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 Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

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

  • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

    Who here actually thinks that if Roy Hibbert would just focus on hook shots all the time he would shoot 60% from the floor and dominate? For those who believe that, why didn't the Pacers try that?

    Comment


    • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      I suspect it's accurate. But IMO he's not getting the luxury of setting up and making that shot because he's off balance most of the time. So, it's basically irrelevant. It's like saying a guy could have a great FG% because he has a great percentage on dunks. Of course he does. Same with Roy. When he is given the opportunity to setup in the post and the balance to get off a hook shot, he does well. But the rest of the time he slings the ball up there while falling down and I seriously doubt those are considered hook shots.
      please remember though B&G. Nothing is ever Roy's fault! Its the entry passers fault roy shoots a terrible %. or the "selfish dudes" are to blame, not Roy.

      nothing is ever Roy's 15.5 mill overpaid rumps fault. dont you know this by now??? C'mon man!

      Comment


      • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Who here actually thinks that if Roy Hibbert would just focus on hook shots all the time he would shoot 60% from the floor and dominate? For those who believe that, why didn't the Pacers try that?
        cause it's all Vogels fault! Roy never does any wrong. blame the coaches, blame his teammates, blame the GM, blame the fans, blame the refs, just dont blame roy hibbert cause if you dont know by now its never his fault!

        Comment


        • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

          Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
          cause it's all Vogels fault! Roy never does any wrong. blame the coaches, blame his teammates, blame the GM, blame the fans, blame the refs, just dont blame roy hibbert cause if you dont know by now its never his fault!
          I'm on your side, but man I'm about to put you on ignore.

          Comment


          • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            I'm on your side, but man I'm about to put you on ignore.
            do what you believe best. first time ive ever quoted you but kinda felt the same way about you in the lance thread. just to be fair thought i would share that fact.

            ive heard it all from hibbertNation and ultimately at times thats what it feels like is the overriding theme.

            Comment


            • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

              Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
              do what you believe best. first time ive ever quoted you but kinda felt the same way about you in the lance thread. just to be fair thought i would share that fact.

              ive heard it all from hibbertNation and ultimately at times thats what it feels like is the overriding theme.
              Don't let them get to you. This is Pacers Digest, and it is hilarious. People, like myself, will stubbornly hold onto their opinions no matter what. There is no convincing the Hibbert fans that he is a bum, and it is also impossible to convince me or you that Roy is not a bum
              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

              Comment


              • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                Don't let them get to you. This is Pacers Digest, and it is hilarious. People, like myself, will stubbornly hold onto their opinions no matter what. There is no convincing the Hibbert fans that he is a bum, and it is also impossible to convince me or you that Roy is not a bum
                If I were gonna crack it woulda been a long time ago. At this point, the novel i have written on the subject has been all but affirmed by Larry Legend.

                All I wanted to discuss is basketball and as it pertains to roy what the hell happened to his game? Its bizarre. Hell for crying out loud roy was my fav pacer and yet i get labeled a hibbert hater.

                * let me say that again, yes roy was my fav pacer so absolutely I am vested in the topic *

                cant evaluate and discuss roys game around here (at least not 3 months ago - before Birds presser) cause folks are super defensive about roy.

                which simply diminishes any real basketball conversation that can be had because of the superdefensive position held by some fans of hibbertNation, of which I was a part of and led in defense of Roy thoughtout the JOB years but not to the extent of superdefensive.

                i simply call it like i see it and cannot defend the player roy has become any longer. all the best to him in laker land.
                Last edited by PacersPride; 07-28-2015, 11:40 AM.

                Comment


                • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                  Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                  Don't let them get to you. This is Pacers Digest, and it is hilarious. People, like myself, will stubbornly hold onto their opinions no matter what. There is no convincing the Hibbert fans that he is a bum, and it is also impossible to convince me or you that Roy is not a bum
                  The thing is that no one is trying to convince anyone that Roy is a great player. We're arguing over whether a guy who is average in every way except certain aspects of defense is a bum or not, and it is being treated as if the pro-Roy faction is claiming he's a future HOFer.
                  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 Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    PER is too far of an "advanced" stat for me, so I don't ever care to even think about what it is for a player. And this has nothing to do with Roy. I've never used it, and will never use it.
                    um, honest question. Are you being sarcastic here, I can't tell?

                    The reason I ask is that if you are not being sarcastic doesn't this open up the debate about cherry picking stats?


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      The thing is that no one is trying to convince anyone that Roy is a great player. We're arguing over whether a guy who is average in every way except certain aspects of defense is a bum or not, and it is being treated as if the pro-Roy faction is claiming he's a future HOFer.
                      Maybe so Bills, but the overriding theme is can the pacers defense still be elite without Roy Hibbert. Or even more specifically, can the pacers succeed without Hibbert in the post. Ask Nuntius what he believes.

                      Hibbert is irreplaceable according to many. Doesn't that denote that some here believe Hibbert is great? lol those two words in the same sentence crack me up. sorry.

                      the debate to me seems to center on, is Hibbert irreplaceable. and secondly, is hibbert great defensively. for example, chicago j beleives roy is a great defender becasue of rim protection.

                      so nothing else matters that roy does defensively because according to some, as long as he can stand in front of the rim he is great! which simply isnt true.

                      the quote used to support the argument is rim protection fg%. its' the holy grail of all stats for some. nevermind the fact that same list quoted by nuntius indicates josh smith and terrence jones both from the rockets are top 20 at rim protection?

                      does that not seem skewed to you. is mahinmi really an elite rim protector. dont get me wrong, he is good, but elite??? like his ranking suggest per that stat Nuntius sleeps under his pillow with at nite and wont let go of.

                      review it Bills. 10 of the 24 players are represneted by 4 teams. jazz, rockets, pacers, and the other i forgot. you cant tell me damn near half that list from 4 teams represents the truly elite rim protectors in the lg.

                      seriously, josh smith?? terrance jones??? lets get real here folks. hibbs is solid but he aint elite. but yet ask some and they will tell you he is elite defensively, nevermind he gives up 42 rebounds to deandre jordan in 2 games.

                      nevermind brook lopez lit him up for over 46 some pts and 20 some boards practically doubling roy statistically at the tail end of the season.

                      those stats have little merit. only stat around here that matters is rim protection fg % and according to some that is worth paying 15.5 mill in return for a one dimensional center.

                      is that a fair summarization to you? or am i out in left field ranting without substance here. whats your take.

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                        If I were gonna crack it woulda been a long time ago. At this point, the novel i have written on the subject has been all but affirmed by Larry Legend.

                        All I wanted to discuss is basketball and as it pertains to roy what the hell happened to his game? Its bizarre. Hell for crying out loud roy was my fav pacer and yet i get labeled a hibbert hater.

                        * let me say that again, yes roy was my fav pacer so absolutely I am vested in the topic *

                        cant evaluate and discuss roys game around here (at least not 3 months ago - before Birds presser) cause folks are super defensive about roy.

                        which simply diminishes any real basketball conversation that can be had because of the superdefensive position held by some fans of hibbertNation, of which I was a part of and led in defense of Roy thoughtout the JOB years but not to the extent of superdefensive.

                        i simply call it like i see it and cannot defend the player roy has become any longer. all the best to him in laker land.
                        Larry Bird agrees with you. If Hibbert was "irreplaceable", Bird would not have been so quick to trade him. If Bird agrees with us, and Vogel probably agrees with us, no reason to get upset
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          um, honest question. Are you being sarcastic here, I can't tell?

                          The reason I ask is that if you are not being sarcastic doesn't this open up the debate about cherry picking stats?
                          I'm being serious. Sure, it opens it up A discussion, but not one about cherry picking. The discussion that should be opened up, is the validity of the PER stat. Cherry picking something means, you pick what makes your point and dismiss what doesn't. I'm not cherry picking stats, as I reject PER regardless of what it says about whatever player we're talking about.

                          I never, and will never, use PER whether talking about Roy, or talking about any other player.

                          Here's an article about why PER isn't a very good measurement to use, better than I could ever write.
                          http://wagesofwins.com/2006/11/17/a-...ciency-rating/
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            I'm being serious. Sure, it opens it up A discussion, but not one about cherry picking. The discussion that should be opened up, is the validity of the PER stat. Cherry picking something means, you pick what makes your point and dismiss what doesn't. I'm not cherry picking stats, as I reject PER regardless of what it says about whatever player we're talking about.

                            I never, and will never, use PER whether talking about Roy, or talking about any other player.

                            Here's an article about why PER isn't a very good measurement to use, better than I could ever write.
                            http://wagesofwins.com/2006/11/17/a-...ciency-rating/
                            Fair enough.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              I'm being serious. Sure, it opens it up A discussion, but not one about cherry picking. The discussion that should be opened up, is the validity of the PER stat. Cherry picking something means, you pick what makes your point and dismiss what doesn't. I'm not cherry picking stats, as I reject PER regardless of what it says about whatever player we're talking about.

                              I never, and will never, use PER whether talking about Roy, or talking about any other player.

                              Here's an article about why PER isn't a very good measurement to use, better than I could ever write.
                              http://wagesofwins.com/2006/11/17/a-...ciency-rating/
                              But couldn't the same be said for per36?

                              Comment


                              • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Red - Um, 49.7-43.9=5.8. So maybe that's the problem here, you're off on your math by almost double. (This means Roy misses .58 shots out of every ten. Roy hits 4.97 shots out of 10. He then hits 4.39 shots out of 10. Meaning 0.58 less out of every 10)
                                Blue - And then went right back up the next year. In order for Roy to be trending downward you'd need, you know, a trend.




                                And really, assists/steals for Roy? We're going to say Roy's production dropped off because he went from .8 steals to .4, or whatever the actual numbers are without looking at them? Good lord.
                                All those little numbers add up after awhile. There's a reason a guy getting 2 steals a game is considered a huge impact. Steals are very valuable because they change possessions and often lead to easy shots on the other end.

                                Let's look at some of Roy's advanced statistics and how they have changed since the 2011-2012 season. That's a big season for him because after that he got his contract. There was a big argument that offseason if Roy would need to improve his numbers or simply stay the same guy in order to be worth his deal. I tended to be on the side of the same. Unfortunately, as you will see, Roy didn't stay the same guy.

                                TS% Off Reb % Def Reb % Steal % Assist % Block % TOV %
                                2011-2012 .539 12.5 20.7 0.9 9.9 5.2 14.2
                                2012-2013 .489 14.8 17.4 0.9 8.9 6.7 14.5
                                2013-2014 .499 9.9 15.0 0.6 6.2 5.7 14.5
                                2014-2015 .501 9.0 21.9 0.5 7.4 5.1 11.8

                                2012 brought a massive decline in shooting percentage and a small dip in assist percentage. But his blocks went way up and he was a beast on the offensive glass. Advanced stats would say this was his best defensive season, but his offense went down by enough that 2011 ended up being a little better. But then of course he went on to have a great playoffs, and this also was the year of the wrist injury early. He was much better offensively in the second half of the year, and so the overall season seemed encouraging and on the way up.

                                2013 is when things cratered. The shooting percentage came up a bit, but was still way behind 2011. Huge drop in rebounding, especially offensively. Big drops in steals, assists, and blocks while not changing the turnovers. Multiple stats say he was a below average NBA player this year.

                                2014 was a mixed bag. Turnovers came down significantly, assists rebounded a little, huge jump in defensive rebounding. Offensive rebounding and blocks fell a little bit. Advanced stats differ on this one. One says he was below average, others say he was slightly above.

                                You could make an argument that 2012 was about the wrist injury, 2013 was about the team collapsing, and 2014 was about the injuries to the rest of the team. It's reasonable. But the more seasons you have of a dropoff in play, the more likelihood there becomes that there just has been a change to his baseline.

                                We don't know why he's gotten worse in his prime than he was at 25, but he seems to have. The shooting percentage is still the biggest problem. That's 4 points per 100 possessions worse, and that's been enough for his threat on the block to be severely diminished.

                                Hopefully he figures it out. He wasn't a great offensive player in 2011, but if he can just figure out how to get back to that, he will be quite valuable once again. The odds of that get lower every year though.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X