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

11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

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

  • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

    Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
    I think the lineup that cut deep into the lead was:

    Dahntey
    Granger
    Watson
    Hansborough
    Solo (or Foster...I know both were on the floor at one point)

    That was the energy crew right there.

    Oh, well. I'll sleep on this one and get into the post-game thread tomorrow. Night all.
    I liked that lineup tonight.

    Comment


    • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

      Originally posted by judicata View Post
      Pacers gave up 74 points in the first half. That is hardly any kind of moral victory.
      Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
      What he said flox.

      74 points is 74 points. The defense SUCKED.
      To blame the defense on the lineup change when the lineup change worked for the players we wanted to stop is illogical. Granted, we could have achieved that by keeping Jones over Rush, but the amount of posters here who would have liked that would be very little and there would be even MORE jimmy bashing...

      I can't believe I'm being the sunnysider here. I'm usually the darksider.

      Comment


      • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

        Certainly scheme, execution, and personnel are important defensively, but, if you boil it down, it big time about effort, intensity, tenacity. Playing D that way individually and as a group can cover up a good amount of shortcoming in the intial three factors. We just aren't seeing a consistently high level of effort and energy on D.

        We're also not getting a consistent effort to play team offensive ball with player and ball movement. We look good when we do it, but it mysteriously disappears for loooong stretches. That's about effort, too. It's commitment to do it. It's common focus, purpose, and trust. We're not playing that way.

        By the way, Dahntay and Rush are definitely our best perimeter defenders. Can we admit that, to this point, Granger remains a disappointment in on the ball D? Nice shot blocker coming off the weak side, but mediocre at best on ball. None of our points is a legitimate defensive specialist. Earl has his moments, but not a difference maker. TJ....meh. Inside...well, Troy's 3s and boards are nice, but no diffence on D. Foster probably best overall, but not shot altering. Roy and Solo with work to do all around, but can block a few. TH with positional D potential. He did a nice job tonight.
        Last edited by D-BONE; 11-24-2009, 09:54 PM.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

          By the way, Dahntay and Rush are definitely our best perimeter defenders. Can we admit that, to this point, Granger remains a disappointment in on the ball D?
          Yes, I can admit that (though his on ball was actually better than usual tonight). I am really, really hoping we haven't seen much of an improvement in that area over last season because of the hammered heel thing.
          "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

          "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

          "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

          Comment


          • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            Unless Roy is hurt, he should never not play an entire half. He played 12 minutes tonight, pathetic. THIS is something I have issue with.

            Hansbrough only played 15.

            I thought both played well. Any explanation?

            I'm just guessing here but....

            Hibbert got his minutes against Rasho, just as O'Brien said he would. The game plan was to keep Bosh from going wild, and that part succeeded. But the Pacers gave away too much in order to do it. A team with the Pacers' talent will never be able to take away everything. tonight, the plan succeeded in keeping Bosh and Bargnani from beating us. We dared Jack and Calderon to beat us. Unfortunately, they did.
            And I won't be here to see the day
            It all dries up and blows away
            I'd hang around just to see
            But they never had much use for me
            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

            Comment


            • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

              Originally posted by flox View Post
              To blame the defense on the lineup change when the lineup change worked for the players we wanted to stop is illogical. Granted, we could have achieved that by keeping Jones over Rush, but the amount of posters here who would have liked that would be very little and there would be even MORE jimmy bashing...

              I can't believe I'm being the sunnysider here. I'm usually the darksider.
              Your argument assumes that because their primary assignments produced less than average, Foster and Murphy played great defense.

              But basketball is a team game, and help defense and paint presence are both important to overall scoring defense. Its unavailing to be invulnerable to the jab when the uppercut lands on the chin every time.

              Comment


              • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

                Originally posted by judicata View Post
                Your argument assumes that because their primary assignments produced less than average, Foster and Murphy played great defense.

                But basketball is a team game, and help defense and paint presence are both important to overall scoring defense. Its unavailing to be invulnerable to the jab when the uppercut lands on the chin every time.
                No, I'm assuming that because they produced less the average- our game plan worked- and I assumed had the opposing team not shot 55.8% and our guards played defense and made them shoot average- the Pacers would win.

                Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Rasho on the floor and his scoring explosion when Hibbert was on the floor?

                Comment


                • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

                  Originally posted by flox View Post
                  No, I'm assuming that because they produced less the average- our game plan worked- and I assumed had the opposing team not shot 55.8% and our guards played defense and made them shoot average- the Pacers would win.
                  Even man defense does not hermetically seal defensive matchups and allow defense to be assessed on a purely assignment basis.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

                    Originally posted by judicata View Post
                    Even man defense does not hermetically seal defensive matchups and allow defense to be assessed on a purely assignment basis.
                    I think we are misunderstanding each other. Please tell me where my line of thought deviates from yours.

                    Lineup change was made to prevent Bargs/Bosh from exploding on us. We had a game plan to stop them that can be either man, zone, or help defense.

                    Game happens.

                    Bosh/Bargs struggle.

                    Lineup change considered success.

                    Where do I state that Murphy/Foster do a good job, or assess defense on an assignment basis? All I say is the lineup change accomplished what it was meant to do, and that it was a success. I do not comment on our overall defensive effort. In a vacuum, there is nothing wrong with my comment.

                    If you want to blame the lineup change by saying putting Murphy/Foster caused Rasho (I don't remember who was on him but I know Hibbert was in the game), Jack, Calderon, and Benelli scoring so much it can be valid since Jones is a better defensive player than Rush and Watson seems to care more about defense than TJ at this point, well then, by all means go ahead.

                    But that still doesn't change the fact that the lineup change achieved it's goal of frustrating Bosh/Bargs. We just need to figure out who else needs to be on the floor to stop everyone else. At this point it seems like we need it to be Watson/Jones/Granger....

                    Comment


                    • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

                      Originally posted by flox View Post

                      Where do I state that Murphy/Foster do a good job, or assess defense on an assignment basis? All I say is the lineup change accomplished what it was meant to do, and that it was a success. I do not comment on our overall defensive effort. In a vacuum, there is nothing wrong with my comment.
                      On this count, you are absolutely right. My point is that you are drawing boundaries that deprive the analysis of usefulness.

                      I think that the motivation behind the lineup change was a little more pragmatic than an essentially meaningless one-dimensional metric.

                      That being said, it is a little unfair to knock your argument so totally. I think I am just biased towards a more comprehensive view of big man defensive responsibilities. After all, if there was a lineup change to handle Kobe, and he shot 4-18, I would be satisfied even if Bynum went off for 40.

                      That, plus my general disregard for Murphy colors my reaction. I still think you are being a little unreasonable, but at least I know that I am also.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

                        I hope JOb is not making lineup decisions without considering the big picture.

                        The problem with this line of thinking is that it ignores the synergy a team gets on defense from having a big guy in the middle. It helps the perimeter players a lot more than some here seem to realize. It allows them to put more pressure on the perimeter because they know the dude is not going to run around them for a layup.

                        ...which was happening with regularity at the beginning of the first period.

                        Defense is a complicated subject. There are synergies between the players and that can lead to spectacular swarming defense if you do it right. We were FORCED to play certain players on the 5 game winning streak...and that combination should be retried. I don't really care if it makes no sense to some people...including JOb. It worked...and if it's not broken...

                        Comment


                        • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

                          Originally posted by judicata View Post
                          On this count, you are absolutely right. My point is that you are drawing boundaries that deprive the analysis of usefulness.

                          I think that the motivation behind the lineup change was a little more pragmatic than an essentially meaningless one-dimensional metric.

                          That being said, it is a little unfair to knock your argument so totally. I think I am just biased towards a more comprehensive view of big man defensive responsibilities. After all, if there was a lineup change to handle Kobe, and he shot 4-18, I would be satisfied even if Bynum went off for 40.

                          That, plus my general disregard for Murphy colors my reaction. I still think you are being a little unreasonable, but at least I know that I am also.
                          Well if anything is unreasonable about my argument it would be that we viewed in a vacuum- it shouldn't be.

                          I don't really see why you would think that the lineup change has more meaning other than "stop bargs/bosh, try to win the game". If we viewed my argument that way, the lineup changes passes test 1 but not test 2- but even then we must look to see if the lineup change was a reason for us not passing test 2- which is very hard to conclude! It would take hours to take all the data to come up with a conclusion.

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          I hope JOb is not making lineup decisions without considering the big picture.

                          The problem with this line of thinking is that it ignores the synergy a team gets on defense from having a big guy in the middle. It helps the perimeter players a lot more than some here seem to realize. It allows them to put more pressure on the perimeter because they know the dude is not going to run around them for a layup.

                          ...which was happening with regularity at the beginning of the first period.

                          Defense is a complicated subject. There are synergies between the players and that can lead to spectacular swarming defense if you do it right. We were FORCED to play certain players on the 5 game winning streak...and that combination should be retried. I don't really care if it makes no sense to some people...including JOb. It worked...and if it's not broken...
                          What is overlooked in that win streak is that Roy was outputting much better in wins over losses (almost 6 points, 2 rebounds, and 1 block difference), as Watson who scores 10.5ppg in our win streak and less than 6ppg in losses including 3.7ppg in our 4 game losing streak.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

                            Originally posted by flox View Post

                            What is overlooked in that win streak is that Roy was outputting much better in wins over losses (almost 6 points, 2 rebounds, and 1 block difference), as Watson who scores 10.5ppg in our win streak and less than 6ppg in losses including 3.7ppg in our 4 game losing streak.
                            I hope Roy's output will moderate/gain consistency over the season. We'll need it.

                            Watson, on the other hand, while a solid back-up, is more likely to trend toward the lower numbers. Or at least I think that's the a realistic expectation.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

                              Originally posted by flox View Post

                              What is overlooked in that win streak is that Roy was outputting much better in wins over losses (almost 6 points, 2 rebounds, and 1 block difference), as Watson who scores 10.5ppg in our win streak and less than 6ppg in losses including 3.7ppg in our 4 game losing streak.
                              We already have solid proof that the guys we started tonight cannot possibly make the playoffs. Would you agree with that?

                              The point is, Roy is still a young player....but he is showing great signs. He is converting his shots far better than anyone else on the team. He has the most blocks by far. More than anything, he is clogging up the middle and pushing the focus of the defense further out on the floor.

                              Sure, he is going to have rough spots, but do you believe in him? If you think he is the future at the C position, he appears ready for a full time job...not 12 minutes and the bench in the second half.

                              As for Watson, he has gone cold for now but he still shoots better than TJ at all places on the floor including the free throw line...but more than anything is...he is a far, far superior defensive player. Only got him 18 minutes to TJ's 29. He also had 5 assists to TJ's 3...even with much less time on the floor.

                              There's a lot I disagree with on the lineup situation...and the fact we are losing big time is not a surprise.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 11/24/2009 Game Thread #12: Pacers at Raptors

                                Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                                I hope Roy's output will moderate/gain consistency over the season. We'll need it.

                                Watson, on the other hand, while a solid back-up, is more likely to trend toward the lower numbers. Or at least I think that's the a realistic expectation.
                                Yes, I hope so too. We need him to be that good. I think Watson's just a streaky player.


                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                We already have solid proof that the guys we started tonight cannot possibly make the playoffs. Would you agree with that?

                                The point is, Roy is still a young player....but he is showing great signs. He is converting his shots far better than anyone else on the team. He has the most blocks by far. More than anything, he is clogging up the middle and pushing the focus of the defense further out on the floor.

                                Sure, he is going to have rough spots, but do you believe in him? If you think he is the future at the C position, he appears ready for a full time job...not 12 minutes and the bench in the second half.

                                As for Watson, he has gone cold for now but he still shoots better than TJ at all places on the floor including the free throw line...but more than anything is...he is a far, far superior defensive player. Only got him 18 minutes to TJ's 29. He also had 5 assists to TJ's 3...even with much less time on the floor.

                                There's a lot I disagree with on the lineup situation...and the fact we are losing big time is not a surprise.
                                Tonight was what, the first time this lineup has played all season? This is Foster's 3rd game all season? I'm not ready to call it yet.

                                I don't find it a coincidence that Rasho killed us when Hibbert was on the floor.

                                For November (includes win streak and current loss streak) TJ Ford is .488 from the field, with no three's made and .769 from the line, averaging 11.2 points.

                                Watson is .385 from the field with .308 from three .900 from the line, averaging 6.6 points.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X