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

Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

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

  • #46
    Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

    Originally posted by owl View Post
    What I am pleasantly surprised about with TH is his one on one defense of other bigs.
    He is pretty good at it. He is strong enough to hold his ground and has good lateral
    quickness around the block. Out front he is a little more vulnerable.
    Yes...but Jamison is a particularly tough cover for all PF's on the perimeter. I think Tyler got burned by him a couple times and started to get out there a little better.

    As for his strength and decent lateral quickness, in some ways he reminds me of Foster. Maybe a slightly thicker, shorter version of Jeff on defense. Nobody will be going through him...and not many bigs can get around him that easily. He will probably bother even guys like Garnett who may find success shooting over him.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

      While it is fine to be impressed with Tyler's last few games, there is something we all need to keep in mind. That is that Tyler is 24 years old. Hell, he is older than Dwight Howard. So as a player he is anything but "raw". His game is much more "mature" than just about any other rookie. I think what you've seen is essentially what you can expect from Psycho-T. I know people will point to a adjustment period to the NBA game, but I don't think that is a huge factor for Tyler. He looks very comfortable out there and he is playing his game. I just think anyone expecting a substantial increase from year one Tyler to year two or three Tyler is going to be disappointed.

      Edit: Whoops, just realized Seth pointed out the age thing already; however, I stand by my reiteration of his point.
      Last edited by PostArtestEra; 12-12-2009, 11:30 PM.
      "Ever wonder what it's like to wonder what it's like to wonder, they get up out of bed but can't awaken from their slumber, they know what they've been told by those who know what they've been told, you see this hand me down knowledge generated ages ago, and I know what they've been told because I've been told the same thing, I had to broaden my horizons to expand on greater things..." Many Styles

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Did I dare to dream of 8.5 on 38.5% FG with 4.4 rebounds from a top 15 pick PF?


        Foster is shooting 50%. Even Brandon Rush is shooting a better Adjusted FG% thanks to his 3pt range, and he's struggled early on to hit shots. Oh, and Brandon also has 4.4 rebounds per game. The shooting guard.

        TWill is getting more rebounds per game, and is shooting almost the same. The guy who was knocked for having shooting problems and has struggled to make shots this year...he's almost shooting it as well at Tyler and outrebounding him. I think TWill has struggled so far and doesn't fit with the Nets system, I wouldn't dream of citing his early season as some impressive achievement.


        This is your reality check. If you don't turn on Sportscenter and say "man, did you think TWill would be this good this soon" then don't say it about Tyler.

        BTW, Tyler is 24 years old. He's older than Roy, AJ, and McBob. He's only 4 months younger than Brandon, and only 2 years younger than Granger and TJ Ford. So "this soon" doesn't apply quite the same.

        Blair is shooting 59% with 5.2 boards and 0.6 blocks. Undersized Blair.

        Of the 23 qualified rookies only 2 others (TWill, Maynor) are shooting a worse AdjFG%. Did anyone think Tyler would be one of the worst shooting rookies in this class?

        Did I think Brandon Jennings and Stephan Curry would have more Blocks per game than Tyler?



        I'm happy to see Tyler showing signs of being productive against two of the weaker teams in the NBA. I hope he keeps it up when things turn tough again because clearly the team needs help.

        But why do we have to have this insanely early proclamations of Tyler's talent level. I mean if we are going to do this then I guess we need to drum back up the Blair vs Tyler thread since Blair is "this good so soon".
        Ok, it's official. Tyler must be making good progress, because Seth is on damage control.

        Imagine how many 20 point games Tyler would have now if he'd practiced and not been injured and held to 15mpg?...

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

          Looking back at the Pacers draft, I was hoping for Ty Lawson (because I read too much Hollinger), but expecting Dejuan Blair (the safe role player). Tyler had too many skeptics. He's already better than I expected.

          20 ppg is not out of the question. He is already at 18 ppg per 36 minutes. And this is with 38 FG%. But most of this is because he is shooting 30% on jumpers. When he gains exp and outgrows "rookie shooting disease" he can easily add a few points to that total.

          For someone who works the paint and draws contact like he does, he virtually never turns it over. I'm surprised no one mentions that.
          basketbawful.com- The best of the worst of professional basketball. And there's a lot of it.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            Did I dare to dream of 8.5 on 38.5% FG with 4.4 rebounds from a top 15 pick PF?


            Foster is shooting 50%. Even Brandon Rush is shooting a better Adjusted FG% thanks to his 3pt range, and he's struggled early on to hit shots. Oh, and Brandon also has 4.4 rebounds per game. The shooting guard.

            TWill is getting more rebounds per game, and is shooting almost the same. The guy who was knocked for having shooting problems and has struggled to make shots this year...he's almost shooting it as well at Tyler and outrebounding him. I think TWill has struggled so far and doesn't fit with the Nets system, I wouldn't dream of citing his early season as some impressive achievement.


            This is your reality check. If you don't turn on Sportscenter and say "man, did you think TWill would be this good this soon" then don't say it about Tyler.

            BTW, Tyler is 24 years old. He's older than Roy, AJ, and McBob. He's only 4 months younger than Brandon, and only 2 years younger than Granger and TJ Ford. So "this soon" doesn't apply quite the same.

            Blair is shooting 59% with 5.2 boards and 0.6 blocks. Undersized Blair.

            Of the 23 qualified rookies only 2 others (TWill, Maynor) are shooting a worse AdjFG%. Did anyone think Tyler would be one of the worst shooting rookies in this class?

            Did I think Brandon Jennings and Stephan Curry would have more Blocks per game than Tyler?



            I'm happy to see Tyler showing signs of being productive against two of the weaker teams in the NBA. I hope he keeps it up when things turn tough again because clearly the team needs help.

            But why do we have to have this insanely early proclamation of Tyler's talent level. I mean if we are going to do this then I guess we need to drum back up the Blair vs Tyler thread since Blair is "this good so soon".




            I've seen this too many times, even done it myself. You are in love with the idea of Tyler because he's the rookie. McCloud, Sealy and Tidale. Add Croshere, Fred Jones and others to the mix.
            Tisdale was 51% for 14.9 points and 7.2 rebounds his rookie year, at age 21.
            Welcome to the thread, Nancy. I was wondering when you were going to show your rosy demeanor in here.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              He is looking better than Blair too(a guy many people here wanted)
              By shooting significantly worse, rebounding less and getting fewer blocks.

              Other than all that, he's kicking Blair's butt. Okay.



              Look, I love the team too, but there are other teams with other guys that are doing things that if they were doing them here you'd like them more than Tyler at this point. If Blair and Tyler were both putting up the games they have so far but both in the BnG, people would think Blair was better.

              People would be bragging about how we stole Blair. Sure Tyler is okay, but what about us getting Blair in round two? Pacers are so smart, those other teams are chumps.

              Blair and many other players are only worse because they don't wear the Indy colors.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                By shooting significantly worse, rebounding less and getting fewer blocks.

                Other than all that, he's kicking Blair's butt. Okay.



                Look, I love the team too, but there are other teams with other guys that are doing things that if they were doing them here you'd like them more than Tyler at this point. If Blair and Tyler were both putting up the games they have so far but both in the BnG, people would think Blair was better.

                People would be bragging about how we stole Blair. Sure Tyler is okay, but what about us getting Blair in round two? Pacers are so smart, those other teams are chumps.

                Blair and many other players are only worse because they don't wear the Indy colors.
                But we don't have those guys. We have Tyler and he is doing well so far.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                  He doesn't turn it over because he has some of the strongest hands I've ever seen.

                  Rather, he causes turnovers.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                    They will not take Singler. Kyle is struggling and as each game passes he's looking less and less like a decent prospect. Long ago he had caught my eye, so I've been following him. But as much as I wanted to see him continue to grow into this great prospect, its just not happening.

                    Then again I gave up on Chase prior to his final year and he won me back with an incredible improvement in his entire game.



                    I think Patterson moves up to around the 5-6th pick and out of the Pacers range. Larry Sanders is probably going to be our best bet, though Monroe remains interesting.

                    I was a fan of Samuels and Jennings at L'ville, but right now both are sub-par and Jennings ran into legal issues in the off-season which really hurts him. Probably neither will come out this year.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      By shooting significantly worse, rebounding less and getting fewer blocks.

                      Other than all that, he's kicking Blair's butt. Okay.



                      Look, I love the team too, but there are other teams with other guys that are doing things that if they were doing them here you'd like them more than Tyler at this point. If Blair and Tyler were both putting up the games they have so far but both in the BnG, people would think Blair was better.

                      People would be bragging about how we stole Blair. Sure Tyler is okay, but what about us getting Blair in round two? Pacers are so smart, those other teams are chumps.

                      Blair and many other players are only worse because they don't wear the Indy colors.
                      The only doubt people had about Blair was his knees. Almost all the analysts had their doubts about Hans.

                      I get the physical limitations he has. I don't like the fact as a PF he can't fly up there and dunk in traffic. I don't like the fact he's not a shot-blocking defensive specialist that Roy Hibbert really needs next to him.

                      But otherwise, there is almost nothing I don't like about him.

                      Consider this. Who has a higher ceiling? Foster or Hans? Would Foster be a good pick at #13? I think so...and Hans is going to be a lot better because he can play both ends of the floor at a high level.

                      Edit: BTW, if Blair can give 25 minutes for 10 years...he will be a huge, huge steal. This franchise could not possibly afford the risk though.
                      Last edited by BlueNGold; 12-12-2009, 11:38 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                        Who has a higher ceiling: Blair or Tyler?

                        I think it's Tyler.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          They will not take Singler. Kyle is struggling and as each game passes he's looking less and less like a decent prospect. Long ago he had caught my eye, so I've been following him. But as much as I wanted to see him continue to grow into this great prospect, its just not happening.

                          Then again I gave up on Chase prior to his final year and he won me back with an incredible improvement in his entire game.



                          I think Patterson moves up to around the 5-6th pick and out of the Pacers range. Larry Sanders is probably going to be our best bet, though Monroe remains interesting.

                          I was a fan of Samuels and Jennings at L'ville, but right now both are sub-par and Jennings ran into legal issues in the off-season which really hurts him. Probably neither will come out this year.
                          I'm praying that Evan Turner's back injury will cause him to slip out of the top five, and right into our clutches. A DG/MDJ/Turner rotation would be nice!
                          basketbawful.com- The best of the worst of professional basketball. And there's a lot of it.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                            Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                            But we don't have those guys. We have Tyler and he is doing well so far.
                            No, he's not. That's my point. When people talk themselves into being happy with a PF that shoots 38%, that's homerism. Period.

                            Foster shot around that level ONE year and you still hear how terrible a shooter he is. PF that play at the rim tend to shoot 50%-60%, that's par for course. They don't make the 3 ball so they have to keep a FG% that high in order to keep pace with the guards and their Adjusted FG% levels.


                            Tyler is not flopping and has finally had two games where he did not shoot terribly. He impacted the games positively and shot a nice elbow jumper.

                            If that qualified as "this good so soon" then damn near every rookie fits that description. That's my point.

                            Plus as I said he's a 24 year old player who had 4 full seasons at an NBA farm system college program. This is not "rough around the edges". Guys that mature are expected to be at a higher level than raw kids like Holliday or even Jennings.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                              Who has a higher ceiling: Blair or Tyler?

                              I think it's Tyler.
                              Blair has the potential to be a beast in there. A rebounding machine that shoots 55% career. I'd have to give it to him. But he fell for a reason and I would not draw a comparison without being one of the MD's who evaluated his health.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                No, he's not. That's my point. When people talk themselves into being happy with a PF that shoots 38%, that's homerism. Period.

                                Foster shot around that level ONE year and you still hear how terrible a shooter he is. PF that play at the rim tend to shoot 50%-60%, that's par for course. They don't make the 3 ball so they have to keep a FG% that high in order to keep pace with the guards and their Adjusted FG% levels.


                                Tyler is not flopping and has finally had two games where he did not shoot terribly. He impacted the games positively and shot a nice elbow jumper.

                                If that qualified as "this good so soon" then damn near every rookie fits that description. That's my point.

                                Plus as I said he's a 24 year old player who had 4 full seasons at an NBA farm system college program. This is not "rough around the edges". Guys that mature are expected to be at a higher level than raw kids like Holliday or even Jennings.

                                agreed on all counts.

                                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

                                Working...
                                X