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

Nets/Pacers postgame thread

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

  • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
    I saw that too, but I think that's the way Danny needs to go. He's pretty big, and he's got poor handles. He's much better off with a post up game.
    I've always wondered why Danny doesn't post up more. He was a PF in college, for pete's sake. Sure, shooting is his best skill, but why not try and use his size and strength advantage against other PFs, a la Melo.

    Comment


    • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      So West and Danny are worse than Tyler but let's just talk about Tyler's suckiness? two starters who are former all stars that have worse shooting percentage than a 3rd year guy who is actually a second year guy? ...........OK
      They don't have a worst PCT. And you must 100% compare Adjusted FG% because hitting a 3 has more value than hitting a layup. 40% when all you hit is 3s is identical in points made from shots to hitting 60% of your layups.




      They DO have a history of shooting better. Hans is a CAREER 43% guy who's first year was 36% and who shot below 40% for 2 months last year as well, including last FEB when he took the 2nd most shots of any month of his career at a 39% rate. That's not month 2 of year 1. That's deep into his 2nd season. And now we are starting his 3rd season.


      But you represent exactly the classic Tyler fan - the type of person that sees 10-19 in game 1 of the playoffs and then ignores the 2-12, 3-12, 2-8, and 3-9 because those don't really count. It's all about that one great night where he shot 52% and scored 22 on 19 shots. Then the stat twisters like me come and and say "well he only shot 33% in the playoffs".



      And you'll note that I was the one who brought up West and Danny's FG%, I wasn't hiding it. Danny doesn't get off clean on this, he just has at least proven that he can shoot an adjusted FG% of over 48% for a season (every season). In fact Danny's eFG% is above Tyler's now and it represents the WORST of his career by a whopping 9% points (40 vs 49, last season).


      West is also shooting a career low by 4% vs his 2nd year and by 7% off of his 2nd worst year. He's 9% off his career eFG% right now.

      Tyler is 6% below his career average which is itself 6% off of West's career average (43 vs 49). West NEVER shot below 40% in his career, not even his rookie season as an 18th pick (lower than Tyler). He shot 47% that year, dropped to 44% in year 2 and never went below 47% again till this year.


      And with that history you want me to see the exact same pattern at work, that expectations should be the same?

      But if the name on the jersey was Thompson from the Rockets or Johnson from the Kings would you agree that we should definitely trade for him because he was certain to be a 49% inside scoring machine? With other players that no one knows the stats are legit. They only become BS when it's a favorite son.



      Tyler can't keep shooting that poorly. He must develop AND MAINTAIN a nice 47-49% range if he wants to be a 12 FGA guy. 5-6 FGA okay, scrappy bench hustler who's points are a bonus, that's different.




      Just like Danny can't keep up 1-7 inside the arc an be a main scoring threat either. Just like it's right for Croz to notice that Danny's eFG% just keeps trending downward.

      The difference is when someone brings that up about Danny they aren't haters and people don't lose their s*** over it. It's just a discussion point of concern. The counter is usually "It's true but I'm not worried about it yet" rather than "ha ha, typical hater talk".

      Comment


      • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        For starters, Price runs the pick and roll much better. He also has a solid mid range jumper to make him a legitimate threat coming off the pick.
        Yes, and this isn't even close at this point.

        To me Price vs Lance is the classic case of how prospects surprise people. Lances "looks" like something while Price just does the work.

        The main thing that's hurt Price his how many 3s he took the last 2 years. If he would do more of what we saw last night, just run a clean PnR, run a smooth hesitation attack and dump, and take the 3s when they naturally rotate back to him I think the debate would be settled.

        That's all you need out of a backup PG, let alone 3rd string PG.


        Lance is getting minutes because Larry wants to prove to the world that this kid that looks like he's really tearing it up actually is tearing it up. And that would prove how smart Larry was for getting him. But ironically Larry would look pretty damn smart if Price was contributing too considering his draft position.


        I really don't see where Lance fits in the long term equation here. He's not close to matching DC or Hill, and for the minutes Price should be fine in that role. I assume they are hoping that Lance will become better than Hill or DC, but that seems like a massive reach to me.

        It's just going to be another Cabbages where in the end the guy you already had (AJohnson) ends up helping you more and you could have just skipped the entire experiment.

        And remember how awesome and talented and flashy and what a steal Saras was? You couldn't dare question his talent the first few months. We had to grind through months and months of lost backcourt dribbles and terrible defense.

        When I put up the video of him getting lost we had people ripping on it as cherry picking to make him look bad. Except in the end the point was valid, he wasn't working and he didn't make it. It wasn't hater talk, it was reality.


        I'm not against Lance as the idea. I just haven't seen one single thing to buy into. I honestly don't get what you guys think you see in his game. It's very college level sloppy with the "every pass will involve me looking away to make it a no look highlight pass" touch.

        His long, high dribbles just beg to be pilfered or knocked out of control.

        Comment


        • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

          I don't have time to go through all the stats, but Tyler was 4th on the team last year in terms of points per attempt. 4th on the team in a category one might deem to be his weakness, isn't all that bad.

          His FG% last year was 46.5...a large jump from the previous year...and he drew the most fouls on the team except Granger. He's not doing as well this year comparatively, but he's still higher than Danny on points per attempt. Also, West's points per attempt are just about the same...yet he viewed as the savvy vet. Also, I've seen Tyler take a lot of last second shots because the offense is so out of sync.

          The fact remains that the defense is focused on Granger, Hans and West...which probably explains all of their performances this year.

          Just as an aside, Hibbert, Collison and George are doing better than Granger and Hans this year...but the opposite was true last year. Expect that to even out. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with Tyler's game in terms of FG% although we always want more. I think people are just hung up on how weird his shot is and how he goes about getting it. I don't think it's rational anymore to say it does not work. Not saying that's the argument...

          Edit: I might add that Tyler is cleaning the glass like Windex.
          Last edited by BlueNGold; 01-03-2012, 11:12 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            The difference is when someone brings that up about Danny (instead of Hansbrough) they aren't haters and people don't lose their s*** over it. It's just a discussion point of concern. The counter is usually "It's true but I'm not worried about it yet" rather than "ha ha, typical hater talk".
            It's true, but I'm not worried about it yet.

            I think the reason you're getting prejudged as a hater here is that you've presumed he'd fail in the NBA since before we drafted him, and you've had a long history of highlighting the bad and minimizing the positives. Surely, his snap judgment can't be all that surprising?

            Nice post, btw.

            Comment


            • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

              Wow. Seth, I take back everything I've ever said about you.

              You may be the only person I've ever come across that has noticed Lance's horrible handles. My God every time he comes up in conversation on here or with someone in person people act like he's Bob Cousy reborn. Even in the Summer League he was losing his dribble and getting the ball knocked out of his hand too much. I've really wondered what people are watching to come to that conclusion.

              Comment


              • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                It's comments like these that confuse me. Some of you act like Lance never practices with anyone. Why would guys who have been practicing with him for an entire NBA season plus more, not be expecting passes from someone at that point?

                Everyone talks about Paul George being the golden child on here, but nobody gets more excuses handed to them that don't even make sense than Lance.
                But see Since86, the thing is that while BP is being extreme here with "Golden Child", the fact is that many of us (I'm in that group) do talk about how we like the future of Paul's game and his potential. So he's right to note that Paul is loved and if he's not bought into that then it will seem abnormally high.

                On the flipside though, not everyone hides from the criticism either. I noted Paul's rather poor play in this game in spite of his 5-5 from 3. I want to praise Paul's game when he shows what he's got, but that doesn't buy him a free pass either.

                So you are both right to some degree.

                Lance and Tyler are by far the most beloved guys right now. I mean Tyler gets louder cheers when he is announced than even Roy or Danny, and he's not yet done as much to warrant that.

                And Lance has not yet shown much of anything. In fact what's funny is that the defense is "he hasn't played yet to become good" which is also the same as "he hasn't yet played enough to show us anything to buy into". But boy is he one of favorite guys for everyone to discuss around here, and he's giving tons of slack for reasons that seem as foreign to me as they do to BProof.


                I mean I'm a big Price fan, but a significant portion of that is based on college output and the type of floor he ran at UConn. I've seen him do it in the NBA so I recognize his ability to translate, but I haven't denied that he was quite the chucker his first 2 years and I wondered why that was (ahem, JOB perhaps). If all I knew was his NBA game I'd have a lot more doubts I suppose.



                So how about people that love Lance just also admit they saw those 2 horrible fumbled dribbles late in the 4th, after which Vogel put the ball into AJ's hands at point instead and ran the PnR, got 2 assists and a made 3 out of and cleaned up the slop that was closing out the game.

                Just like I saw Paul making some really terrible choices for big portions of the game. Talent, yes, but awareness and a true gamer, not yet.

                Comment


                • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                  But you represent exactly the classic Tyler fan - the type of person that sees 10-19 in game 1 of the playoffs and then ignores the 2-12, 3-12, 2-8, and 3-9 because those don't really count. It's all about that one great night where he shot 52% and scored 22 on 19 shots. Then the stat twisters like me come and and say "well he only shot 33% in the playoffs".
                  OK so Danny and West have done it before so they don't count so let's write a 200+ words post to explain why Tyler sucks, we all know you don't like the guy even if you keep saying that you do, OK you show us the numbers, how about reviewing every single player the same way you do it with Tyler? how hard is that?
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    They DO have a history of shooting better. Hans is a CAREER 43% guy who's first year was 36% and who shot below 40% for 2 months last year as well, including last FEB when he took the 2nd most shots of any month of his career at a 39% rate. That's not month 2 of year 1. That's deep into his 2nd season. And now we are starting his 3rd season.
                    I think your wording here could be at least a little misleading. You make it sound like while Danny and West have a history of shooting better that Tyler does not. Well, by his rookie year that's true, but his second and most recent year, where he shot 46%, that isn't true, and I feel like the above comment could mislead people on that point.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      I don't think anyone has called him a bust...all-star, well I guess calling him the most talented player on a roster with two former all stars could be construed as such, but then you'd have to take it up with Larry
                      Yes, this is the issue.

                      More talented than Danny, West, DC, Hill, George, Hibbert and Tyler.

                      As in "if you had to start a team by drafting ONE Pacer, Larry Bird would take Lance first".

                      Seriously, are there people here that believe that crap? It can't be true. I don't buy that Larry would make that choice at all.


                      People throw out statements like this and act like it carries zero weight. But this is right there with "one of the best 3pt shooters" and "a point guard in the Mark Price mold". How are K Rush and Diener doing in the NBA just a few seasons later?

                      Do you know which NBA GM/Team gave those 2 players the MOST NBA minutes they ever saw? Bird/Pacers.

                      And of all fanbases to buy into "HE'S AWESOME IN PRACTICE", the fans of Bender's team should be the most wary of buying into that.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                        Tyler's bigger problem, and the team's for that matter, is learning how to move the ball. Sure, Collison, George, Granger and West could probably beat Tyler at a game of horse...but the game is more than shooting. There are fouls, drawing the defense, rebounding, etc. Also, it is probably very taxing having to guard Hans. I have nothing to back it up, but I suspect guys who have to guard him probably have to expend more energy and probably don't score as well. Of course, that's pure speculation...but quite frankly it's hard to put a price on energy.

                        Edit: as an example, they need to be sure they block him out or he will be all over the offensive boards. That's the aggression part. There's a cost incurred there. Legs get tired. Players get slower. The lane opens up for Collison. Granger gets to the rack. West gets an open look. Etc., etc. Energy has value.
                        Last edited by BlueNGold; 01-03-2012, 11:38 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                          My only comment on Tyler is this, if he learns how to look up and pass, he'll become possibly my favorite player in the NBA. He would put some single game and 5 game stretch assist records to shame for the first week or two, because every time he gets the ball, the defense ignores everyone else. Especially on his offensive rebounds, there is ALWAYS a wide open player or two on the perimeter for an easy three.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            I think your wording here could be at least a little misleading. You make it sound like while Danny and West have a history of shooting better that Tyler does not. Well, by his rookie year that's true, but his second and most recent year, where he shot 46%, that isn't true, and I feel like the above comment could mislead people on that point.
                            So are you saying that only counting the 2 months were he shot under 40% doesn't count as a total for his whole year? wow
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              But see Since86, the thing is that while BP is being extreme here with "Golden Child", the fact is that many of us (I'm in that group) do talk about how we like the future of Paul's game and his potential. So he's right to note that Paul is loved and if he's not bought into that then it will seem abnormally high.

                              On the flipside though, not everyone hides from the criticism either. I noted Paul's rather poor play in this game in spite of his 5-5 from 3. I want to praise Paul's game when he shows what he's got, but that doesn't buy him a free pass either.

                              So you are both right to some degree.

                              Lance and Tyler are by far the most beloved guys right now. I mean Tyler gets louder cheers when he is announced than even Roy or Danny, and he's not yet done as much to warrant that.

                              And Lance has not yet shown much of anything. In fact what's funny is that the defense is "he hasn't played yet to become good" which is also the same as "he hasn't yet played enough to show us anything to buy into". But boy is he one of favorite guys for everyone to discuss around here, and he's giving tons of slack for reasons that seem as foreign to me as they do to BProof.


                              I mean I'm a big Price fan, but a significant portion of that is based on college output and the type of floor he ran at UConn. I've seen him do it in the NBA so I recognize his ability to translate, but I haven't denied that he was quite the chucker his first 2 years and I wondered why that was (ahem, JOB perhaps). If all I knew was his NBA game I'd have a lot more doubts I suppose.



                              So how about people that love Lance just also admit they saw those 2 horrible fumbled dribbles late in the 4th, after which Vogel put the ball into AJ's hands at point instead and ran the PnR, got 2 assists and a made 3 out of and cleaned up the slop that was closing out the game.

                              Just like I saw Paul making some really terrible choices for big portions of the game. Talent, yes, but awareness and a true gamer, not yet.
                              I really don't know where that came from. Because it is/was so unlike him. He used to stop shooting when he'd miss shots. I know this, because when he was Uconn's best scorer, it would drive me crazy. Like, "Oh I missed three shots, better not shoot again unless we need a clutch basket. Thabeet can carry the scoring load."

                              Particularly since there were definite times in the past two seasons, where Price actually did play like he did previously. I've pointed to the last five minutes of Game 2.

                              I don't know what the reason is. But I actually suspect that AJ is one of those PGs that believe they are the coach on the floor, so he follows Coach's orders to a T...and Maybe a bit too literally. He kept saying last season "Coach tells me to keep shooting." And we know JOB told him to shoot. He was also put on the floor as the main scoring threat of the second unit. (once Tyler and PG were replaced by Rush and Josh.)

                              The problem with that, IMO, is that AJ gets his confidence from making shots. He expects himself to do everything else, but whether he's playing well or not is determined with how many shots he makes. Which is why I think he stops shooting in the first place. He doesn't want to lose confidence. Last season though, he just kept missing and missing, and his game completely went mentally. I'd assume the missing was because of his knee. He's not as bad as a shooter as he appeared last season.

                              And of course, he's really not being used as well as he could as a "scoring guard." That's not his game. Scoring in bunches at certain times, sure. But his best asset is being a floor general. And we haven't seen it too often. I hope, even if AJ doesn't play much this season, that he learns from Shaw, and can play his game somewhere else. But if he does play, I suspect will see AJ playing more like himself this season.

                              edit: Tyler, I love Tyler. His blackholeness doesn't even bother me. (Because in general, I like post players to go up with the shots.) I'd also like to track his offensive rebounds, because I do suspect that a good percentage of his misses, he ends up getting the offensive rebounds for, and as long as he does that, I don't really care about his Field Goal percentage. (Although I'll hope it improves.)

                              He has some flaws..and he probably needs to pass a little bit more. But he really hasn't played that much in the NBA, and I think he'll grow and improve in that way.
                              Last edited by Sookie; 01-03-2012, 11:45 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                                Regarding Bird's comments on Lance, Kareem Rush, and Diener, I'll join in criticizing the hyperbole.

                                However, I think it's fair to say that at least he wasn't calling a spade a diamond; he just took a grain of truth (Lance has a few things that he can do that few can [but he has a **** ton of flaws and is very raw and has big red flags in other areas], Rush and Diener both came in with the reputation of being great 3 point shooters [to an extent], Diener being a guy who could [in his own very limited way] shoot/pass/run an offense [but not nearly as well as Price and with a much more flawed/limited game]) and ran waaaaaay into the distance with it. The former offends me a lot more than the latter, in general. The Lance talk comes closest to the former.

                                But as always I'll freely admit my childhood feelings of Bird will almost always make me lean towards 'benefit of the doubt' with him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X