or whatever it was) to 17%...that's just crazy.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      But what if Murphy's percentage is better if you compare his end of game numbers...and that was because he played on bad teams where star players for the opposing team took the night off to rest up for more important games?

                      What if Horry's percentage is better because he played with Tim Duncan and got open looks compared to Murphy? How do you know? What if Horry played less minutes and therefore his legs weren't as tired?

                      Where in the world does this rabbit hole end?
                      It doesn't. That's what I meant by saying you just have to make the best decision with the information you have at hand.

                      Taking this back to Lance, I remember a lot of people saying it was a blessing for Lance that he came into the situation that he did with the Pacers to start his NBA career, or else he may have never made it this far. Not because of lack of talent, but immaturity mostly. The game of what ifs is never ending. You just have to do the best with what you have.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        I'm not claiming to be rational about Lance. I'm just claiming to be a fan. I want him to succeed (here). I think he has talent that can work at the highest level of the game. He's a fun player to watch. I think he's a messed up kid that people hate and I'd like to see him turn it around.

                        BTW the first Lance Pacer fan might have been McKeyFan. I was a detractor. I did not believe Lance could defend either guard position. I was wrong about that one. I also doubted his shooting ability. I may have been right about that one...time will tell. Nevertheless, i got to see the rest of his game...and like Larry Bird I think he has some unique tools that...with some maturity...he could be a great piece with Paul George. Is he a reach AND a risk? Yep.
                        Probably the best quote I've seen from you regarding Lance. I dont think most of the "haters" are too far away from this line of thinking, we just may be more rational about it I guess.

                        Nevertheless, no matter what happens with Lance the rest of his career, he's good. He came from humbled beginnings and has made himself and his family/support system a better life through the game. He should certainly be commended for that.

                        He's not as bad as this year showed. I (and others) just dont think he's as good as he showed last year either. Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. Next season is a big one for him as a pro, and it should be very interesting.

                        I tell ya what though. I bet me, you, Cdash and Mattie would have a ball watching the game over a few cold ones.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by cdash View Post
                          Hey, I'm trying to have discussion here. I just don't agree with him. You, what are you bringing? You come in here with one or two sentences and complain about other posters. Contribute to the discussion maybe?
                          I don't want to get sucked in to the stupidity . I was big fan of Lance and had many arguments during the Lance vs. AJ Price days. I thought he was going to be Robin to PG's Batman.

                          Obviously things did not go well in Charlotte. I honestly didn't watch or pay much attention to the Hornets. I still hope Lance makes his way back to this team(based solely on his time here). I also want it to be clear that even though no one wants to participate in the discussion, BNG is not the only one who doesn't dislike Lance.

                          Personally, I don't want to waste time arguing in circles. If Larry brings Lance back he can prove himself . Also, Mattie can be extremely disrespectful in his posts. They read as" agree or your an idiot".

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            McKeyFan was on the boat early, I agree. I still think Lance has a lot of tools. I agree that Lance's biggest problem is Lance. And shooting. I don't know what the hell happened in Charlotte, I know fit and lack of spacing played a part, but going from 35% (or whatever it was) to 17%...that's just crazy.
                            Honestly, I think it was just a bad shooting year from him combined with the problems of playing with a team that doesn't shoot well. In general, the less shooters a team has, the worse everyone shoots, because defending that team is easier. When he played with the Pacers..Hill and George were the bigger threats from the perimeter..and a team was likely more focused on West from midrange. Lance no longer has all the time in the world to set up his shot. Which is a big deal considering he had only made himself into a decent/good shooter for a season or two.

                            I'm obviously not the biggest Lance fan in the world, but that was something I always commended him on. He clearly worked hard to become a better shooter during summers. He was just in a situation that didn't allow him to shoot well given he's not really a pure shooter.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                              Personally, I don't want to waste time arguing in circles. If Larry brings Lance back he can prove himself . Also, Mattie can be extremely disrespectful in his posts. They read as" agree or your an idiot".
                              I'd never suggest anyone should agree with me. I've only pointed out the fallacies in BnG's opposing arguments. Since his arguments are circular, and he's provided nearly every logical fallacy anyone has ever heard of, no I haven't been the nicest.

                              For that I apologize.

                              Either way, arguing in circles, with the only intent to "win" versus understand whatever the subject I believe makes an entire subject a complete waste of time.

                              BnG has proven he's willing to move the goalposts as many times as needed so he is simply "not wrong" in an effort to win the argument. Since that was his intent, disputing his ever changing arguments is pointless, and I'd rather address his mindset- In the end, unless he changes his mindset, the entire debate is a waste of time.

                              But I also solved the problem- I hid his comments so I don't have to read 5000 more circular arguments.

                              Comment


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

                                Furthermore, I'd like to prove my point:

                                Here's the post I made earlier:

                                I requested that BnG explain why the numbers don't add up to what he's saying. I'd gladly change my opinion if an actual argument was presented. But one wasn't. I'm not entirely convinced that what everything I've said is the truth. I think it's probably close to the truth and I"ve done my best to understand it...

                                I did lose my cool, because the same weak logical fallacies were presented again.


                                I'll give examples of arguments into opposition to what I've said:

                                "The reason the offense suffered in 13-14 wasn't Lance's fault. It was a structure problem. I believe he had the tools to help the offense score but the slow pace of the offense wasn't suited for Lance's game. He also didn't have shooters. Hill and PG are decent shooters, but not deadly enough to provide proper spacing. Thus Lance's numbers were ok, but I think they could have been better."

                                Now that argument above does in fact recognize the truth that Lance's season wasn't as great as his fan boys wish it was- and also puts the blame on others as to why it didn't entirely work.

                                Further more, in BnG's case admitting what he wishes wasn't true serves to make him taken more seriously. For instance, everyone here if they're honest with them selves KNOWS that if Lance ever put up the numbers George Hill put up this season, BnG would consider Lance an All-Star. There's a zero percent chance he wouldn't. We all know that.

                                Yet BnG has spent half the thread attempting to say "Hill isn't that good" and then the other half trying to convince us Lance's 13-14 year was an All-Star year. He's contradicting himself constantly.

                                How can anyone take that seriously?

                                If you contradict yourself in every post, if you only present logical fallacies as your argument then it's hard for me to take you seriously. You've essentially changed the discussion from "let's find out the truth" to "I want to prove I'm right no matter what the cost."


                                Originally posted by mattie View Post
                                I'd still like BnG to answer this. Once. Please.


                                The 12-13 season and the 13-14 season had the same starting lineup. All starting five players where the same from both seasons.

                                There were only two differences. First, PG made a dramatic jump in the 13-14 season. He threw up nearly 22 a game in 13-14 versus his 17 a game in the prior season.

                                The second change? GH3 was the 4th option on the 12-13 season, and Lance was the 4th option on the 13-14 season. The 12-13 season had Lance as the fifth option and the 13-14 season GH3 was the fifth option.

                                That was the only difference in the makeup of those teams.

                                Now here is the damning evidence:

                                The 12-13 season had the better offense. But both seasons featured weak offenses. After having a strong season scoring the ball in 11-12, there was a dramatic dip in scoring in 12-13. They were ranked 20th in 12-13. In 13-14, despite BnG's claim that GH3 is suited to play off the ball since he isn't that good, and Lance should run the offense, the team dropped in ranking to 23rd in the NBA.

                                Hill threw 14.8PPG and 5.1 assists as the fourth option on the 12-13 team and that same season Lance scored 11 and had 3.5 assists as the fifth option.

                                The following season the offense, now ranked 23rd, Lance threw up 14.1PPG and 4.7 APG. Keep in mind, these numbers, clearly less than Hill's the season before are BnG's reason as to why Lance either should have been an All-Star, or is near All-Star level play. GH3, in the 13-14, now subjected to being the fifth option, or Lance's role from the prior season, threw up 11.6 and 3.9APG.

                                If you compare GH3 and Lance in similar roles, GH3 puts up better numbers, tho you'll notice that team's offense suffers the more Hill's role is diminished. The offense with GH3 in control is better, despite the fact that one would assume the opposite would be true considering PG's massive jump in play in 13-14. So what gives?

                                Even more damning, the offense changes completely in 14-15, with the coach realizing his dump-it-to-Roy strategy isn't working. He allows Gh3 to run the offense and do what he wants. What happens? The Pacers have their best offense of the era by far.

                                Top it all off with this- BnG has repeatedly argued Gh3 is no where near an All-Star level player, which would be fine coming from anyone else. The problem is, GH3 averaged 6 more points and 1.5 more assists per game with less turnovers, and a far superior shooting percentage then Lance's "all-star campaign."



                                (removed) - This reference isn't necessary



                                The numbers in the same roles in 3 consecutive seasons:

                                Fifth option for both:
                                Lance Stephenson 22 78 72 2278 4.3 9.5 .460 1.0 3.0 .330 3.4 6.5 .520 1.2 1.8 .652 0.7 4.1 4.8 3.5 1.3 0.3 1.7 2.6 10.9
                                George Hill 27 76 76 2434 4.0 9.1 442 1.4 3.8 .365 2.6 5.3 .497 2.1 2.6 .807 0.8 3.4 4.2 3.9 1.1 0.3 1.4 2.3 11.6

                                Fourth Option for both:
                                George Hill 26 76 76 2620 5.3 12.0 .443 1.8 4.9 .368 3.5 7.1 .494 2.4 2.9 .817 0.6 3.3 3.9 4.9 1.1 0.4 1.6 1.8 14.8
                                Lance Stephenson 23 78 78 2752 5.6 11.4 .491 1.1 3.2 .352 4.5 8.2 .545 1.8 2.6 .711 1.2 6.1 7.3 4.7 0.7 0.1 2.7 2.6 14.1

                                First Option For Both:
                                George Hill 28 43 36 1267 7.2 15.2 .477 2.0 5.5 .358 5.3 9.7 .544 3.2 4.1 .790 0.7 4.4 5.1 6.3 1.3 0.4 2.0 3.2 19.7
                                Lance Stephenson 24 61 25 1573 4.7 12.6 .376 0.4 2.4 .171 4.3 10.2 .425 1.6 2.5 .627 0.9 5.4 6.3 5.5 0.9 0.2 2.9 3.1 11.5
                                Last edited by mattie; 04-24-2015, 12:54 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X