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

Foster's shooting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Foster's shooting

    Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
    It feels like some posters are taking criticism of Foster personally.
    I don't know what else it could be.


    Originally posted by unclebuck
    Some of you might think we have beaten this topic to death - but I think this is probably one of the better threads we've had in this forum in quite some time.

    I partially agree.

    If you watch the game tonight, look hard at Foster's patience and footwork. I guarantee that if he doesn't rush, he will make his putbacks. If he does, he won't.

    Comment


    • Re: Foster's shooting

      The substance of this thread is Jeff missing bunnies, so much that it is in general terms called "to foster".

      Now over December, not all his attempts come from OR's some come from Ast as well.

      v Sonics; no OR 1-1 so we can assume on ast.
      v Nuggets; 3-12 + 2-2 FT 12 OR
      v Lakers; 1-1 + 2-4 FT 1 OR
      v Magic 4-9 + 0-1 FT 7 OR
      v Portland 1-4 + 1-1 FT 8 OR
      v Cavs 2-2 2 OR
      v Bulls 1-2 + 1-2FT 0 OR
      v Pistons 1-4 + 2-2 FT 3 OR
      v Knicks 2-9 + 2-5 FT 7 OR
      v Jazz 0-3 + 3-4 FT 5 OR
      v 76ers 3-3 + 2-2 FT 3 OR

      Jeff went 19-50 in this period or 0.380 over the month.
      Considering that the biggest distance from the basket Jeff takes a "shot" from is 1ft it is clear that he is (ove the month of December up and until now) missing a lot of "bunnies".

      Now is this costing games? no but it surely is not contributing to winning either.

      Is this bashing Jeff ? no it is concluding from facts. I still love his hustle and the rebounding and defense he brings, like Nappie says, the lineup WITH JEFF FOSTER is BETTER then the other ones we tried.

      But he still misses a hell of a lot of bunnies.
      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

      Comment


      • Re: Foster's shooting

        If he were as authoritative in slamming bunnies as the guy in this picture, we wouldn't have any problems.

        http://www.duke.edu/~vci/Bunnies.bmp

        (Yes, it's work appropriate.)
        Narf!

        Comment


        • Re: Foster's shooting

          Originally posted by able View Post
          The substance of this thread is Jeff missing bunnies, so much that it is in general terms called "to foster".

          Now over December, not all his attempts come from OR's some come from Ast as well.

          v Sonics; no OR 1-1 so we can assume on ast.
          v Nuggets; 3-12 + 2-2 FT 12 OR
          v Lakers; 1-1 + 2-4 FT 1 OR
          v Magic 4-9 + 0-1 FT 7 OR
          v Portland 1-4 + 1-1 FT 8 OR
          v Cavs 2-2 2 OR
          v Bulls 1-2 + 1-2FT 0 OR
          v Pistons 1-4 + 2-2 FT 3 OR
          v Knicks 2-9 + 2-5 FT 7 OR
          v Jazz 0-3 + 3-4 FT 5 OR
          v 76ers 3-3 + 2-2 FT 3 OR

          Jeff went 19-50 in this period or 0.380 over the month.
          Considering that the biggest distance from the basket Jeff takes a "shot" from is 1ft it is clear that he is (ove the month of December up and until now) missing a lot of "bunnies".

          Now is this costing games? no but it surely is not contributing to winning either.

          Is this bashing Jeff ? no it is concluding from facts. I still love his hustle and the rebounding and defense he brings, like Nappie says, the lineup WITH JEFF FOSTER is BETTER then the other ones we tried.

          But he still misses a hell of a lot of bunnies.

          I've never disputed Jeff missing bunnies is a headache. It tees me off every time he puts a bunny back up and misses. He either shoots it too quick to prevent a block or puts it up too hard off the glass. Yes, you would think he indeed should be able to make them at a much higher percentage. I'm sure he's aware of it and it bothers him more than it does us fans.

          I bristled at this post because I could sense a sincere dislike for Jeff from some posters. Not the majority, but a few.

          A lot of things aggravate me about the Pacers, but I try to look on the positive side and not dwell on the negatives. It pissses me off when we're clanking the ft's at a 55% clip some nights. I think that our players can practice their ft's as much as Jeff does his bunnies. At least the ft's aren't contested and there isn't much reason for missing much more than 20%.

          I'm not trying to be confrontational, I don't believe. I'm merely pointing out that you have to take Jeff's 2 missed shots a game in stride and don't blow them out of proportion like some posters have.
          .

          Comment


          • Re: Foster's shooting

            Originally posted by Robobtowncolt View Post
            If he were as authoritative in slamming bunnies as the guy in this picture, we wouldn't have any problems.

            http://www.duke.edu/~vci/Bunnies.bmp

            (Yes, it's work appropriate.)

            Now, that's funny.
            .

            Comment


            • Re: Foster's shooting

              Originally posted by Robobtowncolt View Post
              If he were as authoritative in slamming bunnies as the guy in this picture, we wouldn't have any problems.

              http://www.duke.edu/~vci/Bunnies.bmp

              (Yes, it's work appropriate.)
              So you think it's cool to pick on bunnies, huh? Okay. Now this is happening....

              www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnXR5Baq0X8

              Don't say I didn't warn you.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • Re: Foster's shooting

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                Some of you might think we have beaten this topic to death - but I think this is probably one of the better threads we've had in this forum in quite some time.

                UB, I agree, even though I am a newby. One thing for certain if everone agreed all of the time it would get pretty boring around here.

                Comment


                • Re: Foster's shooting

                  Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                  So you think it's cool to pick on bunnies, huh? Okay. Now this is happening....

                  www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnXR5Baq0X8

                  Don't say I didn't warn you.
                  Baxter!!! NOOOOOOOO...........

                  You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Foster's shooting

                    Just when you thought this was over, Wells stirs the pot in this morning's Star.......

                    PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                    Comment


                    • Re: Foster's shooting

                      You do know they read this board for ideas. Certainly some of Kravitz' columns come straight from these posts. These writers are just guilty of out and out plagarism

                      Comment


                      • Re: Foster's shooting

                        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                        You do know they read this board for ideas. Certainly some of Kravitz' columns come straight from these posts. These writers are just guilty of out and out plagarism

                        I'm a newbie on this forum, but I've seen Kravitz write columns 2 or 3 times on exactly what was being said on the Indy Star forum. Some of the lines he used were almost verbatim.
                        .

                        Comment


                        • Re: Foster's shooting

                          Originally posted by Roferr View Post
                          I'm a newbie on this forum, but I've seen Kravitz write columns 2 or 3 times on exactly what was being said on the Indy Star forum. Some of the lines he used were almost verbatim.
                          Yeah. At times I've thought "hey cool, they notice", but then I consider the amount of effort I put in to some of this stuff and realize that other posters are too and I think "man, do your own work".

                          Then again, maybe some things just obviously jump out.

                          Or is it that Wells is also anti-Jeff?

                          I can point you to a much more common denominator.
                          "A"? Just one? And I wonder who that is? Maybe PD people don't know that you are a devout Jack hater who spent most of your first month at Star exclusively discussing how he was ruining the team.


                          See, this is what bugs me. You and Dillon rush in to save Foster from assult even though no one is blaming him for the losses, just discussing an odd flaw in his game (most inside PFs don't shoot so poorly, including him normally). You then accuse myself and apparently some other posters of being anti-Foster. Dillon even points out that I spread this view everywhere (I don't of course).

                          Yet ironically both of you strongly feel that by far the critical flaw is Jackson and that he is to blame for nearly everything that is currently wrong with the team. It goes beyond just not caring for his game like many PD posters feel, it goes to struggling to accept when he contributes in a positive way, and even worse getting really worked up if any other flaws on the team are pointed out, like Granger or Jeff.


                          I only talk about Jeff and Danny in a negative when they get the "they can do no wrong" comments, just as I only talk about Jack when he gets a "he can do no right" comment. Neither of those things are realistic in the least.

                          And in this case I wasn't even trying to trash out Jeff, I was just talking about an extremely ugly bunny-slump. You think Jeff hasn't noticed it too? I'm sure he and the team have noticed. And I'm sure he's frustrated by it.

                          Plus it's pretty pathetic that you and Dillon DID NOT rush in to protect Tinsley from the same criticism when I mentioned it. I wish I could say I wonder why that is, but I know why it is. You don't like Jack or Tins, or even JO all that much, so any criticism of them is acceptable.

                          From my initial post...
                          His shooting makes Tinsley's December effort look good...and it's not. Both of them have been the kings of the blown 1 foot attempt.
                          See the point, you didn't say a single word to defend Tinsley's layup misses. And before you cite ALL his misses, I'm only talking about his 1 foot misses, a shot he misses no more than Foster does. Tinsley's total misses come from all over the place, but primarily from 10 foot lane floaters and long jumpers. He just also misses close shots that he needs to be making, not the same as shots that you'd like to see him hit but accept that they are going to get missed too.

                          So where was your rush to say "come on, Tinsley's missed layups aren't costing the team, why attack him?"




                          Buck - I do agree that the general discussion has been interesting and goes beyond just Jeff in December to the value of stats or how much little things do or don't impact a game.

                          I think most of us have seen those little moments where a simple play suddenly changes the entire tone of a game. I use stats to back up opinions, but I first form the opinions from what I watch.

                          Gnome and I discussed the Foster misses at the Jazz game BEFORE I saw the December stats, and I wasn't even looking at those numbers for this point. I stumbled onto it while looking at other stuff.

                          The point is that stats can verify that a guy missed a lot or had a bunch of steals, etc, but that in the context of the game the moments that add up to that total have widely varying impacts.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Foster's shooting

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Yeah. At times I've thought "hey cool, they notice", but then I consider the amount of effort I put in to some of this stuff and realize that other posters are too and I think "man, do your own work".

                            Then again, maybe some things just obviously jump out.

                            Or is it that Wells is also anti-Jeff?


                            "A"? Just one? And I wonder who that is? Maybe PD people don't know that you are a devout Jack hater who spent most of your first month at Star exclusively discussing how he was ruining the team.


                            See, this is what bugs me. You and Dillon rush in to save Foster from assult even though no one is blaming him for the losses, just discussing an odd flaw in his game (most inside PFs don't shoot so poorly, including him normally). You then accuse myself and apparently some other posters of being anti-Foster. Dillon even points out that I spread this view everywhere (I don't of course).

                            Yet ironically both of you strongly feel that by far the critical flaw is Jackson and that he is to blame for nearly everything that is currently wrong with the team. It goes beyond just not caring for his game like many PD posters feel, it goes to struggling to accept when he contributes in a positive way, and even worse getting really worked up if any other flaws on the team are pointed out, like Granger or Jeff.


                            I only talk about Jeff and Danny in a negative when they get the "they can do no wrong" comments, just as I only talk about Jack when he gets a "he can do no right" comment. Neither of those things are realistic in the least.

                            And in this case I wasn't even trying to trash out Jeff, I was just talking about an extremely ugly bunny-slump. You think Jeff hasn't noticed it too? I'm sure he and the team have noticed. And I'm sure he's frustrated by it.

                            Plus it's pretty pathetic that you and Dillon DID NOT rush in to protect Tinsley from the same criticism when I mentioned it. I wish I could say I wonder why that is, but I know why it is. You don't like Jack or Tins, or even JO all that much, so any criticism of them is acceptable.




                            Buck - I do agree that the general discussion has been interesting and goes beyond just Jeff in December to the value of stats or how much little things do or don't impact a game.

                            I think most of us have seen those little moments where a simple play suddenly changes the entire tone of a game. I use stats to back up opinions, but I first form the opinions from what I watch.

                            Gnome and I discussed the Foster misses at the Jazz game BEFORE I saw the December stats, and I wasn't even looking at those numbers for this point. I stumbled onto it while looking at other stuff.

                            The point is that stats can verify that a guy missed a lot or had a bunch of steals, etc, but that in the context of the game the moments that add up to that total have widely varying impacts.

                            Now, there you go again, Seth. I haven't said a negative word about Jax for about 4-5 weeks. Instead, I've even made several posts where I give him props. So your statement about me blaming him for anything going wrong currently is way off base. So, I wish you'd be more sincere in your postings.

                            I'll admit I criticize Jax quite a bit, but not lately. He's been playing good ball and I've said so. The same as I'll do when he stinks the place up.

                            As far as running to Tinsley's aid, the post was about Foster. You briefly mention Tins, but don't go on an in depth analysis.

                            Now, who in the hell is Dillon? Are you talking about the guy who use to post on the Pacer's forum? As far as I'm concerned, I haven't seen him in months. I thought he was history.

                            When have you seen me criticize JO? How in the hell do you know I don't like JO? It's certainly not from my posts. Now as far as Tinsley, I've written very few posts about him either way, other than in trade talks. If you say that I've trashed JO and Tins, you would be lying.

                            You see me posting usually in a positive manner about Daniels, Granger, Runi, Baston and DA. Just because I'm not a Jax fan, doesn't give you the liberty to invent things that I've said. You've never seen me duck an issue, either. If I've said it, I'll readily admit it.

                            Say something negative about JO or Tins that isn't true and I'll be on you in a NY minute calling you on it. The same holds true for any other player. If you post an opinion or a stretched version of the truth in a negative way, I'll take up for that player. You just seem to concentrate on my posts of Jax when he WAS stinking it up. Even you have to admit, that he's playing the best ball that he has in two seasons.
                            .

                            Comment


                            • Re: Foster's shooting

                              Well, Jeff did nothing to really prove my point last night. His one putback was rushed but he made it, and he was passing out to his teammates off of boards.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Foster's shooting

                                More proof Foster is critical to this team with 16 boards.

                                We are 2-8 in games Foster played LESS than 20 minutes.
                                We are now 13-5 in games Foster has played MORE than 20 minutes.

                                Take him away and teams will own the paint.

                                The ONLY teams we have lost to when Foster played more than 20 minutes are good teams: Orlando, NJ, Denver, Chicago, Cleveland

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X