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

Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this) :)

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

  • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    I disagree with almost everything vnzla says, but I have a fantastic time bickering with him.
    He's a little harder on Danny than I would be, but facts are facts.

    Granger was an all-star and now he's not...and in the past few years there's a very good reason or two for that.

    One has been his defense. He appears to be shoring that up. It's still not elite or even Iggy level pressure. IOW, he's not riding in as an all-star even on the basis of his improved defense. At the moment, it is about average or maybe slightly above average as a starting SF.

    The other is offense. Granger is a great shooter and getting better at mid range. However, his offensive game is still pretty one dimensional compared to all-stars around the league. His handle is very weak and a real liability. I must say that he's improved that some since he doesn't constantly charge like he used to. Still, it's a weakness. He does not see the floor well and pass it...and even guys like David West and Paul George do that better. Also, he is not a threat to come into the paint and flush it. In fact, I'm not even sure he is capable of dunking in a little traffic. Name another 6'8" all-star SF who never dunks unless nobody is within 20 feet. Dunking doesn't make an all-star...but it does indicate how explosive he is. I suppose he's not all that athletic...but that's not good either...

    Comment


    • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

      Originally posted by beast23 View Post
      I just don't understand the love for Monta with respect to being on the Pacers. He would be a terrible fit... A ball dominant guard who is looking constantly to call his own number first.

      We have an emerging and decent post player in Hibbert. We have a very good PnR and mid-range shooter in West. We have two good perimeter shooters in Granger and George, who are both capable of slashing on occasion. The absolute last thing we need is a ball dominant guard who primarily seeks his own opportunities.

      I don't see one bit how Monta as a PG makes the other players around him better when he would constantly be depriving them of opportunities. I could handle him as a SG as long as he could adapt his style to a passing offense and not merely become a constant stopping point for the ball... But NEVER as a PG.

      With the starters we have, we really shouldn't want a ball dominant PG. But if we had one, I could only hope that he would be a pass-first PG who is looking for opportunities for his teammates as opposed to himself. A PG like Nash is a good example, Monta never will be.
      puppet master Pictures, Images and Photos ... I'm not sure if you're serious but I'll oblige.

      Monta's perceived weaknesses are our strengths, and our weaknesses are Monta's strengths. It's really that simple.

      Monta's a world class athlete and there's nothing he can't do on a basketball court. People want to harp on his defense and shot attempts, but those are things that can be fixed.

      Monta has all the tools to be a top 10-15 player IMO.
      Last edited by CJ Jones; 02-18-2012, 06:23 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        One good game and we crown him as the savior?
        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Who won that game again? a ok good try
        Your claim was that he'd only had "one good game," not that we didn't win.

        Way to move the goalposts.

        Comment


        • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          ... sometimes I get the feeling that some people think we have the "next coming" in our hands, you know like somebody thinking that we have the next Reggie or something like that
          "Some people" = a straw man argument. To readers like me, you would have a lot more credibility if you were reacting to ACTUAL QUOTES of posters saying this type of stuff, instead of first making negative comments, then being called out on it, and claiming that you're only reacting to what "some people" are apparently saying.

          Edit: seriously, who here is calling Granger the "second coming?" You're putting it in quotes so you must have someone specific in mind, right?

          Comment


          • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

            Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
            I'm not sure if you're serious but I'll oblige.

            Monta's perceived weaknesses are our strengths, and our weaknesses are Monta's strengths. It's really that simple.

            Monta's a world class athlete and there's nothing he can't do on a basketball court. People want to harp on his defense and shot attempts, but those are things that can be fixed.

            Monta has all the tools to be a top 10-15 player IMO.
            I was being very serious.

            I totally agree that Monta is a great athlete. However, don't ever attempt to sell me on the old argument of "but those are things that can be fixed."

            To first attempt to sell me on that argument, the player must exhibit the behavior on at least a partially consistent basis that I would want him to change to. That means, first and foremost, that the player must exhibit an ability and a WILLINGNESS, to change.

            See where I am headed with this...

            Once upon a time, the Pacers had a player named Jalen effing Rose. JfR, on occassion, was one of the better basketball players that we had ever had on the Pacers through the years. Unfortunately, JfR had a problem. Although he was quite capable of playing defense, excellent defense as a matter of fact, he was very rarely willing to put out the effort on the defensive end of the floor to do so. I really thought at times that Jalen only bizitched about calls on the offensive end because he thought that gave him a free pass out of having to recover back and play defense.

            And, although JfR was a very capable passer, he had a habit of overlooking teammates to call his own number on the offensive end of the floor. Many a possession died when the ball reached his hands.

            So, as you can see, JfR had some qualities that did not exactly endear him to his own teammates.

            The problem is, like Monta, JfR was a hell of an athlete and could do damn near anything with a basketball... if only he were willing to change.

            Your argument reminds me of the zillions of women out there who marry what would be a great guy if only they could make a few minor changes to him. So, they spend 10-15 years of marriage unhappy, only to realize that a leopard rarely changes its spots. Ladies out there... men are NOT going to change without a willingness on their part to effect that change. You can't wave a magic wand and fix them, you can only point out the positives of making said changes and spend our time waiting for those changes.

            And CJ Jones, the primary habits of basketball players are the exact same. Players add thing to their games and they can adjust them somewhat, but rarely do they totally re-adjust their internal tendencies about how they choose to approach the game.

            So, when it comes to making a major commitment to a player like Monta, all I have to say is "you gotta show me first". Let me see him make defense a major part of his game and let me see him behave in a way that makes me think he is a teammate who is not only capable, but is completely willing to share the ball. Show me that on a consistent basis, and I'll join your team and will be in your corner preaching to anyone who would oppose him coming here.

            But until then, I wouldn't want him. In his present state, I can only assume that like JfR, after a short while Monta would wear out his welcome and have a negative affect on team chemistry.

            You see, I believe a team is the sum of its parts and far more important than any one part itself. I'm just not sure at all that Monta shares that sentiment.

            So serious? You betcha I was being serious.

            P.S... By the way, if you have not been able to determine it, JfR is in a very, very small group of basketball players that I have despised most through the years. Only because of his total waste of talent. He should have been an HOF player, but unfortunately, ended his career nowhere close.
            Last edited by beast23; 02-18-2012, 09:56 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

              Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
              "Some people" = a straw man argument. To readers like me, you would have a lot more credibility if you were reacting to ACTUAL QUOTES of posters saying this type of stuff, instead of first making negative comments, then being called out on it, and claiming that you're only reacting to what "some people" are apparently saying.

              Edit: seriously, who here is calling Granger the "second coming?" You're putting it in quotes so you must have someone specific in mind, right?
              It was a joke towards Peck, take it easy.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                OK so it looks to me like not many people has seen Monta at work, here is a good video of him.






                And yes they lost the game but that's not the point
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  OK so it looks to me like not many people has seen Monta at work, here is a good video of him.






                  And yes they lost the game but that's not the point
                  Did you know Antonio and Dale aren’t actually brothers?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                    Having a score-first PG certainly can work.

                    However, most people here argue that we need a pass-first point guard to run our offense. A lot of people hate on DC for being score-first for this very reason.

                    So, what do we really want? A pass-first PG that can facilitate our offense? Or a score-first PG that can run our offense by drawing doubles and passing out of them but could also potentially shoot us out of games?
                    Either of those would work but the problem with DC is that he doesnt score or facilitate at an elite or even just below elite level. Rondo facilitates, Monta scores and Nash can do both, he's just old. So in terms of hating on DC, I wouldn't call it hate, it's more so "We like you but not as much as we'd like to because you aren't who we thought we were getting."

                    Comment


                    • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                      Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                      Either of those would work but the problem with DC is that he doesnt score or facilitate at an elite or even just below elite level. Rondo facilitates, Monta scores and Nash can do both, he's just old. So in terms of hating on DC, I wouldn't call it hate, it's more so "We like you but not as much as we'd like to because you aren't who we thought we were getting."
                      DC does not score because he is not looking to score this year. This year he is averaging 10.3 FGAs per 36. Rajon Rondo averages 11.8 FGAs per 36. Steve Nash averages 11.7 FGAs per 36. Monta Ellis averages 18.1 FGAs per 36.

                      DC does try to facilitate this year. Can he facilitate like Rondo or Nash? No, he cannot. But he does look for his teammates. I'll agree with one thing. Throughout this season (my first season of watching the NBA), I've been convinced that DC would be more effective as a scorer off the bench for now. Facilitating does not seem to be his game most of the time.

                      But to say that DC looks for his own shot first is absurd this year. He is shooting way less than Rondo and Nash who primarily look to facilitate.
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        DC does not score because he is not looking to score this year. This year he is averaging 10.3 FGAs per 36. Rajon Rondo averages 11.8 FGAs per 36. Steve Nash averages 11.7 FGAs per 36. Monta Ellis averages 18.1 FGAs per 36.

                        DC does try to facilitate this year. Can he facilitate like Rondo or Nash? No, he cannot. But he does look for his teammates. I'll agree with one thing. Throughout this season (my first season of watching the NBA), I've been convinced that DC would be more effective as a scorer off the bench for now. Facilitating does not seem to be his game most of the time.

                        But to say that DC looks for his own shot first is absurd this year. He is shooting way less than Rondo and Nash who primarily look to facilitate.
                        Ive never accused him of being a shoot first player but that is what he is best at doing. Even still he doesn't do it well enough in a capacity for us to get to the next level. Even though he's trying to be a better facilitator, he's still lacking heavily in the decision making department.

                        Just watching the games it always seems to me like the opposition has no "respect" for or "fear" of his game. You Know what Danny, West, and Roy can do. PG can explode offensively or defensively any given night but what about DC? He's fast? Ok......

                        I do however 100% agree that he'd be better served coming off the bench looking for his own shot but we already have GH3 who i feel is better.

                        So in turn, if we could somehow get a package together to bring in a Rondo, Monta or Nash, then im all for that. Its been my biggest gripe ALL YEAR. Upgrade the Point Guard Spot or Bust!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          OK so it looks to me like not many people has seen Monta at work, here is a good video of him.

                          And yes they lost the game but that's not the point
                          I've seen this video and I also watched a large part of this game. This loss was on Curry with his 2 consecutive turnovers and the missed jumper so we can agree that it was not Monta's fault that GS lost that particular one.

                          Now, watch the video again. Look at his shot selection. See the amount of tough shots he attempts. See the amount of shots he takes early in the shot clock. Does he make them? In this particular case, he does. Does he make them all the time? His nights of 2-12, 5-17 (twice), 6-26, 8-22 and 9-25 say that he does not make them all the time. It is well-known that he has the ability to hit tough shots but they are not going to fall night in and night out (which is why they are called tough shots to begin with).

                          Look, I'm not doubting Monta's talent. He is a very talented player. But our team, currently, is about taking high percentage shots. Monta is not the kind of player to take the high percentage shot. He likes taking tough shots and while he is able to hit them, that's not going to happen all the time.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                            Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                            Ive never accused him of being a shoot first player but that is what he is best at doing. Even still he doesn't do it well enough in a capacity for us to get to the next level. Even though he's trying to be a better facilitator, he's still lacking heavily in the decision making department.

                            Just watching the games it always seems to me like the opposition has no "respect" for or "fear" of his game. You Know what Danny, West, and Roy can do. PG can explode offensively or defensively any given night but what about DC? He's fast? Ok......
                            You haven't accused him of being shot first, that's true.. Several other people have, though. I'll agree that he needs to fix his decision making. He also has some other flaws in his game that he needs to fix (entry passes, fast breaks, pick and roll offense and defense, fighting through screens etc).

                            But he's trying to improve himself. He is trying to fit the team concept. That's why I don't want to ship him. I sincerely believe that this would ruin the team chemistry.

                            Regarding on enemies respecting or fearing his game. They don't fear him cause he does not get a whole lot of attempts. However, DC is a great shooter. In every season of his still young career his TS% is over .500 (this is his lowest season at .524). If he actually learned to play the pick and roll he would create a lot of jumper shots for himself and we know that his jumpers are lethal.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                              I would rather have Danny over Monta. Granger could have big scoring nights too if he took as many shots as Ellis takes.

                              The last 2 and a half years Danny has taken 20 or more attempts 31 times and seen 25 or more just 3 times but never reached 30 attempts over that time frame. Monta on the other hand has taken 20 or more 105 times and taken 25 or more 39 times, he's made it to 30 attempts 7 times and even had a 39 attempt game and that game only netted 36 points.

                              Danny has scored 30+ on less than 20 shots 10 times over the period while Monta has done it only two times. Both of Monta's games were 30 on the nose while Danny has broke 35 points 4 times on less than 20 attempts. Danny has got 30+ points 26 times while shooting under 25 shots over that period while Monta has done it just 23 times.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this)

                                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                                I've seen this video and I also watched a large part of this game. This loss was on Curry with his 2 consecutive turnovers and the missed jumper so we can agree that it was not Monta's fault that GS lost that particular one.

                                Now, watch the video again. Look at his shot selection. See the amount of tough shots he attempts. See the amount of shots he takes early in the shot clock. Does he make them? In this particular case, he does. Does he make them all the time? His nights of 2-12, 5-17 (twice), 6-26, 8-22 and 9-25 say that he does not make them all the time. It is well-known that he has the ability to hit tough shots but they are not going to fall night in and night out (which is why they are called tough shots to begin with).

                                Look, I'm not doubting Monta's talent. He is a very talented player. But our team, currently, is about taking high percentage shots. Monta is not the kind of player to take the high percentage shot. He likes taking tough shots and while he is able to hit them, that's not going to happen all the time.
                                Those look like tough shots to you but those are common shots for players like Monta, Kobe, Rose, EJ, Westbrook and Dwade, there is a reason why a lot of those guys are great, BECAUSE THEY MAKE THE TOUGH SHOTS, that's what the Pacers are lacking of, a guy who can create his own shot and can make tough shots.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X