Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Hicks
    Member
    • Jun 2004
    • 53117

    Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Originally posted by Sollozzo
    Some of you seem obsessed with putting Danny Granger in the starting lineup no matter what, while some of us prefer the past year's worth of inarguable continued success with Lance as the starter. It's fine if you don't agree with it, but could you guys please knock it off with the continued accusations that we aren't paying attention to "facts"?
    I have to be honest, my opinion of you is going down. I tried to explain to you where I'm coming from, and all I get is a post that basically mocks my other post without adding any substance.

    V is a master of selective ignorance and mockery, and it seems you're learning from him. I spent so much time pushing back with him that it brought out my dark side something fierce, and I'm not anxious to do it again. Especially not this soon after doing that with him, and also because I've previously considered you to be a high quality poster. I think this time I'm simply going to let this post show my current feelings, and otherwise I'm just going to suspend arguing with you at all.

    SMH.

    Comment

    • Nuntius
      Member
      • Jan 2012
      • 35969

      Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

      Originally posted by Sollozzo
      I'm confused, are we talking about real FG%?

      Danny Granger career FG%: 43.7%

      Michael Jordan career FG%: 49.7%.

      That's a difference of 6 percentage points.

      I can't believe I'm seriously comparing Danny Granger to 45
      FG% is outdated. It's a stat that became obsolete when the 3 point line was inserted since it fails to take into account that a 3 point shot is worth more than 2 point shot.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment

      • docpaul
        Rebirth.
        • Jul 2006
        • 4539

        Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

        I wonder what the arguments will be focused on, once we win an NBA title or two?

        This thread might take the record for # of people either totally missing each other's points, or willfully looking to simply argue for it's own sake.
        Last edited by docpaul; 11-04-2013, 02:21 AM.

        Comment

        • Nuntius
          Member
          • Jan 2012
          • 35969

          Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

          Originally posted by Sollozzo
          Some of you seem obsessed with putting Danny Granger in the starting lineup no matter what, while some of us prefer the past year's worth of inarguable continued success with Lance as the starter. It's fine if you don't agree with it, but could you guys please knock it off with the continued accusations that we aren't paying attention to "facts"?
          It has nothing to do with Granger. It has everything to do with Lance.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment

          • mattie
            Member
            • Feb 2011
            • 3887

            Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

            Here, since some folks are getting wrapped around the axle a little bit when it comes to TS% versus FG%, I'll try to make it simple as possible.

            Let's suppose if you could make a shot from 3 quarters of the court you get 25 points right? Stupid, but let's say this was a possibility?? Ok. Stay with me.

            Let's say Danny Granger decides he's going to take 10 three quarter shots per game. He makes only ONE shot per game. He gets 25 points. HIS FG% is 10 percent. AWFUL FG percentage right? But he scored 25 points!

            Now. His TS% would be. Well, really high.

            Now MJ shoots 10 shots as well, but all 2 point shots. He makes 5, allowing him to shoot a beautiful 50% from the field. He scores 10 points.

            Now, with Danny's 9 misses per game, he could have gotten the ball back on offensive rebounds. They could have a put back on every attempt. In theory.

            Mean while, MJ could only get an offensive rebound on 5 of HIS misses right?

            So in the scenario, one player scored more points, on LESS makes, and in theory could have given the opposing team LESS opportunities to score. Does this make sense???

            Scoring efficiency is MORE important than your actual field goal percentage. The fact that you made less shots, or had more misses is meaningless if you score more points. Does that make sense???

            I realize this is the most ridiculous scenario ever, but I use it to explain why TS% matters, and just because a player shoots more three's doesn't mean he's hurting his team because he has more total misses.

            Comment

            • CableKC
              Member
              • Mar 2005
              • 36687

              Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

              Originally posted by vnzla81
              Because we are not the San Antonio Spurs? different team and players.
              Because I'm not talking about comparison of Players and roster nor comparing the Spurs Championship Roster to the Pacers current roster?

              To be clear....so that there is no misunderstanding in what I am trying to post here:

              - Manu was the 6th Man on the roster for the Spurs.
              - Manu didn't actual start for the Spurs but played Starter Minutes
              - Despite being the 1st Player off the Bench, Manu was on the floor when it came to close games and during "crunchtime"

              What I am trying to say here is that Lance could do what Manu did for the Spurs....by playing the same type of role for the Pacers.

              Manu's role on the Team was to be the 6th Man, he wasn't "technically" considered the Starter in the lineup....but played Starter Minutes and CLOSED AND FINISHED Close games.

              What I am suggesting is that:

              Lance's role on the Team SHOULD be the 6th Man, where he isn't "technically" considered a Starter in the lineup....but play Starter Minutes while CLOSED AND FINISHED Close games.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment

              • Eleazar
                Member
                • Jun 2010
                • 13839

                Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                Originally posted by Hicks
                I have to be honest, my opinion of you is going down. I tried to explain to you where I'm coming from, and all I get is a post that basically mocks my other post without adding any substance.

                V is a master of selective ignorance and mockery, and it seems you're learning from him. I spent so much time pushing back with him that it brought out my dark side something fierce, and I'm not anxious to do it again. Especially not this soon after doing that with him, and also because I've previously considered you to be a high quality poster. I think this time I'm simply going to let this post show my current feelings, and otherwise I'm just going to suspend arguing with you at all.

                SMH.

                You know, from the end of last season until the beginning of the preseason I was in favor of starting Lance. For a while the only reason I was involved in these arguments was because those who were on the side of Lance were completely disingenuous and dismissive of anything positive towards Granger. I only changed my tune about who should start once I actually saw the bench play, and more specifically how they played with Lance.

                Comment

                • mattie
                  Member
                  • Feb 2011
                  • 3887

                  Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                  Originally posted by Nuntius
                  I was talking about Vnzla. He clearly has an agenda and he is pushing it hard lately.

                  I wasn't talking about Sollozzo, though. I may disagree a lot with him but he doesn't have an agenda.
                  I agree, I was merely apologizing for my uncalled for insult.

                  Comment

                  • Nuntius
                    Member
                    • Jan 2012
                    • 35969

                    Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                    Originally posted by mattie
                    I agree, I was merely apologizing for my uncalled for insult.
                    Ah, ok.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment

                    • CableKC
                      Member
                      • Mar 2005
                      • 36687

                      Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                      Originally posted by vnzla81
                      What is the obsession to make Lance a super sub when he can be a super starter?
                      Originally posted by BlueNGold
                      Pick your reason:

                      1) People think Granger will return to form
                      2) People think stretching the floor to free Hibbert and/or West is more important than many other things Lance does...including stretch the floor.
                      3) People are closet Lance lovers. They want to see him run wild with the bench...knowing he will have the "ball in his hands"...whatever that means.
                      4 ) People think that Lance has a skillset that Granger does not possess ( creating offense for others ) where Lance can utilize that skillset to greatly bolster the offensive effectiveness of the 2nd Unit ( something that I do not think that Granger would be very good at doing ) while playing enough minutes with the Starters to Finish/Close games and thus improving the overall effectiveness of the Team while reducing any heavy reliance on the remaining GH/PG/West/Hibbert ( one of the problems that we had last year ).
                      Last edited by CableKC; 11-04-2013, 03:45 AM.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment

                      • Nuntius
                        Member
                        • Jan 2012
                        • 35969

                        Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                        Originally posted by CableKC
                        4 ) People think that Lance has a skillset that Granger does not possess ( creating offense for others ) where Lance can utilize that skillset to greatly bolster the offensive effectiveness of the 2nd Unit ( something that I do not think that Granger would be very good at doing ) while playing enough minutes with the Starters to Finish/Close games and thus improving the overall effectiveness of the Team while reducing any heavy reliance on the remaining GH/PG/West/Hibbert ( one of the problems that we had last year ).
                        I really wish that you posted more in this thread. I admire your eloquence.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment

                        • aamcguy
                          Member
                          • Mar 2012
                          • 4134

                          Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                          Originally posted by mattie
                          Here, since some folks are getting wrapped around the axle a little bit when it comes to TS% versus FG%, I'll try to make it simple as possible.

                          Let's suppose if you could make a shot from 3 quarters of the court you get 25 points right? Stupid, but let's say this was a possibility?? Ok. Stay with me.

                          Let's say Danny Granger decides he's going to take 10 three quarter shots per game. He makes only ONE shot per game. He gets 25 points. HIS FG% is 10 percent. AWFUL FG percentage right? But he scored 25 points!

                          Now. His TS% would be. Well, really high.

                          Now MJ shoots 10 shots as well, but all 2 point shots. He makes 5, allowing him to shoot a beautiful 50% from the field. He scores 10 points.

                          Now, with Danny's 9 misses per game, he could have gotten the ball back on offensive rebounds. They could have a put back on every attempt. In theory.

                          Mean while, MJ could only get an offensive rebound on 5 of HIS misses right?

                          So in the scenario, one player scored more points, on LESS makes, and in theory could have given the opposing team LESS opportunities to score. Does this make sense???

                          Scoring efficiency is MORE important than your actual field goal percentage. The fact that you made less shots, or had more misses is meaningless if you score more points. Does that make sense???

                          I realize this is the most ridiculous scenario ever, but I use it to explain why TS% matters, and just because a player shoots more three's doesn't mean he's hurting his team because he has more total misses.
                          That's a very good argument for effective FG%. TS% also incorporates free throws, which would be why high volume-low percentage free throw shooting all time great centers of this league post bad TS%. Neither reward "high volume, low percentage scorers" though. They do, however, account for the fact that some shots get you more points than others.

                          Additionally, depending on your offensive scheme three point misses are either positive or negative. Three point shots are both offensively rebounded at a higher rate than other shots and more likely to result in fast break shots for the defensive squad. However, with a good offensive rebounding + transition defense scheme you can eliminate most of the would-be fast breaks. So with a good scheme in place, as long as you are shooting in the .34+ range for 3 point shooting they are quality shots.

                          Basically, on good defensive teams 3 point shot misses are in the neutral-positive range while on bad defensive teams 3 point shot misses are devastating.

                          I would disagree that FG% is useless though. If you're shooting 20% from the field as a whole, but shooting 45% from the 3 pt line, it's pretty clear that you're taking a lot of shots that you shouldn't be taking. This would be an extreme example of a high volume shooter gone wrong. There are high volume shooters, however, that are actually a large net positive offensively despite shooting a poorer percentage than your teammates. Danny was one of these "good" high volume shooters, at least in the last season he played. It's why I'm personally excited to see him integrated with the team again: with Paul George being our volume shooter and averaging in the upper 40 percents, Danny doesn't have to be a volume shooter anymore. He can shoot high quality shots and pass the rock on when he's well covered.
                          Time for a new sig.

                          Comment

                          • CableKC
                            Member
                            • Mar 2005
                            • 36687

                            Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                            Originally posted by mattie
                            Now on another completely different note, just to add some common sense to this thread for once, if Lance is somehow able to continue to play like this all season obviously he'll have proven himself at minimum equal to Danny Granger.
                            Both bring different skillsets to the table....but I think that it's a foregone conclusion, given all of the factors that are now affecting Granger ( valid injury concerns and lack of any real playing time over the last 1.5 seasons ), that Lance is already "on par" with Granger....but more than likely considered the "better" player.

                            Originally posted by mattie
                            While I completely understand "fit" that some folks are arguing for, for me I'm always about talent. I'd rather the better player start, so if Lance is still playing like this in a month when Granger is finally completely back in the swing of things, I would want him to keep the job. To be clear, tho, I understand why folks would STILL want Granger in the lineup as he's a fantastic shooter, and shooting is the need most lacking in the starting lineup. Just an opinion tho- I go for talent versus fit.
                            I do have my reasoning for why I want Lance to be a "Super Sub" as opposed to one of the "Starters....but I will admit that if Granger ISN'T able to stay on the court and is perpetually in and out of the lineup ( thus creating instability in the Starting Lineup ) as the season progresses, then I can TOTALLY see Vogel sticking with Lance in the Starting Lineup and pushing Granger to the 6th Man role ( when he is healthy enough to play ) to cause less disruption in the rotations. I may not agree with such a move....but I understand that one of the reasons why one would want Lance to be the Starter is a need to create consistency in the lineup when it comes to chemistry/familiarity with each other.

                            However, until that happens....I will stick with my "Super-Sub" line of reasoning for why I would want Lance to come off the bench while pushing Granger to the Starting lineup as the 4th/5th Scoring Option on the floor waiting for scoring opportunities created by GH/PG/West/Hibbert.

                            To all of the "Start Lance" supporters,

                            I understand why you would want Lance to Start and to have Granger pushed to the bench...your line of thought isn't unreasonable by any means. But I ( and a few others ) don't think that "Making Lance a Super-Sub" is completely unreasonable as well either. IMHO, there are valid reasons to do both.....where I do not see either option being "right or wrong" but which option maybe the "Better Option over the other". Either moves would improve the Team in different ways and in differing degrees....how much and in what ways is all a matter of opinion ( at least for now ).

                            What am I trying to say here? I'm just tying to say that we can agree to disagree.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment

                            • CableKC
                              Member
                              • Mar 2005
                              • 36687

                              Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                              Originally posted by Nuntius
                              I really wish that you posted more in this thread. I admire your eloquence.
                              I have been posting more in this thread.....I just have a tendency to write very long run-on sentences.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment

                              • Nuntius
                                Member
                                • Jan 2012
                                • 35969

                                Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                                Originally posted by CableKC
                                I have been posting more in this thread.....I just have a tendency to write very long run-on sentences.
                                Eh, I do that a lot too. Writing a point by point list and then explaining the conclusion like you did in the post I quoted is a great way to present your argument. So, thanks for the tip
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...