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

NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

    Look. I don't need to rehash every post I've made for the last 4 years. But. Obviously, until now I don't think Hill's been given a fair shake. Whether you're like it or not, he has emphatically proven me right. Vogel ****ed up. He had a damn good point guard on his roster since 2012 and he didn't fully utilize him like he should. It's not Hill's fault either. Can't expect players to be coachable and then when they are blame them for not "stepping up."

    Anywho, after reading this garbage article, I'm going to show you some fun numbers. I chose not to waste my time comparing Hill's superior numbers to the "middle tier" point guards in the article. His are flat out better than every point's numbers ranked 11-20.

    Instead I'll show the numbers comparing Hill to the points ranked 5-10. The point is not to argue that Hill is better than someone like Lillard, who's a threat to drop 40 at any point. My point, is Hill is clearly in the class of point guards like Teague, Conley, Lowry and Wall. (Note- I do believe Wall is a jumpshot away from being a God basically, but I think the line between "damn good" and unbelievable is thin.)

    Of the PG's ranked 5-10, Lillard, Wall, Conley, Lowry, Parker and Teague, Hill has the higest TS%, PER, and Offensive rating to go along with the lowest turnovers per game. Only Wall has a higher defensive rating.

    The numbers per 36 are below.

    George Hill: PPG: 20.6 APG 6.0 RPG 4.9 TS% .571 3P% .347 PER 21.4

    5. Damian Lillard: PPG: 21.3 APG: 6.2 RPG: 4.8 TS% .563 3P% .342
    6. John Wall: PPG 17.6 AP: 9.9 RPG 4.6 TS% .530 3P% .299
    7. Mike Conley Jr: PPG 18.3 APG: 6.1 RPG: 3.0 TS%: .566 3P%: .398
    8. Kyle Lowry: PPG: 18.7 APG: 7.2 RPG 4.8 TS%: .530 3P%: .337
    9. Tony Parker: PPG: 18.4 APG: 6.1 RPG: 2.5 TS%: .544 3P%: .446
    10. Jeff Teague: PPG: 19.0 APG 8.2 RPG: 2.8 TS%: .570 3P%: .342



    http://www.thecoli.com/threads/nba-p...a-espn.303976/

    The top tier
    1. Russell Westbrook, Oklahoma City Thunder (732 points, 13 first-place votes)
    2. Stephen Curry, Golden State Warriors (727 points, 9 first-place votes)
    3. Chris Paul, Los Angeles Clippers (652 points, 3 first-place votes)
    4. Kyrie Irving, Cleveland Cavaliers (630 points)
    5. Damian Lillard, Portland Trail Blazers (614 points)
    6. John Wall, Washington Wizards (595 points)
    7. Mike Conley, Memphis Grizzlies (570 points)
    8. Kyle Lowry, Toronto Raptors (550 points)
    9. Tony Parker, San Antonio Spurs (511 points)
    10. Jeff Teague, Atlanta Hawks (499 points)

    The middle tier
    11. Derrick Rose, Chicago Bulls (489 points)
    12. Goran Dragic, Miami Heat (467 points)
    13. Eric Bledsoe, Phoenix Suns (456 points)
    14. Ty Lawson, Denver Nuggets (450 points)
    15. Rajon Rondo, Dallas Mavericks (436 points)
    16. Kemba Walker, Charlotte Hornets (420 points)
    17. Ricky Rubio, Minnesota Timberwolves (401 points)
    18. Jrue Holiday, New Orleans Pelicans (396 points)
    19. Reggie Jackson, Detroit Pistons (374 points)
    20. Deron Williams, Brooklyn Nets (356 points)

    The bottom tier
    21. Brandon Jennings, Detroit Pistons (340 points)
    22. George Hill, Indiana Pacers (315 points)
    23. Darren Collison, Sacramento Kings (300 points)
    24. Brandon Knight, Phoenix Suns (287 points)
    25. Isaiah Thomas, Boston Celtics (125 points)
    26. Patrick Beverley, Houston Rockets (120 points)
    27. D.J. Augustin, Oklahoma City Thunder (92 points)
    28. Jarrett Jack, Brooklyn Nets (75 points)
    29. Mo Williams, Charlotte Hornets (73 points)
    30. Trey Burke, Utah Jazz (32 points)




    Cliff Notes: Watching everyone go down this season, watching Roy Struggle at times, watching West age, watching Solomon not show much, wondering about PG has been a nightmare. Watching the losses pile up game after game SUCKS. But we have one thing we can all be truly happy about. We've got a badass point guard that's fun to watch. He's not great. But he's really good, and he plays the game the way I like to think us Indy kids were taught to play- Fundamentally sound. He's good in every aspect, just like his fellow indy points Teague and Conley who are good at pretty much everything. This is fun, and while losses suck, when our man Paul George gets back next season? We won't see losses. We'll see wins. Lots of them.

    Take Pride in our point guard. He's been kicked around by everyone in the league including his hometown Indy fans. It's about time we all rally and give him much deserve loved. He never deserved the criticism.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

    Same as Mattie, I'm obviously a G.Hill fan. I would rank him somewhere in the Lawson/Rondo/Walker range. Hill has "improved" tremendously this year, and has shown that he has the ability to be a focal point offensively from the lead guard position - if given the opportunity to do so.

    Hopefully his improved play this year, another strong off-season, and the same role next year with PG back in the fold will open people's eyes as to how good he really is.

    The good thing is - knowing G.Hill, he read this article and plans on getting after it again this offseason. He's always wanting to prove his doubters wrong.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

      I confess, I'm a GHill fan. I've considered him one of the top 8-15 Point Guards in the league since he began starting for the Pacers.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

        I'm a big GHill fan. Honestly I would put him as a top 10 PG in the NBA with how he is playing right now.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

          I still consider him more of a shooting guard than a PG but I would say that he has improved enough as a PG that I fully trust him in the role now. One thing he is that I hope Vogel really gets now is CLUTCH. I don't ever want to see PG dribble the clock away a the top of the key to then lose it out of bounds on a drive. When you absolutely need a basket give the ball to George Hill. I know that shot did not fall last night but he made a bunch of shots before that to even put the Pacers in the position to take that shot. Not every potential game winner went in for Reggie either but everyone knows he was clutch and so is George Hill.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

            Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
            I still consider him more of a shooting guard than a PG but I would say that he has improved enough as a PG that I fully trust him in the role now. One thing he is that I hope Vogel really gets now is CLUTCH. I don't ever want to see PG dribble the clock away a the top of the key to then lose it out of bounds on a drive. When you absolutely need a basket give the ball to George Hill. I know that shot did not fall last night but he made a bunch of shots before that to even put the Pacers in the position to take that shot. Not every potential game winner went in for Reggie either but everyone knows he was clutch and so is George Hill.
            Yes, except from the free throw line. He is clutch from the field, but his FT% drops a lot in the clutch. It is unusual, but it is the truth.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

              I agree with the op. Hill is under rated as a pg and this article proves that. I'm happy to have him and consider his contract a bargain at this point. It will be nice going into the summer knowing that we don't need to upgrade our pg position. It seems like Bird said something to that effect after last season. I wonder what he thinks now?
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

                How is Reggie Jackson ranked ahead of Hill? Shooting 4-22 means you are a good floor general?
                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

                  Whomever did these rankings must have only looked at the names. Rajon Rondo is washed up, and has ruined Dallas since the trade. Kemba Walker is a shoot-first chucker. Ricky Rubio cannot shoot at all.
                  Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

                    Well crap, I put the stats for all PGs up but I don't know how to display it correctly..

                    Code:
                    Rk	      Player	Season	Age	G	GS	MP	FG	FGA	FG%	3P	3PA	3P%	2P	2PA	2P%	FT	FTA	FT%	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
1	Stephen Curry	2014-15	26	69	69	2267	8.8	18.4	0.479	3.7	8.8	0.422	5.1	9.6	0.531	4.4	4.8	0.914	0.7	4	4.7	8.6	2.3	0.2	3.4	2.1	25.7
2	Kyrie Irving	2014-15	22	68	68	2504	7.6	16.2	0.468	2	5	0.409	5.6	11.3	0.494	4.1	4.8	0.862	0.7	2.4	3.1	5.1	1.4	0.2	2.3	2	21.4
3	Damian Lillard	2014-15	24	70	70	2535	7.2	16.6	0.433	2.4	7.1	0.342	4.8	9.5	0.5	4.5	5.2	0.868	0.7	4.1	4.8	6.2	1.3	0.3	2.7	2	21.3
4	Chris Paul	2014-15	29	72	72	2517	7.2	14.9	0.481	1.6	4.3	0.38	5.5	10.6	0.522	3.3	3.8	0.883	0.7	4.1	4.8	10.5	2	0.2	2.5	2.6	19.3
5	John Wall	2014-15	24	72	72	2570	6.6	14.5	0.451	0.8	2.8	0.299	5.7	11.8	0.487	3.6	4.7	0.777	0.5	4.2	4.6	9.9	1.8	0.6	3.7	2.3	17.6
6	Russell Westb	2014-15	26	57	57	1926	9.6	22.6	0.427	1.2	4	0.301	8.4	18.5	0.454	8.6	10.2	0.846	2.1	5.6	7.6	9.3	2.3	0.2	4.6	2.8	29.1
7	Mike Conley	2014-15	27	64	64	2022	6.5	14.4	0.452	1.8	4.4	0.398	4.8	10	0.477	3.5	4.1	0.861	0.5	3	3.5	6.1	1.4	0.2	2.6	2.2	18.3
8	Goran Dragic	2014-15	28	68	68	2291	6.9	13.7	0.507	1.2	3.5	0.351	5.7	10.2	0.561	2.4	3.2	0.756	1.1	2.7	3.9	4.7	1.2	0.2	2.4	2.6	17.5
9	Kyle Lowry	2014-15	28	66	66	2274	6.5	15.5	0.416	1.9	5.8	0.337	4.5	9.8	0.464	3.8	4.7	0.807	0.8	4	4.8	7.2	1.6	0.2	2.6	3.2	18.7
10	Tony Parker	2014-15	32	57	57	1663	7.5	15.4	0.484	0.8	1.8	0.446	6.7	13.6	0.489	2.6	3.3	0.801	0.3	2.2	2.5	6.1	0.9	0	2.8	1.9	18.4
11	Derrick Rose	2014-15	26	46	46	1428	8	19.6	0.407	1.8	6.3	0.287	6.2	13.2	0.465	3.6	4.4	0.816	0.9	2.8	3.6	5.8	0.8	0.4	3.7	1.5	21.3
12	Jeff Teague	2014-15	26	65	64	2014	6.6	14.3	0.461	1.2	3.4	0.342	5.4	10.9	0.498	4.6	5.3	0.869	0.4	2.4	2.8	8.2	2	0.5	3.3	2.3	19
13	Eric Bledsoe	2014-15	25	71	71	2447	6.1	13.4	0.456	1.2	3.5	0.345	4.9	9.9	0.495	4.7	5.9	0.802	1	4.8	5.8	6.2	1.8	0.6	3.6	2.5	18.1
14	Jrue Holiday	2014-15	24	37	37	1247	6.5	14.7	0.444	1.4	3.7	0.367	5.2	11	0.47	1.8	2.1	0.851	0.9	2.9	3.8	7.6	1.7	0.7	2.6	3	16.2
15	Ty Lawson	2014-15	27	67	67	2399	5.5	12.5	0.438	1	2.9	0.351	4.5	9.6	0.464	3.6	5	0.728	0.6	2.7	3.3	9.7	1.3	0.1	2.5	1.8	15.6
16	Rajon Rondo	2014-15	28	59	59	1761	4.8	11.6	0.416	0.5	1.6	0.3	4.3	9.9	0.435	0.5	1.4	0.343	1.3	5.6	6.9	9.6	1.7	0.1	3.8	2.8	10.6
17	Ricky Rubio	2014-15	24	22	22	692	4.1	11.4	0.356	0.7	2.7	0.255	3.4	8.7	0.387	3	3.7	0.803	1	5.5	6.5	10	2	0.1	3.3	3.1	11.8
18	Kemba Walker	2014-15	24	50	46	1721	6.6	16.8	0.392	1.5	4.9	0.318	5	11.9	0.423	4.1	5	0.828	0.6	3.2	3.9	5.3	1.5	0.6	1.7	1.7	18.8
19	Darren Collison	2014-15	27	45	45	1565	6	12.7	0.473	1.4	3.7	0.373	4.6	8.9	0.514	3.3	4.2	0.788	0.4	2.9	3.3	5.8	1.5	0.3	2.6	2.2	16.7
20	George Hill	2014-15	28	33	26	920	7.6	16.1	0.47	2	5.9	0.347	5.5	10.2	0.54	3.4	4.4	0.779	0.9	4	4.9	6	1.3	0.4	2.2	3.4	20.6
21	Reggie Jackson	2014-15	24	66	29	1902	6.6	15.7	0.423	1.1	4	0.283	5.5	11.7	0.471	2.6	3	0.874	0.9	4.4	5.3	6.6	1	0.2	2.6	2.6	17
22	Brandon Jenni	2014-15	25	41	41	1173	6.7	16.7	0.401	2.3	6.5	0.36	4.4	10.2	0.428	3.7	4.4	0.839	0.6	2.5	3.2	8.3	1.4	0.1	2.8	2	19.4
23	Brandon Knight	2014-15	23	62	61	2013	6.7	15.7	0.426	2.2	5.6	0.397	4.5	10.1	0.442	3.5	4	0.878	0.5	3.8	4.3	5.8	1.6	0.2	3.3	2	19.1
24	Deron Williams	2014-15	30	56	43	1725	5	13	0.383	1.4	3.9	0.351	3.6	9.1	0.397	3.7	4.5	0.828	0.4	3.3	3.7	7.3	1.1	0.3	2.6	2.8	15.1
                    Last edited by Guardshock; 03-27-2015, 01:16 PM.
                    Indiana State University Alum. Hardcore Pacers fan. Racecar Driver in need of sponsorship.

                    www.jjhughesracing.com

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

                      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                      How is Reggie Jackson ranked ahead of Hill? Shooting 4-22 means you are a good floor general?
                      I think averaging over 8 assists per game helps your case.... per-36 he's averaged around 10 since he got here.

                      Even through the end of the season it's admittedly a small sample size of just 27 games, but playmaking has not been a problem for Reggie Jackson since we traded for him.

                      To cherry-pick an even smaller sample size, he's averaged 20/12/6 in the 5 games without Monroe while shooting 46%.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 03-27-2015, 12:07 PM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

                        GHill will do whatever he is asked. There is a lot to be said for that. I have always felt GHill is a great player. I am glad we are finally using him properly.


                        "Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
                        "Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

                          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                          Whomever did these rankings must have only looked at the names. Rajon Rondo is washed up, and has ruined Dallas since the trade. Kemba Walker is a shoot-first chucker. Ricky Rubio cannot shoot at all.
                          I know, right? Shooting under 40% and not winning many games means you are a real good pg to some people. Need to stop looking at where guys were drafted.
                          First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

                            Just like to add 2 things:
                            Jrue Holiday is also too low. Did he get bumped down cause he's been injured? He's a very good pg that adds plus defense.

                            Deron Williams is too high. Putting him in the middle based off past performance? He hasn't been relevant in years! He's lazy and doesn't care.
                            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: NBA Personnel Rank Top 30 Point Guards

                              Yeah, let's argue w/ rankings by various NBA experts who are paid tons more than we are to be way better at analysis than we are*. I pretty much agree w/ their list, except Deron Williams should be in the top of the bottom tier IMO. George Hill is having a nice run. Nice, not earth shattering.


                              *They probably don't think he can keep up the scoring (understandable; anyone can have a hot half-season), and he doesn't stand out in any other area.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X