Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Eleazar
    Member
    • Jun 2010
    • 13839

    Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Originally posted by clownskull
    well, if he can stay healthy, danny can move up to #5 on the pacers all time scoring list.
    currently, he is at #8 but is only 201 behind fleming and 211 behind mcginis and 246 behind j.o.
    he can get those if he can stay healthy.
    This got me interested.

    Granger is #2 all-time in 3PM at 934. Reggie has 2560. (Paul George is #8)
    Granger is #2 all-time in 3PA at 2436. Reggie has 6486 (Paul George is #9)
    Granger is #8 all-time in FTM at 2096.
    Granger is #10 all-time in FTA at 2475.
    Granger is #7 all-time in Steals at 537.
    Granger is #7 all-time in blocks at 459.
    George Hill is #8 all-time in eFG% at .513.
    Geroge Hill is #5 all-time in Ortg at 115.8.
    Ian Mahinmi is #1 all-time in Drtg at 97.6. (Tied with Artest)(3 current Pacers are in the top 10, Mt. Hibbert is not one of them)
    Granger is #7 all-time in OWS at 27.0.
    Granger is #10 all-time in DWS at 19.4.
    Granger is #10 all-time in WS at 46.4.
    Geroge Hill is #3 all-time in WS/48 at .166.



    Side Note: Reggie Miller, #7, has more defensive rebounds than Jeff Foster, #8. Obviously it is just a matter of longevity, but still surprising.

    Comment

    • dal9
      Can see thru wooden doors
      • Dec 2007
      • 17455

      Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

      Originally posted by Eleazar
      This got me interested.

      Ian Mahinmi is #1 all-time in Drtg at 97.6. (Tied with Artest)(3 current Pacers are in the top 10, Mt. Hibbert is not one of them)
      ??????

      Comment

      • Naptown_Seth
        NaptownSeth is all feel
        • Jul 2006
        • 12714

        Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

        Originally posted by BlueNGold
        I really do. It's very nice to see him draining threes like he did tonight. I actually think most of the skeptics are like me. They were burned bad by J Bender and JO. Recall all those summers where Bender was healthy and going to tear up the league? Promises, promises. Then there was Danny's failed comeback last year. Sure, I want him back 100% like most Pacer fans but I just can't get my hopes up after the past 10-15 years.
        I'm telling you that people who 100% would know say he's fine.

        The only thing last year was trying to avoid giving up the season and instead hoping it might be curbed enough for him to play without pain/swelling.


        And complaining about how his numbers are crap because of the circumstances is NOT THE SAME as not believing in his injury return. It would help your case if you weren't bashing his numbers as fake.

        Comment

        • Anthem
          White and Nerdy
          • Jan 2004
          • 24482

          Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

          Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario
          Wow that shocks me a bit but i hope he can do it
          Yeah, it will shock a lot of people, I'm sure.

          People forget how good Danny was for us.
          This space for rent.

          Comment

          • Sandman21
            SABONIS! :(
            • Jul 2007
            • 8556

            Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

            All things considered, I think Danny looks better so far than I think most of us were expecting him to.

            If he embraces the bench assassin role and stays healthy...... Oh man.....
            "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

            "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

            Comment

            • Eleazar
              Member
              • Jun 2010
              • 13839

              Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth
              First, the Shaq reference was AS GRANGER'S TEAMMATE, as in "having a good teammate helps your numbers, having bad teammates hurts your numbers", as in the entire point of my post.

              Second, none of it compared Granger to AI (or any other player) in the sense that any of this proved he was better or worse than them.

              Third, so teams knew that it was only AI and junk so they just phoned it in and let Iverson get all the points he wanted? That's what teams do to bad teams? They pick out the biggest threat and immediately let him do whatever he wants all night? The logic just gets more twisted and yet has no facts, stats or case studies to back it up. Just a gut feeling that teams probably do this.


              Certainly a guy like Ellis going from MIL where teams just let him do what he wants, to an above 500, playoff team, superstar having Dallas squad where teams are actually trying to defend you must mean that his numbers went in the toilet, proving that you do better when you play for teams that opponents don't try against. Except his FG% is way up, probably not because Dirk draws a bunch of attention but instead because opponents don't buy the Dallas record and actually feared the Bucks a lot more.

              Say this logic to yourself a few times, or go find other examples of players that put up good numbers, not "I took 30 shots to get 28 points" numbers, who got traded to good teams and see how much it hurt them to be playing on a team that opponents actually tried against.

              I know that Norris Cole would be an all-star if only he wasn't burdened with being on Miami where he can't shine thanks to all the effort opponents put into stopping him.
              I don't believe this is as simple as you always make it out to be. We are talking about NBA players, none of these players got to this point by being bad. When you do have a team that doesn't have a lot of talent by NBA standards someone who normally wouldn't get an opportunity to score will score, and maybe even at a decent clip (definitely not at an all-star level). The reason this may be is because they are the best option on that team so the offense is designed around getting them opportunities to score at a decently efficient rate. Dunleavy is a good example of this. He could shoot, and fit extremely well in the system JOB implemented. So he had a season where he averaged 19ppg and with great efficiency (one of his best). It wasn't because he would be able to do that anywhere. He would have only been able to do that in that system cause it fit him perfectly. Go somewhere where the system isn't designed for him to excel, and he becomes just a decent spot up shooter.

              I think sometimes people forget just how good even NBA scrubs are. The vast majority of them can score if you just create a system that is designed to take advantage of that person's skills. Doesn't mean just anyone can lead a team to the finals in the right system, but it can mean just about anyone can put up good numbers.

              Comment

              • Nuntius
                Member
                • Jan 2012
                • 35969

                Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                Originally posted by dal9
                ??????
                Well, I can attempt to explain this.

                1) Ian came to Indiana when we were already an amazing defensive team. Hibbert, for example, still has had seasons under JOB in whcih we were awful defensively that bring his career DRTG down.

                2) Ian is going up against back-ups while Roy is going up against starters. That plays a difference especially since there are not a lot of back-up Centers that can score with great ease.

                3) The sample size is only a season and a half.

                4) Honestly, Ian is a very good defender. He isn't as good as Roy, of course, but he gets the job done. I am certainly surprised to see him that high in DRTG but I'm not surprised to see him high on that list at all.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment

                • Eleazar
                  Member
                  • Jun 2010
                  • 13839

                  Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  Originally posted by dal9
                  ??????
                  He is also #5 in block% at 3.9, but that isn't surprising like who #2 is, David Harrison at 5.2.

                  Comment

                  • BlueNGold
                    Banned
                    • Aug 2005
                    • 32249

                    Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth
                    I'm telling you that people who 100% would know say he's fine.

                    The only thing last year was trying to avoid giving up the season and instead hoping it might be curbed enough for him to play without pain/swelling.


                    And complaining about how his numbers are crap because of the circumstances is NOT THE SAME as not believing in his injury return. It would help your case if you weren't bashing his numbers as fake.
                    His numbers were real, but they were inflated IMO due to Jim O'Brien's offense combined with the fact teams played with the Pacers for a few quarters until it was time to crack down. Don't you recall that year where it was one epic 4th quarter collapse after another? You don't really believe he would average over 20ppg on a team this talented, do you? How many basketballs are we playing with?

                    Edit: BTW, as Eleazer said, the system fit Dunleavy perfectly. It also fit Granger extremely well and they both thrived. An open floor like that without a post game will lead to pretty high numbers on offense. No defense was really being played and that's why we were terrible.
                    Last edited by BlueNGold; 12-23-2013, 12:37 AM.

                    Comment

                    • cinotimz
                      You can call me Taz
                      • Jan 2009
                      • 2567

                      Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      Im curious to see how they handle tomorrows game considering its Dannys first back-to-back after just coming back. I kinda woulda thought they wouldve considered resting him on some of the earlier back-to-backs to err on the side of caution...but then again, they dont play again til saturday, so who knows...Im sure hes probably anxious to continue kicking the rust off and finding his rhythm...so should be interesting either way- whether he plays or doesnt...
                      The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                      Comment

                      • Naptown_Seth
                        NaptownSeth is all feel
                        • Jul 2006
                        • 12714

                        Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        Originally posted by Eleazar
                        Ok, then why do they have to put him down and act like he wasn't a good player? Why act like all he did was shoot the 3 very well, but was otherwise not good at anything else? It is one thing to keep your hope in check, but that isn't what some of these posters are doing. Instead they are trying to say that Danny was never a good player to begin with. They aren't saying be cautious with your optimism, they are saying Granger wasn't a good player.
                        This is what bugs me, and the only reason this thread is so long.

                        The numbers that show Danny took more 2PA vs 3PA than Paul does and drew more FTAs than Paul does get dismissed as fake or circumstances, yet some posters are using the games they say they watched those numbers occur in as proof that Danny just shot the 3 and that's all, whereas Paul is doing all sorts of things on offense besides just shoot the 3. That's the kind of stuff I don't get. There's a weird anti-Granger movement going that's actively trying to discredit him when the only thing he did wrong was get hurt. He was just as big or a bigger reason why they went 6 games against Miami 2 years ago.

                        But of course since they were only a playoff team and not a real contender, Miami didn't really try hard and basically let Danny do whatever he wanted, much like the Bulls did the year before (didn't the Bulls just bench Deng to rest him for round 2 since the Pacers weren't a threat?)

                        And here's what I really don't get. While the Bulls were busy "not trying" and just let Granger shoot 48% on 90 shots, they for some reason decided to attack Hansbrough and held him to 33% shooting on 60 shots, and why did they refuse to let Collison play well, insisting on holding him to 35% from 2, or Paul 35% from 2 as well. And letting Danny have 3.2 assists/game with only DC getting more at 4.0...some master trick plan by the Bulls I guess.

                        When teams try or don't try really confuses me because I know people wouldn't just twist some logic to avoid having the actual results contradict them.



                        If you think my sarcasm is bad, you should hear guys like BillS or Trader Joe. The whole insane effort to twist every single statistical evidence contradicting the "Granger wasn't good" is making a lot of people nuts. We haven't just seen Danny play for bad teams, he's also been on playoff teams which includes his rookie year.
                        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-23-2013, 01:04 AM.

                        Comment

                        • cinotimz
                          You can call me Taz
                          • Jan 2009
                          • 2567

                          Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold
                          His numbers were real, but they were inflated IMO due to Jim O'Brien's offense combined with the fact teams played with the Pacers for a few quarters until it was time to crack down. Don't you recall that year where it was one epic 4th quarter collapse after another? You don't really believe he would average over 20ppg on a team this talented, do you? How many basketballs are we playing with?

                          Edit: BTW, as Eleazer said, the system fit Dunleavy perfectly. It also fit Granger extremely well and they both thrived. An open floor like that without a post game will lead to pretty high numbers on offense. No defense was really being played and that's why we were terrible.
                          Unreal....just unreal....

                          I dont know if people have just flat out forgotten how good he was or just never really paid attention due to all that had transpired previously combined with all the efforts being made to transform the roster and the culture...
                          The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                          Comment

                          • Eleazar
                            Member
                            • Jun 2010
                            • 13839

                            Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold
                            His numbers were real, but they were inflated IMO due to Jim O'Brien's offense combined with the fact teams played with the Pacers for a few quarters until it was time to crack down. Don't you recall that year where it was one epic 4th quarter collapse after another? You don't really believe he would average over 20ppg on a team this talented, do you? How many basketballs are we playing with?

                            Edit: BTW, as Eleazer said, the system fit Dunleavy perfectly. It also fit Granger extremely well and they both thrived. An open floor like that without a post game will lead to pretty high numbers on offense. No defense was really being played and that's why we were terrible.
                            Yeah, but you ignored the part where I said "definitely not at an all-star level". Let alone an all-star selected by the coaches.

                            Comment

                            • cinotimz
                              You can call me Taz
                              • Jan 2009
                              • 2567

                              Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold
                              I really do. It's very nice to see him draining threes like he did tonight. I actually think most of the skeptics are like me. They were burned bad by J Bender and JO. Recall all those summers where Bender was healthy and going to tear up the league? Promises, promises. Then there was Danny's failed comeback last year. Sure, I want him back 100% like most Pacer fans but I just can't get my hopes up after the past 10-15 years.
                              First of all...what the hell are u doing putting J. Bender in the same conversation as Danny Granger and Jermaine O'neal????? As much as I always liked the guy, what did Jonathan Bender ever really do for this franchise?????

                              Second of all....Jermaine O'neal and Danny Granger....both great players in their own right...one was the face of the franchise and lead the franchise into its darkest hour....the other became the face of the franchise in its darkest hour and gave all of us hope and reason to be proud because of what a great player he was and the way he went about his business-always a first class citizen never embarassing the franchise...and lead the franchise out of the post-brawl abyss to the place we are now-contenders who go about things the right way and in a way we can all be proud of...and he did so in the toughest of times under the toughest of circumstances..enduring JOB, Murphy, Dunleavy and all the other crap...and he did so without complaining or demanding a trade or whatever....Danny Granger lead that return to glory and epitomizes the patience required to get back to where we are today...For these reasons alone, he deserves nothing but respect and though he might not be the face of the franchise anymore he still is one of the alltime franchise greats for reasons that far exceed what he actually did on the court...he hasnt burnt u or anyone else....quite to the contrary...in fact it was he alone at times that was the only cause for hope...and after all...isnt that what fans really want and need any way???? hope??? and isnt pretty much our responsibility to hope for the best? And of all people, Danny certainly deserves such...and through the course of his career here he has rarely let us down...certainly not when he had any control over the situation...

                              Hes a class act...and deserves better than what you and some have given him on this board...he has earned the benefit of the doubt....and when u consider how hes likely the final piece in the championship puzzle...how anyone could not hold out hope and trust him after all hes been through with this franchise is beyond me...if its at all possible, Danny will come through...he always has...
                              The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                              Comment

                              • Naptown_Seth
                                NaptownSeth is all feel
                                • Jul 2006
                                • 12714

                                Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold
                                His numbers were real, but they were inflated IMO due to Jim O'Brien's offense combined with the fact teams played with the Pacers for a few quarters until it was time to crack down. Don't you recall that year where it was one epic 4th quarter collapse after another? You don't really believe he would average over 20ppg on a team this talented, do you? How many basketballs are we playing with?

                                Edit: BTW, as Eleazer said, the system fit Dunleavy perfectly. It also fit Granger extremely well and they both thrived. An open floor like that without a post game will lead to pretty high numbers on offense. No defense was really being played and that's why we were terrible.
                                What about his 2 seasons with Vogel? Or his 2 seasons with Carlisle? And "open floor" 3PA sure did lead to A LOT of FTAs for Danny in year 3 (6.9 per game).

                                Dunleavy also didn't exactly thrive. He sucked that first half season, had a good season, got hurt and had a horrible season, then had a poor comeback season, then a final decent year....shooting only. His assists were always low for a "great offensive awareness" player and he didn't draw FTAs all that well. He's been identical in 2 MIL seasons and so far in Chicago, except taking a couple less 2PAs a night which keeps him down a few points in PPG.

                                Now maybe I missed where Tibs is running the JOB offense which explains the similar numbers, or maybe the JOB system didn't really get guys better looks after all.


                                JOB's system only increased possessions (rate) and skewed the 3PA to 2PA, primary out of the 4 spot because many teams/styles shoot a lot of 3s. Often teams like to work off a star big to get the inside/out game going, which is where the Shaq thing came in when talking about a player making others better. Danny would have enjoyed more open shots playing with a team going inside to Shaq than in JOB's open system.

                                And in fact the OFF rating of JOB's final 2 teams (1 a split with Vogel) was worse than it is now. This team playing this style is able to score more points and in a more efficient manner, and it leads to a lot of open 3s.

                                Comment

                                Working...