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

Granger or Melo?

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

  • Re: Granger or Melo?

    My stance has nothing to do with homerism. It has nothing to do with Granger. Everything to do with Carmelo. I've never believed he was elite in the NBA. It's not just me, the numbers back me up as well.

    These are the career numbers of Granger, Carmelo, Lebron, Wade, and Durant. I'll give you all the numbers, then point out which one is Carmelo.

    Points per shot


    1.29
    1.35
    1.28
    1.38
    1.37
    --------

    This one is easy, as I've given it before. Carmelo is the lowest at 1.28

    True Shooting percentage:

    57.9%
    56.7%
    56.8%
    54.4%
    56.3%
    ---------

    Well, the one that is completely out of whack here with the rest is the 54.4%. Everyone else is above 56%. Guess who? You guessed it right if you said Carmelo.

    eFG%

    50.2%
    47.7%
    51.5%
    50.0%
    50.4%
    --------

    Again, who's the one who is out of whack with the rest at 47.7% while everyone else is above 50%? Again, you'd be correct if you said Carmelo.

    I'm really failing to see how Carmelo is an elite scorer anywhere but in peoples perception. He takes 4 more shots per game, and scores 5 more points per game on average. So if Danny forced 4 more shots at even just 1 point per shot (far below his career average for PPS), would he then be elite? I'm guessing the answer is no. So why is Carmelo?

    The comments I have an issue with most of all are the ones claiming we would have made the playoffs with Carmelo all these years, but not Danny. Why is that? Because Carmelo shoots more? He's no more efficient. He's no better on defense. In fact in a league where quality beats quantity, Carmelo has a better teammate today than Danny ever had the last few years, and it took one of the least likely events in NBA history (Jeremy Lin) to propel that team into the playoff picture. Yet, he would have carried the Pacers by himself to the playoffs? I'm struggling to see that. I'm really struggling to see how an 'elite' player paired with another All Star (Amare) could have such an average record during their time, if Carmelo was truly elite.

    I think the easier answer is simply that he isn't. He's a step or two above Granger, but still quite short of elite.

    Comment


    • Re: Granger or Melo?

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      People on this board are fans. People on every NBA board are fans. Fans support and root for their teams and their team's players. There's nothing wrong with that.

      I cannot understand why being a homer is a negative as a fan. As long as you can accept that there are several other good (or better) teams around and don't try to belittle other team's accomplishments then why is it bad to love the guys in your team?

      Seriously, I have no idea why this board is so apologetic about this. Loving the guys on your team does not necessarily mean that you're a biased fool that degrades other team's players and fans.
      As a Pacers' fan, you wouldn't root for Carmelo Anthony if he was a Pacer, even though it would be better for the team?

      Comment


      • Re: Granger or Melo?

        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
        People on this board are fans. People on every NBA board are fans. Fans support and root for their teams and their team's players. There's nothing wrong with that.

        I cannot understand why being a homer is a negative as a fan. As long as you can accept that there are several other good (or better) teams around and don't try to belittle other team's accomplishments then why is it bad to love the guys in your team?

        Seriously, I have no idea why this board is so apologetic about this. Loving the guys on your team does not necessarily mean that you're a biased fool that degrades other team's players and fans.

        But this goes beyond merely loving the guys on your team. When I read this thread, it seems that most have convinced themselves that Granger is actually a better fit on the court than Melo. There is nothing wrong with liking your players, but everyone else's fans would laugh at the notion that Granger is a better basketball fit.

        Comment


        • Re: Granger or Melo?

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          But this goes beyond merely loving the guys on your team. When I read this thread, it seems that most have convinced themselves that Granger is actually a better fit on the court than Melo. There is nothing wrong with liking your players, but everyone else's fans would laugh at the notion that Granger is a better basketball fit.
          The only arguments that are being made that are pro-Carmelo have been about scoring. Are we going to get into the rest of the game of basketball, or just argue that Carmelo is the better scorer and thus better basketball player?

          For that 5 point offensive difference between Melo and Danny, or whatever it is, it gets erased pretty quickly when you start talking about the differences between them defensively. For all the talk about how awful Danny is on defense, he's a regular MJ compared to the turnstile that is Carmelo Anthony.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Granger or Melo?

            There is no neutral, third-party that would take Danny Granger over Carmelo Anthony.

            None.

            This argument is asinine.

            Comment


            • Re: Granger or Melo?

              Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
              My stance has nothing to do with homerism. It has nothing to do with Granger. Everything to do with Carmelo. I've never believed he was elite in the NBA. It's not just me, the numbers back me up as well.

              These are the career numbers of Granger, Carmelo, Lebron, Wade, and Durant. I'll give you all the numbers, then point out which one is Carmelo.

              Points per shot


              1.29
              1.35
              1.28
              1.38
              1.37
              --------

              This one is easy, as I've given it before. Carmelo is the lowest at 1.28

              True Shooting percentage:

              57.9%
              56.7%
              56.8%
              54.4%
              56.3%
              ---------

              Well, the one that is completely out of whack here with the rest is the 54.4%. Everyone else is above 56%. Guess who? You guessed it right if you said Carmelo.

              eFG%

              50.2%
              47.7%
              51.5%
              50.0%
              50.4%
              --------

              Again, who's the one who is out of whack with the rest at 47.7% while everyone else is above 50%? Again, you'd be correct if you said Carmelo.

              I'm really failing to see how Carmelo is an elite scorer anywhere but in peoples perception. He takes 4 more shots per game, and scores 5 more points per game on average. So if Danny forced 4 more shots at even just 1 point per shot (far below his career average for PPS), would he then be elite? I'm guessing the answer is no. So why is Carmelo?

              The comments I have an issue with most of all are the ones claiming we would have made the playoffs with Carmelo all these years, but not Danny. Why is that? Because Carmelo shoots more? He's no more efficient. He's no better on defense. In fact in a league where quality beats quantity, Carmelo has a better teammate today than Danny ever had the last few years, and it took one of the least likely events in NBA history (Jeremy Lin) to propel that team into the playoff picture. Yet, he would have carried the Pacers by himself to the playoffs? I'm struggling to see that. I'm really struggling to see how an 'elite' player paired with another All Star (Amare) could have such an average record during their time, if Carmelo was truly elite.

              I think the easier answer is simply that he isn't. He's a step or two above Granger, but still quite short of elite.

              Funny that you leave Kobe off of your list. I'm guessing that's because putting him on there would put a serious dent in your argument. Kobe's career eFG% is 48.7% which is lower than Granger, Lebron, Wade, and Durant. Kobe's "true shooting percentage" is 55.5%, which is also lower than those 4 guys you compared Melo to. His points per shot is 1.30, which is a fraction above Danny. Is Kobe the worst of those 5 players? No, he's actually the best.

              So it looks like Danny beats Kobe in 2/3 of these apparently all-important categories. I guess that means half of this forum would be against trading Danny for an in-his-prime Kobe too, right? Darn, if only Bird had shown Kupchack these obscure statistics three years ago, then maybe we could have traded Granger for Kobe and won some rings.

              People say that we would have gone to the playoffs with Carmello all of these years because Carmelo was leading his team to the playoffs while Granger wasn't. Several of those Denver teams were not good at all. Yet Melo always got them to the playoffs in the loaded WCF. Would we have really missed the playoffs from 07-10 in the weak East if we had Melo instead of Granger? Can you really say that with a straight face?

              Melo had to take a bunch of shots because he was the only legit option on his team for many years.
              Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-28-2012, 11:40 AM.

              Comment


              • Re: Granger or Melo?

                Actually I didn't use Kobe because he wasn't the first person to cross my mind. Numbers will always have an outlier like Kobe. Which I'm sure revolves more around his insistence on being the first, 2nd and 3rd option. Every single play goes through him. His usage % is huge. Regardless, the difference is, Kobe plays All-NBA 1st team type of defense. Carmelo doesn't. Just keep on ignoring defense.

                With a straight face you can say that those Denver teams were 'not good at all'? I bet Granger would have loved to have a PG like Billups at any point in his career like Carmelo got in Denver. How about a big man who played like Nene? Has Granger had that until this year? Of course not, unless you want to count the first month of last year. You're making what you want out of things, not what's there.

                You keep talking about Carmelo like he's Lebron. He's not. He's a touch better than Granger, not more, nothing less.

                .
                Last edited by xBulletproof; 02-28-2012, 11:49 AM.

                Comment


                • Re: Granger or Melo?

                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  Actually I didn't use Kobe because he wasn't the first person to cross my mind. Numbers will always have an outlier like Kobe. Difference is, Kobe plays All-NBA 1st team type of defense. Carmelo doesn't. Just keep on ignoring defense.

                  With a straight face you can say that those Denver teams were 'not good at all'? I bet Granger would have loved to have a PG like Billups at any point in his career like Carmelo got in Denver. How about a big man who played like Nene? Has Granger had that until this year? Of course not, unless you want to count the first month of last year. You're making what you want out of things, not what's there.

                  You keep talking about Carmelo like he's Lebron. He's not. He's a touch better than Granger, not more, nothing less.

                  .

                  Billups didn't arrive until 2008. Melo made the playoffs in each of the 5 seasons before that. Also, Nene missed a TON of games from 04-08. Just look at the stats.

                  http://www.basketball-reference.com/...hilarne01.html

                  GP from 04-08: 55, 1, 64, 16.

                  The fact is, the pre-Billups Nuggets team were not that strong, especially considering they played in the Western Conference.

                  You're right, Kobe plays better D than Melo. He's obviously the better player. Same with Lebron. I'm not saying he's as good as those guys, but he is better than Granger and it's not by a "touch". For 5 seasons, Melo demonstrated that he could put a mediocre team on his back and lead it to the playoffs at a very young age. Granger has never had that ability.

                  I don't think Melo's D is as bad as some make it out to be, though it's certainly not on a Kobe/Lebron level.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-28-2012, 11:57 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Granger or Melo?

                    Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                    With a straight face you can say that those Denver teams were 'not good at all'? I bet Granger would have loved to have a PG like Billups at any point in his career like Carmelo got in Denver. How about a big man who played like Nene? Has Granger had that until this year? Of course not, unless you want to count the first month of last year. You're making what you want out of things, not what's there.
                    From my earlier post in this thread:

                    Until that 2003-2004 season, Denver hadn't made the playoffs since 1994-1995. In those 8 seasons between playoff appearances, the Nuggets won an average of about 21 games per year. His rookie season, they won 43 and finished 6th in the conference.

                    The Nuggets won 17 games the year before they drafted Carmelo, and 43 games his rookie year. I'd say they fit the bill of "not good at all," until he got there.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Granger or Melo?

                      Carmelo also had a well coached team that was built to play defense. Granger had Troy Murphy and Jim O'Brien. Even when Nene didn't play they had Camby winning All Defensive awards and Kenyon Martin playing as well. So Carmelo had TWO centers better than Granger has had until this year. Before Carmelo he had Andre Miller who at the time is also better than any PG Granger has had in his time here. Melo had a strong group of veterans around him. Guys who played defense and a good coach.

                      You're really reaching on the "Melo carried his team" bit.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger or Melo?

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        I see people making this remark over and over again. Who cares what other NBA forums think?

                        Would the Bulls fans trade Deng for Melo? No.

                        Would the Sixers fans trade Iguodala for Melo? No.

                        Would the Grizzlies fans trade Gay for Melo? No.

                        Wanna know why? Because all of these players are loyal to their franchises. Fans appreciate loyalty.

                        No one would argue that their players are better or more talented than Deng. What they'd argue is that they prefer their players.
                        I wouldn't do Deng for Melo either if I was the Bulls but I really love what Deng does one of the most underrated players and for the Bulls he is a better fit for that team than Melo. Melo is the better player but Deng is the better fit and proablly the most important guy on that roster outside of Rose and he is almost as important as Rose if they want to win a ring he needs to be on the floor and healthy.

                        loyality is good and all but I appreciate championships and Melo would bring us closer to a championship than Granger and anyone who doesn't see that then im not sure what they are watching.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger or Melo?

                          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                          From my earlier post in this thread:

                          Until that 2003-2004 season, Denver hadn't made the playoffs since 1994-1995. In those 8 seasons between playoff appearances, the Nuggets won an average of about 21 games per year. His rookie season, they won 43 and finished 6th in the conference.

                          The Nuggets won 17 games the year before they drafted Carmelo, and 43 games his rookie year. I'd say they fit the bill of "not good at all," until he got there.
                          The year before Carmelo they also had 9 players start at least 20 games. The year Carmelo showed up, they only had 5. Think health might have had something to do with that? Their assist leader before Carmelo was Junior Harrington (I'll wait while you search for who that even is), and the year Carmelo showed up they added Andre Miller. BTW, before Carmelo the teammate #2 in assists? Juwon Howard. In their top 5 in minutes played the year before? Juwon Howard, a rookie Nene, Junior Harrington, Donnell Harvey and Rodney White.

                          Please don't make it sound like Carmelo single handedly initiated that change.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger or Melo?

                            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                            As a Pacers' fan, you wouldn't root for Carmelo Anthony if he was a Pacer, even though it would be better for the team?
                            As a fan of basketball I'd really struggle to root for Carmelo even if he was a Pacer.

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            But this goes beyond merely loving the guys on your team. When I read this thread, it seems that most have convinced themselves that Granger is actually a better fit on the court than Melo. There is nothing wrong with liking your players, but everyone else's fans would laugh at the notion that Granger is a better basketball fit.
                            What you're saying is not 100% right, though.

                            Several people argued that Carmelo is a better fit for the Pacers (since we need a shot creator) and Granger is a better fit for the Knicks since they would benefit for his better 3 pt shooting now that they have their PnR covered with Lin and Baron.

                            Other people argued Granger is a better fit for the Pacers since he has already bought into Vogel's concept and there's no guarantee that Carmelo would buy into such a plan.

                            In general, which one is the best fit can be argued. Which one is the better player cannot be argued. Carmelo is clearly better. However, the better player is not always the better fit

                            On an irrelevant note. If I were a Bulls fan I wouldn't trade Deng for Carmelo either for the exact same reasons.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger or Melo?

                              Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                              The year before Carmelo they also had 9 players start at least 20 games. The year Carmelo showed up, they only had 5. Think health might have had something to do with that? Their assist leader before Carmelo was Junior Harrington (I'll wait while you search for who that even is), and the year Carmelo showed up they added Andre Miller. BTW, before Carmelo the teammate #2 in assists? Juwon Howard. In their top 5 in minutes played the year before? Juwon Howard, a rookie Nene, Junior Harrington, Donnell Harvey and Rodney White.

                              Please don't make it sound like Carmelo single handedly initiated that change.
                              The 2004 Nuggets made the playoffs after winning 17 games the year before.

                              Andre Miller was a good add. But Andre Miller doesn't take a 17 game winner to 43 and the playoffs.

                              Carmelo is unquestionably the main reason that team went from near the top of lottery to the playoffs. That has never, ever been the case for Granger. If you take the 2004 Nuggets and replace him with Danny Granger, they do not make the playoffs. Melo makes the Pacers a playoff team every year.
                              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                              -Lance Stephenson

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger or Melo?

                                Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                                I wouldn't do Deng for Melo either if I was the Bulls but I really love what Deng does one of the most underrated players and for the Bulls he is a better fit for that team than Melo. Melo is the better player but Deng is the better fit and proablly the most important guy on that roster outside of Rose and he is almost as important as Rose if they want to win a ring he needs to be on the floor and healthy.
                                I agree with this wholeheartedly. Deng is surely one of the most important cogs in the Bulls machine.

                                Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                                loyality is good and all but I appreciate championships and Melo would bring us closer to a championship than Granger and anyone who doesn't see that then im not sure what they are watching.
                                I disagree with this, though. I don't believe that Carmelo will ever win a championship as the leader of a team. He could do it as a 2nd/3rd option or important role player but never as the leader of said team.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X