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

Opinion, Please

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

  • #76
    Re: Opinion, Please

    I think that assuming the role of team leader and unquestioned go-to-guy on a team bereft of leadership is a factor not to be dismissed. I can see arguments for guys like Millsap or Durant, but Durant was ALREADY the go-to guy even as a rookie, and Millsap is still a complementary player. Jerry Sloan isn't dreaming up new plays for Millsap to win a game on their last posession.

    Danny thrived with added responsibilities, pressure, and added defensive attention as well. Some players get thrust into a bigger role and you find out why they were better in a more limited role, be it talent, confidence, or demeanor, they were a great 2nd option but can't be #1.

    I don't know who the other guys on your short list are, but I would compare not only their statistical gains but also their value as team leader.

    Jameer Nelson would have been my 1st choice, before his injury.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Opinion, Please

      To tie in the many responses since mine to what I was getting at, it is HOW Danny is scoring that marks his massive improvement this year.

      He's getting more FGAs because he's added a long list of shot types he can take and make. I mentioned stuff off the dribble in my first post, but let's also bear in mind how often he is hitting very closely guarded jump shots too.

      That's the sign of a star, a guy that will make shots even when defended. I don't think Danny was that guy even last year. It's one thing to camp the arc and drop 40% on open 3's, quite another to just raise up on a guy without a ball screen or even a dribble.

      Danny has effectively turned the 3pt line into a triple threat position for himself, somewhat like Dirk does.

      Danny's additions to his scoring arsenal is akin to Reggie adding/perfecting the floater. It meant that he could utilize his 3pt threat in a new way, going past guys for that midrange look. Danny has somehow found not just 1 or 2, but perhaps 5-6 shots that are new to his game, and he's making them.


      Harris has not done this. Harris was always this quick, always this capable for the most part, and was simply waiting to be unleashed. Many people nationally, and I agreed with them, questioned whether the Kidd for Harris trade was even a smart move by Dallas.

      Harris is perhaps a bit more assertive, but I sincerely don't see a huge change in who he is as a player. I don't feel like when you see him now you think "who is this guy". I think the scouting report on him from 2 years ago still applies quite a bit.

      With Danny I think you'd have to throw out even last year's scouting notes, let alone the book from 2 years ago.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Opinion, Please

        I think the last two posts make the strongest argument for Danny, and one thing to be noted on the "Team Leadership" aspect of all this is that Harris could still lean on Vince Carter while Danny has truly been going it alone all year. This team was essentially handed to Danny and he responded.
        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

        - ilive4sports

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Opinion, Please

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Dallas traded him for a 34-year old has been, and most people at the time thought DALLAS got the better end.

          Nobody saw im blowing up like this. Nobody. You figured his stats would go up a little because of playing a little more, but for him to develop into a top-5 PG? Absurd.
          I strongly disagree. Many people were questioning this. The people I heard praising it were people like Tony Kornheiser who don't follow the league as closely and knew Kidd as the famous guy in the deal. Most people saw it as identically disruptive and stupid as the Suns deal to get Shaq.

          Example - Marty Burns SI
          Now the Mavs have a legit answer in Kidd. Even at age 35 (in March), he remains one of the game's top point guards. His ability to run the break should provide another dimension to the Mavs' offense, while his defense (though in decline) and rebounding will be welcomed by coach Avery Johnson. Most important, Kidd will bring leadership and mental toughnes
          This is Kidd circa 2008, right?
          Harris is definitely a rising star whose up-tempo game should mesh nicely with Richard Jefferson and Vince Carter (provided the Nets hold onto those two stars). Harris, who turns 25 on Feb. 27, is just entering his prime and already is signed to a reasonable long-term deal (five years, $42 million) that kicks in next season. His scoring and assist averages have increased in each of his four seasons (14.4 ppg and 5.3 apg in 2007-08).
          Sounds like he was expected to have even more statistical success to me.


          As I dug through various blogs and articles from the time of the trade almost all of them read the same - Harris is great and is headed to stardom but Kidd is still awesome right now. At least the ones that didn't say the Mavs got fleeced.

          Success for the Mavs was based 100% on Kidd still being this AS awesome player who was just bored in NJ or something, rather than the truth which is that he had lost a step. People didn't think Harris wasn't going to improve, they just thought Kidd was still 2001 Kidd despite results suggesting strongly that this wasn't true.


          BTW, around PD most people thought Dallas screwed up royally at the time and plenty of people loved Harris in the deal as the big win for NJ.

          http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...ad.php?t=36954

          http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...d+harris+trade

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Opinion, Please

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            To tie in the many responses since mine to what I was getting at, it is HOW Danny is scoring that marks his massive improvement this year.
            We're talking bout the same Danny Granger that's averaging a career low %FG and a career high in turnovers...right?

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

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

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Opinion, Please

              All,

              I continue to appreciate the input, but I think some of you are missing the point.

              Whatever the expectations for a player might be are, in my opinion, irrelevant. To reiterate, this is NOT the "Most Surprising Player" Award, it's the Most Improved Player Award. Just because you expect a player to improve on what he did previously doesn't mean that it should go without recognition.

              KStat, you've captured my thoughts in a nutshell. While I've been very impressed with Danny's improvement in certain areas, the career low FG%, the fact that he's averaging a full rebound less per game than he did a year ago when logic suggests that just the opposite should be true, and his noticeable decline on the defensive end (hopefully this is temporary and he'll make improvements there next season and beyond) are factors that, at least in my view, weigh strongly against his candidacy.

              Good stuff. If anyone has anything we haven't touched on, fire away. I will cast my ballots for all NBA awards towards the end of next week.

              MJB

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Opinion, Please

                Well, I can respect that opinion. It just seems to me that you're using one or two things to nitpick on what was otherwise a completely excellent season that exceeded any and all expectations that anyone could have ever had of him. The one less rebound and slightly lower fg% in my opinion are FAR outweighed by the fact that he stepped into a leadership role, provided toughness that this team lacked, and greatly improved his clutch play, and did it all in addition to yet another huge statistical increase in more than one category.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Opinion, Please

                  When you look at the different role that Danny has and the added depth to the front court there is no wonder why his rebounds have diminished. Even so, if Danny's pro is that he does not have the weapons that Devin have, he should therefore, produce greater in more areas than scoring. I would say that his turnovers and percentage would be better with a Carter or even a healthy Dunleavy. While his turnovers are up, so is his assist-turnover ratio (fractionally noted).But his rebounds and defense should not go down. But are these numbers due to circumstance? How well did the Pacers shoot and play defense when Danny was not on the court? How were the assist to turnover ratio? Granted when Danny came back it seemed that Daniels and Murphy (for a few games) were out, but something tells me that Danny could assert himself on both ends in better ways.

                  But Devin's numbers show inconsistency majorly. When Devin is on, he is on, when he is off he is really off. Look Devin's efficiency this year is down from his career averages.

                  FG%- Career .458 This year .441
                  3pt%- Career .314 This year . 299 http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/player...?playerId=2382

                  Devin has taken more shots than last year with the Nets (12.2 last year 15.5 this year). Why is that? Could the abstence of yet another All-star in Richard Jefferson help in that improvement. Add to the fact that Vince's 3pt% and turnovers have improved suggests that Vince intiates less on offense and recieves more. Thus the increase in assists. Add a front court presence like Lopez and Devin's stats seem more improved because of his role and team make up, then Danny's improvement due to his role and team make up.


                  Devin Harris has improved his assists and such but his January hurt the teams chances in the playoff hunt. Was he hurt?

                  By MonthGMINFGM-FGAFG%3PM-3PA3P%FTM-FTAFT%STLBLKTOPFOFFDEFTOTASTPTS
                  October 1 31.0 5.0-10.0 50.000 0.0-1.0 .000 3.0-4.0 75.000 1.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 13.0
                  November 12 36.6 7.7-15.8 48.677 0.8-2.3 .321 10.3-12.5 82.000 1.33 0.08 2.1 3.1 0.8 2.8 3.6 6.5 26.3
                  December 16 36.8 6.8-15.7 43.426 1.1-3.2 .333 7.6-8.9 85.211 1.88 0.19 3.0 1.8 0.6 2.3 2.9 6.5 22.3
                  January 13 34.0 5.5-14.2 38.919 0.7-2.7 .257 4.8-6.5 74.118 1.69 0.31 3.5 1.7 0.2 2.8 2.9 6.4 16.6
                  February 10 38.3 7.9-17.3 45.665 1.8-4.8 .375 8.1-9.5 85.263 1.40 0.40 2.9 3.3 0.5 3.1 3.6 7.1 25.7
                  March 11 37.5 6.6-15.5 42.690 0.9-4.3 .213 7.5-9.1 82.000 1.91 0.09 3.9 2.0 0.4 3.5 3.9 9.2 21.6
                  April 1 39.0 6.0-10.0 60.000 0.0-1.0 .000 7.0-9.0 77.778 4.00 0.00 5.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 11.0 19.0

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Opinion, Please

                    I think the knock on Granger shooting a lower overall FG% is a little exaggerated because he's taken more threes than last season. His overall FG% may be lower but his 3-pt and FT percentage has improved.

                    If we're going to point out the negatives in Danny's game, shouldn't we do the same with the other contenders?

                    Devin Harris' 3-pt percentage has shrunk to a measly 29% (down 6 points from his previous best) this season and he's averaging a career high in turnovers. I'm very surprised that he's degressed that much from behind the arc but I think the increase in turnovers is natural because of the increased opportunities of having the ball in his hands. Even with that caveat, Harris' assists have hardly increased (from 5.9 to 7.1 but he averaged 6.5 last season after the trade to NJ) and actually his Assist-to-Turnover ratio (ranked 37th in the league) is worse this season than last.

                    Devin's main increase has been his scoring - just like Danny. He only shoots 44% from the field and he's not a threat from behind the arc like Danny is. He also has the benefit of playing with Vince Carter to take some of the opponent's defensive pressure off of him - a benefit Danny doesn't have.

                    You can make a really good argument for either Harris or Granger but IMO, Danny has improved the most from last season to now.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Opinion, Please

                      Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                      All,

                      I continue to appreciate the input, but I think some of you are missing the point.

                      Whatever the expectations for a player might be are, in my opinion, irrelevant. To reiterate, this is NOT the "Most Surprising Player" Award, it's the Most Improved Player Award. Just because you expect a player to improve on what he did previously doesn't mean that it should go without recognition.

                      KStat, you've captured my thoughts in a nutshell. While I've been very impressed with Danny's improvement in certain areas, the career low FG%, the fact that he's averaging a full rebound less per game than he did a year ago when logic suggests that just the opposite should be true, and his noticeable decline on the defensive end (hopefully this is temporary and he'll make improvements there next season and beyond) are factors that, at least in my view, weigh strongly against his candidacy.

                      Good stuff. If anyone has anything we haven't touched on, fire away. I will cast my ballots for all NBA awards towards the end of next week.

                      MJB


                      I think the low fg percentage is a little blown out of proportion. Danny was shooting a much better FG percentage before the injured knee when he was limping around the court. Coming back from that injury, he was shooting terrible and just wasnt making his normal shots. If he didnt have to play multiple games before the all star break with the hurt knee, his fg percentage would most likely be up much higher.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Opinion, Please

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        We're talking bout the same Danny Granger that's averaging a career low %FG and a career high in turnovers...right?
                        Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                        All,

                        I continue to appreciate the input, but I think some of you are missing the point.

                        Whatever the expectations for a player might be are, in my opinion, irrelevant. To reiterate, this is NOT the "Most Surprising Player" Award, it's the Most Improved Player Award. Just because you expect a player to improve on what he did previously doesn't mean that it should go without recognition.

                        KStat, you've captured my thoughts in a nutshell. While I've been very impressed with Danny's improvement in certain areas, the career low FG%, the fact that he's averaging a full rebound less per game than he did a year ago when logic suggests that just the opposite should be true, and his noticeable decline on the defensive end (hopefully this is temporary and he'll make improvements there next season and beyond) are factors that, at least in my view, weigh strongly against his candidacy.

                        Good stuff. If anyone has anything we haven't touched on, fire away. I will cast my ballots for all NBA awards towards the end of next week.

                        MJB
                        Yes, but we're really talking about the same Danny Granger who also has career highs in per game averages for the following:

                        Points
                        Assist
                        Blocks

                        as well as

                        %3FG
                        %FT

                        In direct answer to your direct comments, I'd also mention that Devin Harris is averaging a career low FG% and a career high in TO's as well.

                        Turnovers (Play Making)

                        Regarding the TO's, they are up on a PG average from 2.1 to 2.5, that is largely because he's actually handling the ball more. BBR.com normalizes this stat with TO%, which is effectively TO's per 100 possessions. While Danny's per game is a career high, his TO% is a career low 10.3, compared to 11.1, 11.9, and 12.8 going sequentially back to his rookie year.

                        Another indicator of his increased number of chances with the ball are his assists. Not only are they a career high 2.9 (topping last year's 2.1), his AST% (Assists per 100 possessions) are also a career high 14.1. From this year to last, on a per-100 possession basis, Danny has improved his A% to TO% ratio from 0.86:1 to 1.37:1, a 60% improvement.

                        One last note on Turnovers: Danny has improved on this throughout the year. He averaged 3.0 in 28 games prior to the first of the year, but only 2.0 in 32 games since. His monthly averages (sequentially, Nov to Mar) were 4.00, 3.29, 2.69, 1.75, 2.00, 2.63. They have spiked again since returning from injury, but they remain below even December numbers.

                        For balance, Devin Harris is also posting career bests in A% and TO%, and his ratio is 2.57:1, up 35% from 1.91:1 last season. However, it should also be noted that these numbers this year are not as big of an improvement over the 25 games he played with the Nets last year. During that span, he posted a ratio of 2.14:1, so this season's ratio is only up 20% on that.

                        Mark,

                        You mention, along with Kstat, three key things: FG%, Rebounding, & Defense.

                        Shooting

                        FG% is a career low, but again a deeper dive shows some differences. As noted above, his 3pt% is a career high. His eFG% (which factors in 3's) is down slightly from last years .517 to .511. However, he is posting a career high in TS% (which adds 3's & FT's) of .577, up from last year's .571. Also, his Pts/FGA are a career high 1.33, and up from last year's 1.30. To me this collection indicates that he's shot slightly worse this year, primarily due to a slight decline in 2ptFG% from .468 to .456. However, he's actually become a more efficient scorer.

                        Again, for balance, let's discuss comparable numbers for Harris. As noted above, Harris' .441 is a career low and, as it is down from last season's .463, it represents a much steeper decline than Danny's drop. (However, it is up slightly from the .438 posted during the 25-games in NJ.) His eFG% is also down correspondingly from .504 to .473, (NJ08 games: .489) and his TS% is down from .573 to .568 (though it's up from the .548 in NJ last year). Like Danny, his Pts/FGA are a career high at 1.43, up from last years 1.37.

                        Comparing the two straight up indicates that Danny is a better shooter, while Harris is a more efficient scorer. However, from an improvement standpoint, Harris made more efficiency improvements, 4% vs. 2%, but it would be inappropriate to penalize Danny for his decline in shooting. If you're debating for MIP between Harris and Granger, while both have declined, Harris' backslide has been more pronounced in this area. (Durant just murders both of them in this area, posting huge improvements in shooting numbers and efficiency.)

                        Rebounding

                        Regarding the rebounding, my take has been that Danny is simply not asked to rebound. He posted his highest per 36 rebound numbers his rookie year, playing in a slower system and seeing a not insignificant amount of time at the 4. In the three succeeding years, he's become increasingly more of a perimeter player.

                        If you look at the team as a whole, it has become a better rebounding team in every regard: PG 43.5 vs. 43.1, % of Total 49.6% vs. 48.6%, ORB % - .253 vs. .244, DRB % - .747 vs. .739. Much of this has been due the emergence of Troy, who's collected a quarter of the Pacers' rebounds this season. Danny's 1 rebound decline is more or less evenly split between ORB & DRB, but the ORB are down 33%. This could easily be reflective of more perimeter play (78% jumpers vs. 74% jumpers per 82game), more shots he is taking (up 3 per game), and increased defensive attention.

                        While the fact that it has to be explained will certainly hurt his case with the casual observer, I think the drop is less reflective of any decline in Danny's rebounding ability and more reflective of an evolution in both the team, and Danny's responsibilities within it.

                        Defense

                        This is a difficult argument to refute, because I think Danny is basically a middle-of-the-road defender. While it has been advanced in some quarters throughout his career that he is a good-to-very-good defensive player, I have never agreed. He has the physical attributes to be good, and he has on occasion been tenacious. However, he is, and always has been, sloppy and impatient, often exhibiting both poor judgment and poor technique.

                        My view is that he has become a better shot blocker this year, but his overall defense is basically the same as it has always been. I do not consider him to have declined.

                        There are no touchstone comprehensive defensive metrics that can be relied on for the basis of evaluation. BBR.com has Defensive Rating, which is a *******ization of the team Points/100 possessions concept, but I would caution you that the numbers I'm about to use are for relative reference only. I don't put a great deal of stock in them as true measures.

                        In any case, Danny's DRtg is 108 this year, which is a career worst, and higher than the 107 he posted each of the last two years. Comparatively, Harris' 112 is also the worst of his career and is up from the 108 recorded for 2007-2008. (For reference, Derrick McKey posted a career 107, with 104, 105, 107, 105, 101, 103, 101, and 101 during his years here. Artest has a career 102, with 108 last year and 106 this.)

                        On defense, it really requires watching intently. I have watched the games, and given my basic assessment of "no change". I will defer to you on this, however, as your eye is probably more practiced and astute than mine. Also, I assume you have access to smarter basketball people than me (Slick, the Coaching Staff, that cute receptionist down the hall, the guy who delivers the copy paper...), and will be able to make that judgment.

                        However, I would also ask if it is not unfair to judge Danny on this "softer" metric without judging the other candidates as well. I simply have not seen Harris enough to come to an informed decision on what he had done on the defensive end. In other words, even if I were to acknowledge that Danny has declined defensively, I would need to understand how that decline is relative to the other's performances. As with the shooting above, Danny was down, but nowhere near as much as Harris.

                        This is one area where familiarity may be breeding some undue contempt.

                        Conclusion (Wake Up! It's almost over.)

                        I know I focused on Harris, but that's because I started this journey many moons ago in response to Kstat's one liner, and his earlier expression of support for him. However, stepping back to include Durant changes things a bit.

                        On a strict statistical basis, Durant wins this argument. He has improved in basically every measurable category. In some cases, the improvements are just as, if not more dramatic than those achieved by Harris or our Mr. Granger.

                        If that were my sole basis, I would probably rank them:

                        1. Durant
                        2. Granger
                        3. Harris.

                        However, statistics never tell the whole story. I think the improvements of all three are stunning. They each should be incredibly proud, and their fan bases should be thrilled to have these guys. Also, there's largely a give and take about the statistical improvements, and it's difficult to create a huge separation between the three.

                        Therefore, I would vote for Danny because he's demonstrated improvements on paper that are easily comparable to the other candidates, and he has, IMO, made a huge evolution in terms of his stature in the league, the franchise, and more importantly, the community.

                        Whichever one wins this will be a greatly deserving winner. By the same token, the losers will feel rightfully that it should have been them. Since all things seem to be largely equal to me, Danny it is.

                        Is there a little homer in that? Yup...but there's also a ton of merit in voting for Danny.
                        Last edited by count55; 04-03-2009, 11:51 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Opinion, Please

                          Originally posted by count55 View Post
                          Yes, but we're really talking about the same Danny Granger who also has career highs in per game averages for the following:

                          Points
                          Assist
                          Blocks

                          as well as

                          %3FG
                          %FT

                          In direct answer to your direct comments, I'd also mention that Devin Harris is averaging a career low FG% and a career high in TO's as well.

                          Turnovers (Play Making)

                          Regarding the TO's, they are up on a PG average from 2.1 to 2.5, that is largely because he's actually handling the ball more. BBR.com normalizes this stat with TO%, which is effectively TO's per 100 possessions. While Danny's per game is a career high, his TO% is a career low 10.3, compared to 11.1, 11.9, and 12.8 going sequentially back to his rookie year.

                          Another indicator of his increased number of chances with the ball are his assists. Not only are they a career high 2.9 (topping last year's 2.1), his AST% (Assists per 100 possessions) are also a career high 14.1. From this year to last, on a per-100 possession basis, Danny has improved his A% to TO% ratio from 0.86:1 to 1.37:1, a 60% improvement.

                          One last note on Turnovers: Danny has improved on this throughout the year. He averaged 3.0 in 28 games prior to the first of the year, but only 2.0 in 32 games since. His monthly averages (sequentially, Nov to Mar) were 4.00, 3.29, 2.69, 1.75, 2.00, 2.63. They have spiked again since returning from injury, but they remain below even December numbers.

                          For balance, Devin Harris is also posting career bests in A% and TO%, and his ratio is 2.57:1, up 35% from 1.91:1 last season. However, it should also be noted that these numbers this year are not as big of an improvement over the 25 games he played with the Nets last year. During that span, he posted a ratio of 2.14:1, so this season's ratio is only up 20% on that.

                          Mark,

                          You mention, along with Kstat, three key things: FG%, Rebounding, & Defense.

                          Shooting

                          FG% is a career low, but again a deeper dive shows some differences. As noted above, his 3pt% is a career high. His eFG% (which factors in 3's) is down slightly from last years .517 to .511. However, he is posting a career high in TS% (which adds 3's & FT's) of .577, up from last year's .571. Also, his Pts/FGA are a career high 1.33, and up from last year's 1.30. To me this collection indicates that he's shot slightly worse this year, primarily due to a slight decline in 2ptFG% from .468 to .456. However, he's actually become a more efficient scorer.

                          Again, for balance, let's discuss comparable numbers for Harris. As noted above, Harris' .441 is a career low and, as it is down from last season's .463, it represents a much steeper decline than Danny's drop. (However, it is up slightly from the .438 posted during the 25-games in NJ.) His eFG% is also down correspondingly from .504 to .473, (NJ08 games: .489) and his TS% is down from .573 to .568 (though it's up from the .548 in NJ last year). Like Danny, his Pts/FGA are a career high at 1.43, up from last years 1.37.

                          Comparing the two straight up indicates that Danny is a better shooter, while Harris is a more efficient scorer. However, from an improvement standpoint, Harris made more efficiency improvements, 4% vs. 2%, but it would be inappropriate to penalize Danny for his decline in shooting. If you're debating for MIP between Harris and Granger, while both have declined, Harris' backslide has been more pronounced in this area. (Durant just murders both of them in this area, posting huge improvements in shooting numbers and efficiency.)

                          Rebounding

                          Regarding the rebounding, my take has been that Danny is simply not asked to rebound. He posted his highest per 36 rebound numbers his rookie year, playing in a slower system and seeing a not insignificant amount of time at the 4. In the three succeeding years, he's become increasingly more of a perimeter player.

                          If you look at the team as a whole, it has become a better rebounding team in every regard: PG 43.5 vs. 43.1, % of Total 49.6% vs. 48.6%, ORB % - .253 vs. .244, DRB % - .747 vs. .739. Much of this has been due the emergence of Troy, who's collected a quarter of the Pacers' rebounds this season. Danny's 1 rebound decline is more or less evenly split between ORB & DRB, but the ORB are down 33%. This could easily be reflective of more perimeter play (78% jumpers vs. 74% jumpers per 82game), more shots he is taking (up 3 per game), and increased defensive attention.

                          While the fact that it has to be explained will certainly hurt his case with the casual observer, I think the drop is less reflective of any decline in Danny's rebounding ability and more reflective of an evolution in both the team, and Danny's responsibilities within it.

                          Defense

                          This is a difficult argument to refute, because I think Danny is basically a middle-of-the-road defender. While it has been advanced in some quarters throughout his career that he is a good-to-very-good defensive player, I have never agreed. He has the physical attributes to be good, and he has on occasion been tenacious. However, he is, and always has been, sloppy and impatient, often exhibiting both poor judgment and poor technique.

                          My view is that he has become a better shot blocker this year, but his overall defense is basically the same as it has always been. I do not consider him to have declined.

                          There are no touchstone comprehensive defensive metrics that can be relied on for the basis of evaluation. BBR.com has Defensive Rating, which is a *******ization of the team Points/100 possessions concept, but I would caution you that the numbers I'm about to use are for relative reference only. I don't put a great deal of stock in them as true measures.

                          In any case, Danny's DRtg is 108 this year, which is a career worst, and higher than the 107 he posted each of the last two years. Comparatively, Harris' 112 is also the worst of his career and is up from the 108 recorded for 2007-2008. (For reference, Derrick McKey posted a career 107, with 104, 105, 107, 105, 101, 103, 101, and 101 during his years here. Artest has a career 102, with 108 last year and 106 this.)

                          On defense, it really requires watching intently. I have watched the games, and given my basic assessment of "no change". I will defer to you on this, however, as your eye is probably more practiced and astute than mine. Also, I assume you have access to smarter basketball people than me (Slick, the Coaching Staff, that cute receptionist down the hall, the guy who delivers the copy paper...), and will be able to make that judgment.

                          However, I would also ask if it is not unfair to judge Danny on this "softer" metric without judging the other candidates as well. I simply have not seen Harris enough to come to an informed decision on what he had done on the defensive end. In other words, even if I were to acknowledge that Danny has declined defensively, I would need to understand how that decline is relative to the other's performances. As with the shooting above, Danny was down, but nowhere near as much as Harris.

                          This is one area where familiarity may be breeding some undue contempt.

                          Conclusion (Wake Up! It's almost over.)

                          I know I focused on Harris, but that's because I started this journey many moons ago in response to Kstat's one liner, and his earlier expression of support for him. However, stepping back to include Durant changes things a bit.

                          On a strict statistical basis, Durant wins this argument. He has improved in basically every measurable category. In some cases, the improvements are just as, if not more dramatic than those achieved by Harris or our Mr. Granger.

                          If that were my sole basis, I would probably rank them:

                          1. Durant
                          2. Granger
                          3. Harris.

                          However, statistics never tell the whole story. I think the improvements of all three are stunning. They each should be incredibly proud, and their fan bases should be thrilled to have these guys. Also, there's largely a give and take about the statistical improvements, and it's difficult to create a huge separation between the three.

                          Therefore, I would vote for Danny because he's demonstrated improvements on paper that are easily comparable to the other candidates, and he has, IMO, made a huge evolution in terms of his stature in the league, the franchise, and more importantly, the community.

                          Whichever one wins this will be a greatly deserving winner. By the same token, the losers will feel rightfully that it should have been them. Since all things seem to be largely equal to me, Danny it is.

                          Is there a little homer in that? Yup...but there's also a ton of merit in voting for Danny.
                          check mate

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Opinion, Please

                            It's a very good post, count, but I have the feeling a few one-liners will be dropped and be considered all it takes to negate all you have said. I hope I'm wrong.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Opinion, Please

                              Flare>>>>>Logic on Forums. Although count's thread had flare in the logic.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Opinion, Please

                                well someone is pushing hard for the MIP this year and might even be in the running for my MVP this year.

                                (and by p i mean poster)

                                Great post Count.
                                Play Mafia!
                                Twitter

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X