Why do people think Stephenson should've been an All-Star?

[Rapcity_11]

Give me Lowry and either Afflalo or Lance over DeRozan and JJ anyday.

[TreBouncee]

This is pretty simple. I wouldn't care if a guy more deserving than Joe Johnson was in. Just no case can be made for him that is logical. Lance is averaging 14-7-5 on 50% shooting while on the team with the best record. It's been fairly customary for the best team to get 3 guys in. By every measure Joe Johnson is less efficient than Lance while only averaging 15-3-3 on 44% shooting for an under .500 team. Less impressive numbers, and many more losses.

Same with everyone else named in the original post, those teams are all losing. You really think Lance couldn't put up the numbers Afflalo/Kemba are getting on a team without enough options to score? Of course he could. Those guys are getting 16 shots per game, and Lance is getting 11. Even Lowry who has the best case isn't a clear cut above Lance by the numbers, but I wouldn't argue it if he got in.

It all centers around the horrific choice of picking Joe Johnson.

But he wouldn't be shooting anywhere near he is shooting now if he was playing on a team like Magic or Bobcats.
Lance doesn't deserve to get in this year. Maybe next year. All-star snubs happen everytime but this isn't one of them.

But his volume would increase and he'd likely average 8 rpg and 7 apg.

Not necessarily, he teammates would have to be shot makers like he plays with now. If you put with horrible shooters he doesn't the same amount of assists.

[nurseryc]

I don't understand why a lot of people are up in arms over him not making it.

1) His numbers aren't that impressive. Very rarely does a SG get in averaging only 14 points per game
2) He's the third option on his team
3) Being a "glue guy" means nothing when it comes to the All-Star game.

I understand that the Pacers are winning, but the all-star game is all about who the best players in the league are (and a winning record shouldn't have that much of an influence) and Lance just is not one of them.

Guys like Al Jefferson, Kemba Walker, Afflalo, Lowry etc are all having better seasons.

Based on stats alone, if people are saying Stephenson got snubbed then someone like Michael Carter-Williams got the ultimate snub:

17.2ppg, 5.5 rebs, 6.6 assists, 2.3 steals.

There are a lot of other guys that should/could be all-stars before Stephenson.

The all star game is all about who are the most popular players in the league, not about who are the best.

[therealbig3]

Well, his numbers are pretty solid: 14/7/5.

He's also not the 3rd option on the Pacers. More like the 2nd. He does a huge amount of offensive creation. He's a good defender too. Very efficient scorer. And he's doing all of this for the best team in the East right now. The Pacers are not all George and Hibbert and West. Stephenson has played a huge role too.

And especially considering the guard play (or lack thereof) in the East, I think Stephenson was a legit candidate. Joe Johnson making it is a JOKE.

But I think the biggest East snub is Kyle Lowry.

[BJGOAT3]

He has been the best guard in the East in the last couple of months along with Lowry. The sad part is both of them are snubbed.

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

This entire "his numbers aren't great, but he's playing on a stacked team which is an offensive juggernaut" theory becomes ridiculous if one thinks the Pacers offense is actually below average. Worse than teams like the Knicks, Raptors, Hawks or Nets. So he' a guy putting unimpressive numbers on an unimpressive offense. Since when is that a ticket to the ASG?

The Pacers pace does not allow them to score a whole lot of points, it has nothing to do with the fact that we aren't offensively gifted. We have guys like Hibbert, West, George, Stephenson, Hill, Scola, and Granger who can all step it up on any given night. Those are a lot of talented offensive players, the fact is we don't need Stephenson to go and bust out 20 ppg every night. Now, the games we do need it, he goes out and gets us those points.

[Pacerlive]

I don't understand why a lot of people are up in arms over him not making it.

1) His numbers aren't that impressive. Very rarely does a SG get in averaging only 14 points per game
2) He's the third option on his team
3) Being a "glue guy" means nothing when it comes to the All-Star game.

I understand that the Pacers are winning, but the all-star game is all about who the best players in the league are (and a winning record shouldn't have that much of an influence) and Lance just is not one of them.

Guys like Al Jefferson, Kemba Walker, Afflalo, Lowry etc are all having better seasons.

Based on stats alone, if people are saying Stephenson got snubbed then someone like Michael Carter-Williams got the ultimate snub:

17.2ppg, 5.5 rebs, 6.6 assists, 2.3 steals.

There are a lot of other guys that should/could be all-stars before Stephenson.

The glue guy is the funniest part of your post.

Lance is 1st in assist on the pacers, second in scoring, second in rebounds on a championship caliber team. I would say he is much more than a glue guy but if you need another reason I would say he is defensively better than all the above mentioned players per synergy. If you need another reason then I would say he leads the league in triple doubles but I doubt those facts will alter a guys opinion who most likely doesn't watch the Pacers very much at all.

[Novocaine]

This entire "his numbers aren't great, but he's playing on a stacked team which is an offensive juggernaut" theory becomes ridiculous if one thinks the Pacers offense is actually below average. Worse than teams like the Knicks, Raptors, Hawks or Nets. So he' a guy putting unimpressive numbers on an unimpressive offense. Since when is that a ticket to the ASG?

The Pacers pace does not allow them to score a whole lot of points, it has nothing to do with the fact that we aren't offensively gifted. We have guys like Hibbert, West, George, Stephenson, Hill, Scola, and Granger who can all step it up on any given night. Those are a lot of talented offensive players, the fact is we don't need Stephenson to go and bust out 20 ppg every night. Now, the games we do need it, he goes out and gets us those points.

The Pacers offense, in points per possession, ergo adjusted for pace, is below average.

It has nothing to do with the fact they play at a sower pace.

In fact, the Raptors play at an even slower pace.

I hope this clarified things for you.

[Novocaine]

I have a hard time discussing with anyone who uses points per game and fg% to say an offense is better with the other.

Toronto scores 106.4 points per 100, the Pacers 105.2. This because the Raptors play at a slower pace while shooting a lot more 3s, turning over the ball less and drawing more fouls: all things that impact the offense besides FG% and, by the way, all things at which

Indiana has a better record because of their defense. Stephenson plays a secondary role in that and, for that matter, Lowry is actually a better defender as well.

So, the main argument to pick Stephenson over Lowry is that he plays along better defenders? That's extremely weak, to say the least.

A 14/7/5 player in a mediocre offense isn't really that big of a snub in an All-Star game.

So you have issues discussing things with people who use conventional stats, then you base your argument around advanced stats that have very small differences across the board? If you're going to tout one offense as better than the other in the use of explaining who should be on an All Star team the gap needs to be quite large. The fact is they're both slow paced, middle of the road offenses. I'm not sure how that really means anything in favor of Lowry.

Also, I believe Lance is the 3rd best defensive player on the Pacers. He doesn't just "play with" better defensive players, he's one of them. That's eye test alone, I didn't even look up his defensive stats until now, but feel free to look at his defensive stats on 82games, and he's 6th in the NBA in defensive win shares.

1. I don't have issues with people who use conventional stats - that type of qualifier, conventional, advanced, is gibberish from know-nothings. I have issues with people who use points per game to assess an offense. That's what I said.

2. Yes, they're both middle of the road offense. So, similar offense, but one of the players is quite more productive than the other.

3. I don't think it is but that's immaterial: Lowry is a better defender. The difference is made by Hibbert and George. So yes, the entire argument you make for Lance is that he should be selected over Lowry because his team's defense is superior. I can't remember a single time this was used to select All-Stars.

This isn't even a serious argument. There are legitimate differences of opinion and then there's this sort of crazy nonsense.

Also:

Cool. I must have missed it. Can you link it?

IF you can find reasons why Stephenson is the biggest snub, present them. You understand that's the point, right?

I'm going to assume you have none besides team record.

[Pacerlive]

This entire "his numbers aren't great, but he's playing on a stacked team which is an offensive juggernaut" theory becomes ridiculous if one thinks the Pacers offense is actually below average. Worse than teams like the Knicks, Raptors, Hawks or Nets. So he' a guy putting unimpressive numbers on an unimpressive offense. Since when is that a ticket to the ASG?

The Pacers pace does not allow them to score a whole lot of points, it has nothing to do with the fact that we aren't offensively gifted. We have guys like Hibbert, West, George, Stephenson, Hill, Scola, and Granger who can all step it up on any given night. Those are a lot of talented offensive players, the fact is we don't need Stephenson to go and bust out 20 ppg every night. Now, the games we do need it, he goes out and gets us those points.

The Pacers offense, in points per possession, ergo adjusted for pace, is below average.

It has nothing to do with the fact they play at a sower pace.

In fact, the Raptors play at an even slower pace.

I hope this clarified things for you.

If a lot of the energy was spent on the offensive end then the numbers would be greater but the Pacers basically play the defensive end much harder than most teams. If they didn't then their offensive numbers would be better. This is why their efficiency differential smokes all the teams you mentioned.

[Novocaine]

The Pacers pace does not allow them to score a whole lot of points, it has nothing to do with the fact that we aren't offensively gifted. We have guys like Hibbert, West, George, Stephenson, Hill, Scola, and Granger who can all step it up on any given night. Those are a lot of talented offensive players, the fact is we don't need Stephenson to go and bust out 20 ppg every night. Now, the games we do need it, he goes out and gets us those points.

The Pacers offense, in points per possession, ergo adjusted for pace, is below average.

It has nothing to do with the fact they play at a sower pace.

In fact, the Raptors play at an even slower pace.

I hope this clarified things for you.

If a lot of the energy was spent on the offensive end then the numbers would be greater but the Pacers basically play the defensive end much harder than most teams. If they didn't then their offensive numbers would be better. This is why their efficiency differential smokes all the teams you mentioned.

LOL

Unlike all the other teams, who apparently don't suffer from the same trade-off? It's just the Pacers! Brilliant. What kind of argument is that? And I only mentioned the Raptors.

[Novocaine]

But he wouldn't be shooting anywhere near he is shooting now if he was playing on a team like Magic or Bobcats.
Lance doesn't deserve to get in this year. Maybe next year. All-star snubs happen everytime but this isn't one of them.

But his volume would increase and he'd likely average 8 rpg and 7 apg.

Heh. This is hilarious. Pacers fans always make the most bizarre claims in here.

Players who averaged 16ppg/8ppg/7apg in the last 25 years:

Larry Bird - twice
Michael Jordan - once
Grant Hill - once, pre-injury
LeBron James - once


Apparently all Lance Stephenson needs to become a top-10 player in the history of the game (a healthy Grant Hill would have been one), or at least a first ballot HoFer, would be to join a team like the Magic or the Bobcats. Heck, if a guy this good is the Pacers 3rd best player, the only reason they don't go 82-0 is likely because they pity other teams or something.

it's impossible to discuss basketball when people have views so incredibly distorted and clouded by their fanhood emotions.

[Nuntius]

3. I don't think it is but that's immaterial: Lowry is a better defender. The difference is made by Hibbert and George. So yes, the entire argument you make for Lance is that he should be selected over Lowry because his team's defense is superior.

I'm interested to know why you think that this is the case.

Unfortunately, I don't have a Synergy account so I cannot check what Synergy says but most other sources indicate that Lowry is not a better defender than Stephenson.

For example, Stephenson has a 98 DRTG according to BR ( http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... hla01.html ) while Lowry has a 104 DRTG ( http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... yky01.html ). Similarly, Stephenson has 3.1 Defensive Win Shares while Lowry has a 2.2 Defensive Win Shares.

Of course, you can (and you will) argue that DRTG and Defensive Win Shares are largely team based stats and thus they are moot in this comparison. Which is fine and that's why I'm not going to base my argument in the above numbers. I just wanted to mention them.

Here's what I will base my argument on, though. 82games.com is free (thankfully):

This is Stephenson's page -> http://www.82games.com/1314/13IND5.HTM

Take a look at his Opponent Counterpart 48-Minute Production. You will see that Stephenson mainly plays two positions (SG and SF). Of course, he plays the majority of his minutes at the SG spot.

At SG, he is holding his counterpart to 19.9 PPG on 43.8% shooting with 3 Assists and 2.3 Turnovers per 48 minutes. That's a 10.5 PER which is pretty bad as you know. That's what Stephenson does to his opponents defensively at the SG spot.

At SF, he is holding his counterpart to 21.2 PPG on on 43.5% shooting with 2.8 Assists and 3.1 Turnovers per 48 minutes. That's a 11.7 PER which is significantly below average as well.

In general, we can see that Stephenson is holding his counterpart to very low numbers individually. Therefore, he is doing a very good job defensively.

This is Lowry's page -> http://www.82games.com/1213/12TOR3.HTM

Lowry plays the PG position and he has been used very rarely as a SG as well. I will mention the results of the SG position but I do realize that they don't matter a lot since the sample size is very small.

At PG, he is allowing 19.5 PPG on 46.9% shooting with 8.8 Assists and 3.4 Turnovers per 48 minutes. That's a 15.9 PER which is a bit above the league average (league average PER is 15).

At SG, he is allowing 29.3 PPG on 58.3% shooting with 2.6 Assists and 2 Turnovers per 48 minutes. That's a 23.1 PER which is very good but as I said earlier the sample size is very small so it's ignorable.

Even when we ignore the limited minutes that Lowry has spent at SG we still see that the PER that he allows at the PG spot is lower than what Stephenson allows at either position.

So, the fact remains the same. 82games.com indicates that Stephenson is a better defender than Lowry. It also indicates that Lowry is better offensively than Stephenson (17.4 PER versus 17.1 PER in their main positions).

I certainly agree that Lowry deserved an All-Star nod. However, I will have to disagree with your assessment about Stephenson's defense. Lance Stephenson ranks as a better defender than Lowry in the sources that are available to the wider public.

[DTP]

Haven't watched Chicago nearly at all this year and haven't looked at his number but I'd take Stephenson, Al Jefferson or Lowry in before Noah.

[Novocaine]

3. I don't think it is but that's immaterial: Lowry is a better defender. The difference is made by Hibbert and George. So yes, the entire argument you make for Lance is that he should be selected over Lowry because his team's defense is superior.

I'm interested to know why you think that this is the case.

Unfortunately, I don't have a Synergy account so I cannot check what Synergy says but most other sources indicate that Lowry is not a better defender than Stephenson.

For example, Stephenson has a 98 DRTG according to BR ( http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... hla01.html ) while Lowry has a 104 DRTG ( http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... yky01.html ). Similarly, Stephenson has 3.1 Defensive Win Shares while Lowry has a 2.2 Defensive Win Shares.

Of course, you can (and you will) argue that DRTG and Defensive Win Shares are largely team based stats and thus they are moot in this comparison. Which is fine and that's why I'm not going to base my argument in the above numbers. I just wanted to mention them.

Here's what I will base my argument on, though. 82games.com is free (thankfully):

This is Stephenson's page -> http://www.82games.com/1314/13IND5.HTM

Take a look at his Opponent Counterpart 48-Minute Production. You will see that Stephenson mainly plays two positions (SG and SF). Of course, he plays the majority of his minutes at the SG spot.

At SG, he is holding his counterpart to 19.9 PPG on 43.8% shooting with 3 Assists and 2.3 Turnovers per 48 minutes. That's a 10.5 PER which is pretty bad as you know. That's what Stephenson does to his opponents defensively at the SG spot.

At SF, he is holding his counterpart to 21.2 PPG on on 43.5% shooting with 2.8 Assists and 3.1 Turnovers per 48 minutes. That's a 11.7 PER which is significantly below average as well.

In general, we can see that Stephenson is holding his counterpart to very low numbers individually. Therefore, he is doing a very good job defensively.

This is Lowry's page -> http://www.82games.com/1213/12TOR3.HTM

Lowry plays the PG position and he has been used very rarely as a SG as well. I will mention the results of the SG position but I do realize that they don't matter a lot since the sample size is very small.

At PG, he is allowing 19.5 PPG on 46.9% shooting with 8.8 Assists and 3.4 Turnovers per 48 minutes. That's a 15.9 PER which is a bit above the league average (league average PER is 15).

At SG, he is allowing 29.3 PPG on 58.3% shooting with 2.6 Assists and 2 Turnovers per 48 minutes. That's a 23.1 PER which is very good but as I said earlier the sample size is very small so it's ignorable.

Even when we ignore the limited minutes that Lowry has spent at SG we still see that the PER that he allows at the PG spot is lower than what Stephenson allows at either position.

So, the fact remains the same. 82games.com indicates that Stephenson is a better defender than Lowry. It also indicates that Lowry is better offensively than Stephenson (17.4 PER versus 17.1 PER in their main positions).

I certainly agree that Lowry deserved an All-Star nod. However, I will have to disagree with your assessment about Stephenson's defense. Lance Stephenson ranks as a better defender than Lowry in the sources that are available to the wider public.

I couldn't care less about individual defensive stats. Some of those are highly misleading. Especially the counterpart ones, those are just silly. As if a player production - which often isn't even the counterpart player, the one actually being guarded by the defender, as 82games.com doesn't actually chart the games (so, if Stephenson is defending the wing they classify as SF, he'll still get the counterpart production of player he isn't guarding)- is solely dependent on the action of his defender. I've never used that stat, never will and I have little respect for those who do. Lame crutches for those who can't even realize if they're seeing good defense from a player or not.

I know good defense by seeing it. Lowry is one of the best ball-hawks in the league. Probably the guy offering the best defense at the point of attack. Second to Bradley, possibly. He's quick on pick'n'rolls, he's physical with the screener if needed, he contests shots well, closes out very well and under control, always raises his hands.

Lowry's defensive problem has always been that he tends to play happy-go-lucky defense. Too much of a gambler. Lacking discipline. He's like the Josh Smith of the guards. However, this season he's been quite under control. Playing very good defense.

Stephenson is a very strong isolation defender. Contests almost every shot. But he still struggles with the pick'n'roll, he approaches them too lackdaisically, and still has a tendency to overhelp - he was terrible with this early on in his career and has improved quite a bit.

[Pacerlive]

The Pacers offense, in points per possession, ergo adjusted for pace, is below average.

It has nothing to do with the fact they play at a sower pace.

In fact, the Raptors play at an even slower pace.

I hope this clarified things for you.

If a lot of the energy was spent on the offensive end then the numbers would be greater but the Pacers basically play the defensive end much harder than most teams. If they didn't then their offensive numbers would be better. This is why their efficiency differential smokes all the teams you mentioned.

LOL

Unlike all the other teams, who apparently don't suffer from the same trade-off? It's just the Pacers! Brilliant. What kind of argument is that? And I only mentioned the Raptors.

What a minute.. You think other teams play nearly the same defensive intensity as the Pacers which is close to historic?

Yes I see your point now.

[DreDay]

It's because he's in the east. The conference is such a mess that the 6th SG can be argued very easily over the top. It's just too weak to be taken seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Infinite Llamas]

I think people make too big of a deal about the triple doubles...especially since two of them have come against my lowly C's. The second one against us in December was particularly lame. The Pacers were up by almost 30 and Lance needed a basket with 10 minutes left to get the 10 points. He proceeds to miss 6 shots in the next six shots before finally connecting on a 3 and he did some stupid move of bravado after the shot. I suppose one could write it off under the guise of passion, but it bordered on buffoonery, seeing as he needed 15 shots for those 12 points and it came off as a total expedition of stat-padding at it's pettiest. A triple-double should come in the flow of the game, and not in the wee moments of a 30-point drubbing.

I really don't watch much of Indiana, but I would argue that a lot of rebounds come at the expense of Pacer bigs who do the boxing out. How many rebounds does one think he would average on a team with a dominant rebounder like a Deandre Jordan or a Kevin Love? Not every team has more "passive" defensive rebounders like Hibbert or Brooklyn with Lopez.

[og15]

I don't understand why a lot of people are up in arms over him not making it.

1) His numbers aren't that impressive. Very rarely does a SG get in averaging only 14 points per game
2) He's the third option on his team
3) Being a "glue guy" means nothing when it comes to the All-Star game.

I understand that the Pacers are winning, but the all-star game is all about who the best players in the league are (and a winning record shouldn't have that much of an influence) and Lance just is not one of them.

Guys like Al Jefferson, Kemba Walker, Afflalo, Lowry etc are all having better seasons.

Based on stats alone, if people are saying Stephenson got snubbed then someone like Michael Carter-Williams got the ultimate snub:

17.2ppg, 5.5 rebs, 6.6 assists, 2.3 steals.

There are a lot of other guys that should/could be all-stars before Stephenson.

The all star game is all about who are the most popular players in the league, not about who are the best.

It's a bit of both. Starters is popularity, but usually it coincides with players who are also at least top 5 at their position, which obviously makes sense. Bench is picked by the coaches and based on deserving. So it is a mix.

[halfHAVOC]

Joe Jesus prolly shouldn't have been voted an allstar, but i bet all the teams he hit game winners on had their coaches vote for him lol