Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion
Collapse
X
-
"Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference
Comment
-
Re: Granger To Resume Practice
Saying Danny is a little better than OJ is considered giving Danny props? To stick with the child theme, it would be like me telling a couple their daughter is just a little bit prettier than Honey Boo Boo and then wondering why they got upset.Last edited by Since86; 11-14-2013, 12:52 PM.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Granger To Resume Practice
Taking 19 shots per game would only be a black hole to me if he only got a few more touches than that AND if the shots he took were bad ones. I really don't think either of those is the case with Danny, especially considering he was expected to be the finisher and not the facilitator on the earlier teams.BillS
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...Comment
-
“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Granger To Resume Practice
That may seem cruel, but it'll save part of the board from having a brain aneurism because a few boarders don't understand basic fifth grade math.Comment
-
Re: Granger To Resume Practice
I wasn't going to post this, but I think I will since the intuition over intergers guy showed up.
Harvard students get near-perfect SAT scores. These are smart, smart kids. So they shouldn't have trouble with a simple logic question, right?
Try the following puzzle:
A bat and ball cost $1.10.
The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.
How much does the ball cost?
Scroll down for the answer ...
You probably answered 10¢. That's what most Harvard students answered. But the real answer is 5¢.
Behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman explains why most people get this wrong:
A number came to your mind. The number, of course, is 10: 10¢. The distinctive mark of this easy puzzle is that it evokes an answer that is intuitive, appealing, and wrong. Do the math, and you will see. If the ball costs 10 ¢, then the total cost will be $1.20 (10¢ for the ball and $1.10 for the bat), not $1.10. The correct answer is 5¢. It is safe to assume that the intuitive answer also came to the mind of those who ended up with the correct number—they somehow managed to resist the intuition.
Many thousands of university students have answered the bat-and-ball puzzle, and the results are shocking. More than 50% of students at Harvard, MIT, and Princeton gave the intuitive—incorrect—answer. At less selective universities, the rate of demonstrable failure to check was in excess of 80%. The bat-and-ball problem is our first encounter with an observation that will be a recurrent theme of this book: many people are overconfident, prone to place too much faith in their intuitions. They apparently find cognitive effort at least mildly unpleasant and avoid it as much as possible.
This excerpt comes from Kahneman's 2011 book, "Thinking, Fast And Slow," which posits that we have an intuitive mental system and a logical mental system, and we often use the wrong one at the wrong time.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/quest...#ixzz2kdjsMDLf
And that's why stats are used. Because we allow our feelings, either about ourselves or about the topic, cloud our judgement.Last edited by Since86; 11-14-2013, 01:08 PM.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Granger To Resume Practice
I'm actually not sure what the definition of a "black hole" is, then. I always looked at it not just as a guy who doesn't pass - because that has a LOT to do with how they are used in the offense and how that offense is set up - but whether they complete their shots as expected.
Taking 19 shots per game would only be a black hole to me if he only got a few more touches than that AND if the shots he took were bad ones. I really don't think either of those is the case with Danny, especially considering he was expected to be the finisher and not the facilitator on the earlier teams.Comment
-
Re: Granger To Resume Practice
I'm actually not sure what the definition of a "black hole" is, then. I always looked at it not just as a guy who doesn't pass - because that has a LOT to do with how they are used in the offense and how that offense is set up - but whether they complete their shots as expected.
Taking 19 shots per game would only be a black hole to me if he only got a few more touches than that AND if the shots he took were bad ones. I really don't think either of those is the case with Danny, especially considering he was expected to be the finisher and not the facilitator on the earlier teams.
I never really got that impression from Granger....maybe sometimes, but I can see that ( as you suggest ) because of the role that he had on the offensive end when he was healthy...which ( unfortunately ) was long ago when the team was built around him.Last edited by CableKC; 11-14-2013, 01:19 PM.Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: Granger To Resume Practice
So maybe he just didn't have the ball in his hands that much, and when he did, he just shot. So we look at Danny's usage rate. I see that Danny has/had a usage rate of anywhere from 23% to 29.6%. PG's usage rate? 29.7%. WOW!!! They had the ball in their hands similiar amout of time, have similiar shot attempts, but one is a black hole and the other one atleast knows how to pass.
Don't equate assist numbers to how often a player passes.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Granger To Resume Practice
Danny Granger has never attempted 37 shots in a single game. Granger and Gay are not similar at all. Luol Deng would be a good comparison with a healthy Danny but Gay is completely different than both of them.Originally posted by IrishPacer
Empty vessels make the most noise.Comment
-
Re: Granger To Resume Practice
I think the black hole, this hole, that hole talk is a bunch of crap.
Danny has been the primary focus of the offense when healthy. As his star rose, so did his utilization rate and thus his number of shots per game. Jeesh, is that difficult to understand? And, at the time that Danny was taking a lot of shots, it's not like our team was stocked with an abundant number of offensive contributors. West was coming off of injury and Hibbert and George had not yet arrived. Hell, Vogel hadn't yet arrived.
If you were to look at George's FGAs, they have steadily increased ove the last couple of years as his utilization and star have risen. It's not a difficult concept to understand. The better you become as a player, the more the offense counts on you to score. When Danny last played two seasons ago, George's FGAs were about 6-7 a game. Last year, even though Hibbert and West were improved and contributing more, with Danny and an improved George, George's attempts climbed quite a bit from the previous season. And now this seaso, with George emerging as one of the best players in the league and the focal point of our offense, his FGAs have jumped through the roof compared to his prior seasons.
Should we conclude that George has become a black hole? Especially considering that we have several other capable scorers on this roster. Of course not. Vogel designs his offense to score on as many of our possessions as is possible. That will include opportunities for Hibbert, West, Hill, Stephenson, Scola and even Granger when he returns, along with a very healthy dose of George.
Don't get me wrong, some teams are designed for a single player to be the where all end all point for the offense. The Pacers are not, nor were they even while coached by the unnamed one, "that" team. So can we stop the usage of he term black hole in referencing any Pacers player?
The only time I recall a Pacers player being a true "black hole" was in a game against Phoenix several years ago when a certain PG that once showed a lot of promise decided he would no longer pass the ball the entire fourth quarter and take all of the shots himself.Comment
-
Re: Granger To Resume Practice
Allow me to repeat it:
Better scoring efficiency does not equal better.
Since86 and I didn't focus on who is "better". We are just trying to debunk the "black hole" argument.Originally posted by IrishPacer
Empty vessels make the most noise.Comment
-
Re: Granger To Resume Practice
In particular, the overall assist numbers for those teams were extremely low, which was considered one of the big problems. So, either everyone was a black hole or the offense wasn't geared to scoring off ball movement. I'll take the latter.BillS
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...Comment
Comment