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

Return of Stephenson?

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

  • Re: Return of Stepehson?

    I think Lance needs to go to Orlando. Reunite with Vogel on a team that has ZERO perimeter ball handling. Even if they re-sign Fournier.

    Payton(should be the final year for this project)/Lance
    Lance/Fournier/Hezonja
    Gordon/Ibaka
    Vucevic

    Comment


    • Re: Return of Stepehson?

      those Lance/Mario after practice battles would be some great story telling

      Comment


      • Re: Return of Stepehson?

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        Not really, my disdain for the GS Warriors and the way they play basketball is pretty well known.

        I just want a balanced TEAM where everyone's skillsets are able to maximized to the fullest. I believe strongly in chemistry and I'm tired of watching a team full of ball dominant guys that need to put the ball on the floor to be effective.

        I want Teague to be as successful as possible and the way to do that is to give him the ball and spread the floor. You can't do that when you have two other perimeter guys wanting to dribble and make moves.

        If Lance were coming off the bench for cheap(and one of our combo guards were traded) then I think he could be a nice piece. He could pretty much play the same role Evan Turner has been for the Celtics. Other than that, I don't see a fit where everyone's skill-set will be maximized without adding a shooter to the perimeter. We just don't have any.
        I think you are too stuck on the train wreck that happened in Charlotte and need to look at the bigger picture. Lance's game isn't all about hogging the ball and poor shooting.

        Comment


        • Re: Return of Stepehson?

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          I think you are too stuck on the train wreck that happened in Charlotte and need to look at the bigger picture. Lance's game isn't all about hogging the ball and poor shooting.
          Many here acknowledge that Lance does bring energy and rebounding when he's on the floor.....we're not disagreeing nor ignoring that Lance doesn't contribute on those fronts.

          What we are concerned about his other key weaknesses that he has had when playing here in Indy, such as hogging the ball and poor shooting.

          Unless you can argue that those are key issues with Lance that he has worked on and addressed since he's left Indy.....than it's going to be a valid reservation that we all have and why many here don't want to bring him back.
          Last edited by CableKC; 06-30-2016, 02:07 PM.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • Re: Return of Stepehson?

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            Many here acknowledge that Lance does bring energy and rebounding when he's on the floor.....we're not disagreeing nor ignoring that Lance doesn't contribute on those fronts.

            What we are concerned about his other key weaknesses that he has had when playing here in Indy, such as hogging the ball and poor shooting.

            Unless you can argue that those are key issues with Lance that he has worked on and addressed since he's left Indy.....than it's going to be a valid reservation that we all have and why many here don't want to bring him back.
            Well, Lance is a career 45% shooter, which is better than most any wing on our team if I'm not mistaken(not looking at stats).

            His career 3 point shooting percentage is rough for sure, but outside of a year in Charlotte(which was clearly just a bad fit), he hasn't shot it under 35% since his last year here. Still only a years example, but played with 2 different teams with entirely different systems. I don't think its too much to say he has improved.

            Comment


            • Re: Return of Stepehson?

              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
              Well, Lance is a career 45% shooter, which is better than most any wing on our team if I'm not mistaken(not looking at stats).

              His career 3 point shooting percentage is rough for sure, but outside of a year in Charlotte(which was clearly just a bad fit), he hasn't shot it under 35% since his last year here. Still only a years example, but played with 2 different teams with entirely different systems. I don't think its too much to say he has improved.
              45% shooting is technically correct....but you have to break down his shots and where he takes them.

              The majority of his shots are "at the rim" where he does hit a high clip.....but anything beyond 3 feet to the 3pt line is still considered sub par and considered below average as a shooter ( NOTE - I am checking his stats off of http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2016/ for last season and see similar stats since he's left Indy ).

              Unless we have no concern about how he scores while ignoring the need to space the floor, his effectiveness on the scoring end is limited to him attacking the basket....everything else outside of the rim? He's still considered a mediocre shooter ( at best ).
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: Return of Stepehson?

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                45% shooting is technically correct....but you have to break down his shots and where he takes them.

                The majority of his shots are "at the rim" where he does hit a high clip.....but anything beyond 3 feet to the 3pt line is still considered sub par and considered below average as a shooter ( NOTE - I am checking his stats off of http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2016/ for last season and see similar stats since he's left Indy ).

                Unless we have no concern about how he scores while ignoring the need to space the floor, his effectiveness on the scoring end is limited to him attacking the basket....everything else outside of the rim? He's still considered a mediocre shooter ( at best ).
                But he shot over 38% from 3 last year. He had one horrendous year and now he's become a terrible shooter.

                I'm not saying the guy is Kyle Korver or that we don't need a SG who is a really accurate shooter. I'm saying I would prefer Lance on the team over Rodney Stuckey and CJ Miles by some distance. If we can acquire a great shooter, yes we need that more but the guy needs to do more than simply shoot the ball. Lance can do many things and detractors focus on the fact he only shoots 38% from 3. SMH.

                Edit: get a Danny Green and I'm fine with that. Good luck!

                Comment


                • Re: Return of Stepehson?

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  I'm not saying the guy is Kyle Korver or that we don't need a SG who is a really accurate shooter. I'm saying I would prefer Lance on the team over Rodney Stuckey and CJ Miles by some distance.
                  If I had to choose between Lance or Stuckey, I agree...I'd go with Lance. But my realistic answer is that we shouldn't have either in the lineup.

                  The problem is that although Lance does bring something else to the table that Stuckey doesn't ( as you suggest, rebounding and energy ), this doesn't change the concern that many have had here regarding why one of Monte or Stuckey SHOULD BE moved in the first place. We'd still have 3 ball dominant Guards ( not factoring in PG13 ) in the primary rotation.....whether it be Teague, Monta, Stuckey ( or Lance ); the same problem still exists.

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  But he shot over 38% from 3 last year. He had one horrendous year and now he's become a terrible shooter.
                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  If we can acquire a great shooter, yes we need that more but the guy needs to do more than simply shoot the ball. Lance can do many things and detractors focus on the fact he only shoots 38% from 3. SMH.
                  Although Lance did shoot the 3pt shot a lot better last season, I'd have to consider his performance in recent years ( Remember, Stuckey in his 1st season with the Pacers shot 39% from the 3pt line and than dropped back to his career average the next season to 24%. ) :

                  2012-2013 ( Indy ) : 33%
                  2013-2014 ( Indy ) : 35%
                  2014-2015 ( CHA ) : 17%
                  2015-2016 ( LAC - 43 games ) : 40%
                  2015-2016 ( MEM - 26 games ) : 35%
                  2015-2016 ( Total ) : 38%

                  3pt Shooting percentage over the last 4 seasons : 32%

                  Lance hasn't really shown to me that he's the needed floor spacer that we need that can effectively score the ball outside of the paint. I know that it's a matter of opinion, but IMHO he's an mediocre to average shooter ( at best ).

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Edit: get a Danny Green and I'm fine with that. Good luck!
                  I totally agree with you on this...we need another Danny in a Pacer uniform.
                  Last edited by CableKC; 06-30-2016, 04:44 PM.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Return of Stepehson?

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    If I had to choose between Lance or Stuckey, I agree...I'd go with Lance. But my realistic answer is that we shouldn't have either in the lineup.

                    The problem is that although Lance does bring something else to the table that Stuckey doesn't ( as you suggest, rebounding and energy ), this doesn't change the concern that many have had here regarding why one of Monte or Stuckey SHOULD BE moved in the first place. We'd still have 3 ball dominant Guards ( not factoring in PG13 ) in the primary rotation.....whether it be Teague, Monta, Stuckey ( or Lance ); the same problem still exists.




                    Although Lance did shoot the 3pt shot a lot better last season, I'd have to consider his performance in recent years ( Remember, Stuckey in his 1st season with the Pacers shot 39% from the 3pt line and than dropped back to his career average the next season to 24%. ) :

                    2012-2013 ( Indy ) : 33%
                    2013-2014 ( Indy ) : 35%
                    2014-2015 ( CHA ) : 17%
                    2015-2016 ( LAC - 43 games ) : 40%
                    2015-2016 ( MEM - 26 games ) : 35%
                    2015-2016 ( Total ) : 38%

                    3pt Shooting percentage over the last 4 seasons : 32%

                    Lance hasn't really shown to me that he's the needed floor spacer that we need that can effectively score the ball outside of the paint. I know that it's a matter of opinion, but IMHO he's an mediocre to average shooter ( at best ).


                    I totally agree with you on this...we need another Danny in a Pacer uniform.
                    Most stats people know you throw out the outliers like Lance's terrible showing in Charlotte. But besides that, he shot respectfully from range 2 of the last 3 years with his last season being his most accurate. Is it at all possible that maybe he's worked on his shot and gotten a little better?

                    I do understand his shot isn't pretty. It isn't textbook. But his median and most likely shooting this coming season will be 35% or higher based on the recent history. Keep in mind, shooting from 3 is hardly his strong suit. Here he gets ripped, on the weakest part of his game, even though he shot much better than Stuckey and Monta last year...and he shot better than the god-like sharp shooter, CJ freaking Miles. How could that be? Isn't that CJ's forte?

                    BTW, nobody is saying this team doesn't need better shooters. We've needed that since Danny Granger came up lame years ago. But a player like Lance who can rebound, assist, pressure the defense, play with toughness, etc...is A LOT better option than Stuckey and CJ and IMO he is better than Monta and certainly younger with more potential. Dude is only 25 and we need a starting SG.

                    BTW, let's dispel of this myth that Jeff Teague is a ball dominant PG. Just because he's not George Hill who hands off the ball at the centerline does NOT mean he's ball dominant. He's a typical PG. I think Pacer fans have forgotten what a real point looks like.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Return of Stepehson?

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Most stats people know you throw out the outliers like Lance's terrible showing in Charlotte. But besides that, he shot respectfully from range 2 of the last 3 years with his last season being his most accurate. Is it at all possible that maybe he's worked on his shot and gotten a little better?

                      I do understand his shot isn't pretty. It isn't textbook. But his median and most likely shooting this coming season will be 35% or higher based on the recent history. Keep in mind, shooting from 3 is hardly his strong suit. Here he gets ripped, on the weakest part of his game, even though he shot much better than Stuckey and Monta last year...and he shot better than the god-like sharp shooter, CJ freaking Miles. How could that be? Isn't that CJ's forte?

                      BTW, nobody is saying this team doesn't need better shooters. We've needed that since Danny Granger came up lame years ago. But a player like Lance who can rebound, assist, pressure the defense, play with toughness, etc...is A LOT better option than Stuckey and CJ and IMO he is better than Monta and certainly younger with more potential. Dude is only 25 and we need a starting SG.

                      BTW, let's dispel of this myth that Jeff Teague is a ball dominant PG. Just because he's not George Hill who hands off the ball at the centerline does NOT mean he's ball dominant. He's a typical PG. I think Pacer fans have forgotten what a real point looks like.
                      He also took far less threes than he had for the previous 3 seasons. I don't feel comfortable trusting his shot. Especially with his pretty poor defense, although he's at least opportunistic.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Return of Stepehson?

                        How in the is the season in Cha the outlier for Lance? Wouldn't the outlier be his final season here since he's never approached that level of production outside of that lone season?

                        Legit question

                        Comment


                        • Re: Return of Stepehson?

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          How in the is the season in Cha the outlier for Lance? Wouldn't the outlier be his final season here since he's never approached that level of production outside of that lone season?

                          Legit question
                          He never was bad in LA and he played well in Memphis.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Return of Stepehson?

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            How in the is the season in Cha the outlier for Lance? Wouldn't the outlier be his final season here since he's never approached that level of production outside of that lone season?

                            Legit question
                            Actually, in Memphis he exceeded his last year in Indy statistically in both the regular season and playoffs. Yes, it was only 30 total games but people around here give George hill God-like credit for his half season padding stats on a bad team. Also, he didn't shoot poorly in his 43 games in LA. He shot over 40% from 3 and nearly 50% from the floor. So, let's throw out his great season in Indiana and the terrible season and see what we have.

                            For his weakest skill, 3 point shooting, he shot 35.4% which so happens to be almost exactly what he shot in his great season. Fact is, Lance is a 35+% shooter from 3. That's not great. That's not terrible. It's probably average or thereabouts. But that's not even his game. I realize people want to ignore his other skills because they make him look better. But let's be a little objective. Lance is a 35% 3 point shooter. That's better than Stuckey. Better than Monta. Perhaps a shade lower than CJ Miles who has hardly any other skills.

                            and far exceeded in the playoffs. Charlotte was a unique situation where their PG and C totally dominated the ball. All they ran were PnR's to get Al Jefferson position in the post.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Return of Stepehson?

                              Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                              He never was bad in LA and he played well in Memphis.
                              That doesn't answer my question as to why his final season here is looked at as the norm as opposed to the outlier

                              Comment


                              • Re: Return of Stepehson?

                                Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                                He never was bad in LA and he played well in Memphis.
                                It's funny. People who detract from him cannot admit that. They can only point to a freak situation in Charlotte. He's shot in the 30's everywhere else and generally a bit better than 35%. But all of that gets lost because they simply do not want him in Indy. They will not credit him for glass work. They will not credit him for putting pressure on the D. They will not credit his point forward abilities, his ability to handle the rock against pressure. Recall when Chalmers pressures Hill who had to give it up to Lance to fend off the pesky defenders? Well, of course they don't remember that. It was blocked by the hate-filter.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X