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

Quietly Danny Granger has....

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

  • #16
    Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    Definitely my favorite pacer of the post brawl era. It's a shame his peak was under JOB and a less talented roster. I'll always love and respect DG
    That probably helped contribute to his points total as it is. He was essentially forced to be a #1 option. Same thing happened with Dunleavy when Granger went down for awhile (although I never saw Dunleavy play anything close to that again, but I think a knee injury played a large role in that).
    Check out my autographed 1972-73 Topps basketball project

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      I know there are a lot of people out here who don't particularly like Granger but for those of us that do
      Okay, this got me wondering just what the numbers really are on this, so I started a new poll to find out. Everyone vote; tell us where you stand!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

        He will pass the mighty Vern Fleming soon. I always forget how long Vern played for the Pacers, by the time I started being able to understand the game he had already been on the team for like 7 or 8 years.

        The Vern Fleming record no one will probably ever beat: 12 seasons (most if not all in which he played heavy rotation minutes), no technical fouls!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

          Still remember when Shaq fell on Vern, busting his teeth out and hurting his knee. He might have wanted to retaliate that time if he wasn't so busted up at the moment.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            What is most amazing about Reggie is that if he was a selfish player he could have scored another 10K points.
            Thank you. Not enough people realize how much Reggie deferred to teammates and allowed others to get involved in the offense. Pacers fans generally understand this, but outsiders merely looking at volume stats do not.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

              Longevity is a big factor. I mean Reggie Miller is not just the leader in points, he is also #1 All Time Pacer in Assists and Steals and Turnovers.

              And all of the above makes sense because...

              Minutes played:

              1. Reggie Miller 47,619
              2. Rik Smits 23,100

              He has literally played more than twice as many minutes for Indiana than any other Pacer.

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

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

                Originally posted by A-Train View Post
                Still remember when Shaq fell on Vern, busting his teeth out and hurting his knee. He might have wanted to retaliate that time if he wasn't so busted up at the moment.
                Shaq fell on him trying to block Vern's layup, busted out most his teeth, banged up his knee, annnnnnnd there was no foul on the play. Proof the NBA hasn't changed in 20 years.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

                  Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                  Longevity is a big factor. I mean Reggie Miller is not just the leader in points, he is also #1 All Time Pacer in Assists and Steals and Turnovers.
                  Now that I would not have bet on. Amazing considering the PG he played with is # 4 or so all-time in assists.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

                    I can't believe that Vern Flemming is on this list. I can see all the other guys, but I had no idea Vern was that productive.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

                      IMO Vern was a very underated Pacer because he played on a lot of bad teams. Vern was a little turnover prone but had great size for a point, was a well above average defender and a really good mid-range scorer. In short Vern was the consumate professional and teamate.

                      Most people don't remember but he was a key member of 1984 Olympic team. The last group of college players to win a gold. On that 84 team Vern & Alvin Robertson were a great defensive tandem and just plain wore out the other international backcourts. Knight even trusted them to pressure the ball full court which is something he never did with his IU teams.
                      Last edited by Downtown Bang!; 03-02-2013, 02:50 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        passed the great Mel Daniels on the all-time Pacers scoring list.

                        Actually it happened last game but I forgot to verify, but per basketball-reference.com


                        1. Reggie Miller* 25279
                        2. Rik Smits 12871
                        3. Billy Knight 10780
                        4. Roger Brown 10058
                        5. Jermaine O'Neal 9580
                        6. George McGinnis 9545
                        7. Vern Fleming 9535
                        8. Danny Granger 9321
                        9. Mel Daniels* 9314
                        10. Freddie Lewis 9257


                        There is an outside chance he could catch & pass Jermaine O'Neal this year, Danny would have to avg. approximately 11+ for the rest of the season so while it's not going to be easy it is still possible.

                        I know there are a lot of people out here who don't particularly like Granger but for those of us that do we really need to appreciate that we have been blessed with one of the all time great Pacers. Sadly if injury had't robbed him of this season I really think he could have caught Billy Knight this year.

                        But even so, passing a hall of fame player in the scoring bracket is still something to be proud of.

                        So salute to the Captain, Danny Granger!!!!
                        I realize that a re-sign is a tough maybe depending on numbers, but as I've said all along you can re-sign West now and then decide on Danny next year at the trade deadline depending on how things are going. If he's playing at "give me 12-14m per year" with Paul, West, Roy and Hill playing how they would likely be playing, then you have a 65 win team and you pay the lux tax for at least one year just to do what you might never do again.

                        On the other hand if he's not "earning" his current contract rate then it means that you can keep him due to reduced market rate. As a 12-6-2 guy you could maybe get him for 8-9 per (ie, the guy we've had the last 2 games).


                        Either way just one more season with the Pacers puts him past Roger Brown and on the heels of Knight. 3 more seasons and he could be #2 on the list, to be joined later by Paul George. When you look at who is #1 and #2 on the list now, you see what that implies...ECF and Finals runs.



                        Think about what the Pacers did prior to Rik being at #2. Say it's 97 and people wonder if Rik will ever get over his foot issues and if he's worth keeping. He's maybe in the same range on this list as Danny is now (haven't done the math). In other words you could be looking back to this season and thinking about a few ECF/Finals and how Danny climbed to #2.

                        Or you could punt on what might be the greatest starting 5 the Pacers have ever had.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

                          Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
                          IMO Vern was a very underated Pacer because he played on a lot of bad teams. Vern was a little turnover prone but had great size for a point, was a well above average defender and a really good mid-range scorer. In short Vern was the consumate professional and teamate.

                          Most people don't remember but he was a key member of 1984 Olympic team. The last group of college players to win a gold. On that 84 team Vern & Alvin Robertson were a great defensive tandem and just plain wore out the other international backcourts. Knight even trusted them to pressure the ball full court which is something he never did with his IU teams.
                          The Vern Fleming that seemingly way too few of us remember is the "gold standard" for being able to finish at the rim.

                          Sure, some could dismiss it as "just getting whatever junk he threw up there to drop".

                          But I prefer to think of Vern Fleming by using my inner-Slick Leonard voice, as he always appreciated when Vern would go "right up Meridian St., baby!".

                          Sure, anything beyond 15-feet was a knuckleball jumper and we all wondered how he got any of them to drop.

                          At the end of the day, a much better playmaker than he's ever given credit for. He was probably better suited to be a combo guard, but for the first two years of his career we didn't even have any other guards. Stansberry doesn't count. Finally John Long for a couple of years took a little pressure off Vern, then that skinny UCLA kid helped a lot.

                          = = = = = = = = = = =

                          This list, it bears repeating because a few are already confused about it, has a strong correlation to career minutes played for just one team.

                          There's no doubt that JO, Big Mac, and perhaps Rahjah would be much higher on the list if they played more of their career with the Pacers. There is another name to include with that. Mel Daniels ranks #250 all-time on the combined ABA/NBA scoring list with 11,778 points, basically over 8 seasons (and 11 games of his final season.)

                          And some guys that aren't on the list (Chuck Person, six seasons and 9,096 points for the Pacers) would also be in that category.

                          I like Danny, but I think this list shows that you can always use a bunch of arbitrary filters to make whatever story you want to make.

                          Here's another version of the same data:

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

                          (Long-time Pacers fans will look at this data and wonder about how Alex English, Adrian Dantely, and John Williamson are missing -- basketball-reference's criteria is for a minimum of 100 games with the franchise. Meanwhile, how badly did Big Mac cut into his average after we gave up Alex English's 22ppg to bring him back at the end of his career? I'll answer that. In four ABA seasons, Big Mac scored 7919 points in 314 games, an average of 25.5 PPG. When he returned to the team in the 1980 season, he put up 1626 points over his final 173 games, an average of 9.9 PPG. I'm still baffled that Big Mac will hopefully be the third of our ABA Legends to make the Hall... not to take anything away from Mel and Roger but I'm not so sure I understand the Hall's logic here.)

                          Points Per Game
                          1. George McGinnis 19.6
                          2. Mel Daniels* 19.4
                          3. Chuck Person 19.0
                          4. Clark Kellogg 18.9
                          5. Jermaine O'Neal 18.6
                          6. Billy Knight 18.4
                          7. Reggie Miller* 18.2
                          8. Danny Granger 18.1
                          9. Roger Brown 18.0
                          10. Ricky Sobers 17.8
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

                            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                            The Vern Fleming that seemingly way too few of us remember is the "gold standard" for being able to finish at the rim.

                            Sure, some could dismiss it as "just getting whatever junk he threw up there to drop".

                            But I prefer to think of Vern Fleming by using my inner-Slick Leonard voice, as he always appreciated when Vern would go "right up Meridian St., baby!".

                            Sure, anything beyond 15-feet was a knuckleball jumper and we all wondered how he got any of them to drop.

                            At the end of the day, a much better playmaker than he's ever given credit for. He was probably better suited to be a combo guard, but for the first two years of his career we didn't even have any other guards. Stansberry doesn't count. Finally John Long for a couple of years took a little pressure off Vern, then that skinny UCLA kid helped a lot.

                            = = = = = = = = = = =

                            This list, it bears repeating because a few are already confused about it, has a strong correlation to career minutes played for just one team.

                            There's no doubt that JO, Big Mac, and perhaps Rahjah would be much higher on the list if they played more of their career with the Pacers. There is another name to include with that. Mel Daniels ranks #250 all-time on the combined ABA/NBA scoring list with 11,778 points, basically over 8 seasons (and 11 games of his final season.)

                            And some guys that aren't on the list (Chuck Person, six seasons and 9,096 points for the Pacers) would also be in that category.

                            I like Danny, but I think this list shows that you can always use a bunch of arbitrary filters to make whatever story you want to make.

                            Here's another version of the same data:

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

                            (Long-time Pacers fans will look at this data and wonder about how Alex English, Adrian Dantely, and John Williamson are missing -- basketball-reference's criteria is for a minimum of 100 games with the franchise. Meanwhile, how badly did Big Mac cut into his average after we gave up Alex English's 22ppg to bring him back at the end of his career? I'll answer that. In four ABA seasons, Big Mac scored 7919 points in 314 games, an average of 25.5 PPG. When he returned to the team in the 1980 season, he put up 1626 points over his final 173 games, an average of 9.9 PPG. I'm still baffled that Big Mac will hopefully be the third of our ABA Legends to make the Hall... not to take anything away from Mel and Roger but I'm not so sure I understand the Hall's logic here.)

                            Points Per Game
                            1. George McGinnis 19.6
                            2. Mel Daniels* 19.4
                            3. Chuck Person 19.0
                            4. Clark Kellogg 18.9
                            5. Jermaine O'Neal 18.6
                            6. Billy Knight 18.4
                            7. Reggie Miller* 18.2
                            8. Danny Granger 18.1
                            9. Roger Brown 18.0
                            10. Ricky Sobers 17.8
                            I agree with the highlighted part, just to prove I agree with you let's look further.

                            Minutes Played
                            1. Reggie Miller* 47619
                            2. Rik Smits 23100
                            3. Vern Fleming 22974
                            4. Roger Brown 20315
                            5. Dale Davis 19814
                            6. Freddie Lewis 19534
                            7. Herb Williams 18455
                            8. Jermaine O'Neal 17997
                            9. Billy Knight 17787
                            10. Mel Daniels* 17756


                            Field Goal Attempts
                            1. Reggie Miller* 17499
                            2. Rik Smits 10461
                            3. Billy Knight 8235
                            4. Jermaine O'Neal 7973
                            5. Roger Brown 7852
                            6. George McGinnis 7822
                            7. Chuck Person 7820
                            8. Mel Daniels* 7666
                            9. Freddie Lewis 7627
                            10. Herb Williams 757

                            You'll notice that Danny Granger is on neither of those lists, so is it safe to say that Danny has scored more points while taking fewer shots in less min. on the floor for the Pacers than the above players.

                            Nobody was highlighted to make a point or anything.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              I agree with the highlighted part, just to prove I agree with you let's look further.

                              Minutes Played
                              1. Reggie Miller* 47619
                              2. Rik Smits 23100
                              3. Vern Fleming 22974
                              4. Roger Brown 20315
                              5. Dale Davis 19814
                              6. Freddie Lewis 19534
                              7. Herb Williams 18455
                              8. Jermaine O'Neal 17997
                              9. Billy Knight 17787
                              10. Mel Daniels* 17756


                              Field Goal Attempts
                              1. Reggie Miller* 17499
                              2. Rik Smits 10461
                              3. Billy Knight 8235
                              4. Jermaine O'Neal 7973
                              5. Roger Brown 7852
                              6. George McGinnis 7822
                              7. Chuck Person 7820
                              8. Mel Daniels* 7666
                              9. Freddie Lewis 7627
                              10. Herb Williams 757

                              You'll notice that Danny Granger is on neither of those lists, so is it safe to say that Danny has scored more points while taking fewer shots in less min. on the floor for the Pacers than the above players.

                              Nobody was highlighted to make a point or anything.

                              Oh man, you are hurting people's arguments with stats here.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Quietly Danny Granger has....

                                Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                                Oh man, you are hurting people's arguments with stats here.

                                I get something different out of those.

                                George McGinnis, Chuck Person, Billy Knight and the guy Peck despises really made signficant marks on the Pacers' career record books in spite of spending a lot of their careers elsewhere. Neither Big Mac nor Rifleman were in the top ten in minutes but were up there in FGAs (and scoring average, and Big Mac in the top-ten in total points and I think Chuck is #11 or #12 in a lot less seasons than most of the guys ahead of him on the list).

                                Oh, and one other thing is clear, it wasn't really Vern's or Dale's job to shoot the ball. Their minutes were high because of their other contributions, not all of which were measured with statistics, but certainly both were accomplished with professionalism, class, and toughness.
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X