Lance Stephenson

[Andrei Kirilenko]

I'm riding the hype train here, but I feel like it's probably safe to bump Lance up from a 78. He's by far the best playmaker and perhaps most consistent player (besides David West) on the Pacers.


Some stats:

- 13.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, 49.1% shooting

- Lance is by far the best rebounding guard in the league: espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/rebounds/sort/avgRebounds/seasontype/2/position/shooting-guards

- He is 5th in assists among shooting guards: espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/assists/seasontype/2/position/shooting-guards

- His 49% field goals is 3rd in the league among qualified shooting guards: espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/field-goals/seasontype/2/position/shooting-guards

- He is a great perimeter defender. I can't find the graphic now, but he is #1 or #2 among shooting guards in defensive win shares. This is partly due to being on the Pacers of course, but it is also a testament to his great defense.

- Led the league in triple doubles (5)



Overall, I think Lance just deserves higher than a 78. I know people don't like his attitude or whatever, but he works hard on the court and plays with passion. He makes some crazy plays sometimes, but those are clearly outweighed by his good plays. This guy shoots 49% from the floor for christ's sake. There's just not really anything he's bad at except maybe steals and blocks, which he doesn't really get because he never leaves his the guy he's guarding. Many people saw Lance as an all-star snub, and many believed he should have gotten in over his teammate Paul George. He is perhaps the best statistical shooting guard on paper, and plays with passion and energy. I think all of this warrants Lance at least an 82 rating.


Current Rating: 78
Suggested Rating: 82

[Deleted]

May 21, 2014 11:08:34 GMT Andrei Kirilenko said:

I'm riding the hype train here, but I feel like it's probably safe to bump Lance up from a 78. He's by far the best playmaker and perhaps most consistent player (besides David West) on the Pacers.


Some stats:

- 13.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, 49.1% shooting

- Lance is by far the best rebounding guard in the league: espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/rebounds/sort/avgRebounds/seasontype/2/position/shooting-guards

- He is 5th in assists among shooting guards: espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/assists/seasontype/2/position/shooting-guards

- His 49% field goals is 3rd in the league among qualified shooting guards: espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/field-goals/seasontype/2/position/shooting-guards

- He is a great perimeter defender. I can't find the graphic now, but he is #1 or #2 among shooting guards in defensive win shares. This is partly due to being on the Pacers of course, but it is also a testament to his great defense.

- Led the league in triple doubles (5)



Overall, I think Lance just deserves higher than a 78. I know people don't like his attitude or whatever, but he works hard on the court and plays with passion. He makes some crazy plays sometimes, but those are clearly outweighed by his good plays. This guy shoots 49% from the floor for christ's sake. There's just not really anything he's bad at except maybe steals and blocks, which he doesn't really get because he never leaves his the guy he's guarding. Many people saw Lance as an all-star snub, and many believed he should have gotten in over his teammate Paul George. He is perhaps the best statistical shooting guard on paper, and plays with passion and energy. I think all of this warrants Lance at least an 82 rating.


Current Rating: 78
Suggested Rating: 82

He's a good player but he could be replaced anytime by any player. If any 80+ player was added to that team they would most likely get more mins. He good but not great. When he is involved in the games they win. He helps them move the ball and rebound and defend. But he's not the best at scoring. He's More of a second chance scorer. The highest rating at this time I would give is an 80. If the Pacers would have lost to the Wizards, this increase would not even be talked about at this time. Let's wait until next year and see if he continues at this level or maybe improve. But I'll give him a 79 if we are really have to rate since this is the stock watch..

[Andrei Kirilenko]

May 21, 2014 13:56:18 GMT @griz2385 said:

May 21, 2014 11:08:34 GMT Andrei Kirilenko said:

I'm riding the hype train here, but I feel like it's probably safe to bump Lance up from a 78. He's by far the best playmaker and perhaps most consistent player (besides David West) on the Pacers.


Some stats:

- 13.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, 49.1% shooting

- Lance is by far the best rebounding guard in the league: espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/rebounds/sort/avgRebounds/seasontype/2/position/shooting-guards

- He is 5th in assists among shooting guards: espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/assists/seasontype/2/position/shooting-guards

- His 49% field goals is 3rd in the league among qualified shooting guards: espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/field-goals/seasontype/2/position/shooting-guards

- He is a great perimeter defender. I can't find the graphic now, but he is #1 or #2 among shooting guards in defensive win shares. This is partly due to being on the Pacers of course, but it is also a testament to his great defense.

- Led the league in triple doubles (5)



Overall, I think Lance just deserves higher than a 78. I know people don't like his attitude or whatever, but he works hard on the court and plays with passion. He makes some crazy plays sometimes, but those are clearly outweighed by his good plays. This guy shoots 49% from the floor for christ's sake. There's just not really anything he's bad at except maybe steals and blocks, which he doesn't really get because he never leaves his the guy he's guarding. Many people saw Lance as an all-star snub, and many believed he should have gotten in over his teammate Paul George. He is perhaps the best statistical shooting guard on paper, and plays with passion and energy. I think all of this warrants Lance at least an 82 rating.


Current Rating: 78
Suggested Rating: 82

He's a good player but he could be replaced anytime by any player. If any 80+ player was added to that team they would most likely get more mins. He good but not great. When he is involved in the games they win. He helps them move the ball and rebound and defend. But he's not the best at scoring. He's More of a second chance scorer. The highest rating at this time I would give is an 80. If the Pacers would have lost to the Wizards, this increase would not even be talked about at this time. Let's wait until next year and see if he continues at this level or maybe improve. But I'll give him a 79 if we are really have to rate since this is the stock watch..

Can you explain what you mean by "he could be replaced anytime by any player"?


And yes, but they DID beat the Wizards, and they DID have the best record in the East, and Lance IS a critical player on the team.


Stephenson leads the Pacers in rebounding and assists. Sure PG scores 7 more ppg than Lance, but PG takes 17 shots per game and shoots 42% whereas Lance takes 11 shots per game and shoots 49%. Obviously PG is asked to take on more of the offensive load, but he does it pretty inefficiently. The only real argument I could see for PG being better than Lance is on the defensive end, but they are both excellent defenders. PG has an easier time with it because of his size and length, but Lance is very pesky and hustles hard.

In this league,

George Hill - 77
Stephenson - 78
PG - 88
West - 84 (getting boosted)
Hibbert - 81


I just don't see any scenarios in which Lance Stephenson is the fourth best player on the team. Paul George has the "star" label and gets the most shots which is why we're not reluctant to rate him an 88.

David West, a power forward we have chosen to rate 84, has the following stats:

14.0 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, .76 spg, .93 bpg on 48.8% shooting

Compared to Lance Stephenson's:

13.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, .69 spg, .09 bpg on 49.1% shooting


You can see the stats for yourself, Lance, a combo guard, basically owns or is tied with West, an 84 power forward, in every category. JR said that Lance's offense isn't great, but he is just as efficient as David West and scores the same amount of points on slightly less shots. West and Stephenson are the #2 and #3 scorers on the Pacers. The team has a slow tempo and five starters averaging 10 ppg which is why no one really scores a ton.

There's just no arguments to be made for not increasing Lance Stephenson, unless you just dislike him as a person/player, which is not what ratings should be based on.

[Deleted]

May 21, 2014 14:48:18 GMT Andrei Kirilenko said:

May 21, 2014 13:56:18 GMT @griz2385 said:

He's a good player but he could be replaced anytime by any player. If any 80+ player was added to that team they would most likely get more mins. He good but not great. When he is involved in the games they win. He helps them move the ball and rebound and defend. But he's not the best at scoring. He's More of a second chance scorer. The highest rating at this time I would give is an 80. If the Pacers would have lost to the Wizards, this increase would not even be talked about at this time. Let's wait until next year and see if he continues at this level or maybe improve. But I'll give him a 79 if we are really have to rate since this is the stock watch..

Can you explain what you mean by "he could be replaced anytime by any player"?


And yes, but they DID beat the Wizards, and they DID have the best record in the East, and Lance IS a critical player on the team.


Stephenson leads the Pacers in rebounding and assists. Sure PG scores 7 more ppg than Lance, but PG takes 17 shots per game and shoots 42% whereas Lance takes 11 shots per game and shoots 49%. Obviously PG is asked to take on more of the offensive load, but he does it pretty inefficiently. The only real argument I could see for PG being better than Lance is on the defensive end, but they are both excellent defenders. PG has an easier time with it because of his size and length, but Lance is very pesky and hustles hard.

In this league,

George Hill - 77
Stephenson - 78
PG - 88
West - 84 (getting boosted)
Hibbert - 81


I just don't see any scenarios in which Lance Stephenson is the fourth best player on the team. Paul George has the "star" label and gets the most shots which is why we're not reluctant to rate him an 88.

David West, a power forward we have chosen to rate 84, has the following stats:

14.0 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, .76 spg, .93 bpg on 48.8% shooting

Compared to Lance Stephenson's:

13.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, .69 spg, .09 bpg on 49.1% shooting


You can see the stats for yourself, Lance, a combo guard, basically owns or is tied with West, an 84 power forward, in every category. JR said that Lance's offense isn't great, but he is just as efficient as David West and scores the same amount of points on slightly less shots. West and Stephenson are the #2 and #3 scorers on the Pacers. The team has a slow tempo and five starters averaging 10 ppg which is why no one really scores a ton.

There's just no arguments to be made for not increasing Lance Stephenson, unless you just dislike him as a person/player, which is not what ratings should be based on.

I don't disagree with you. I like him. And honestly I do see players that have higher ratings, even in past years that were higher than a 78. Just not sure who to compare it too. To see how his rating may need adjusted. I need to think about who and what rating they were at and even if that rating truly fit that player at that time. Since we know past ratings I'm sure were off. And most importantly because we as a league are changing player ratings.

[Jeremiah Hill]

I will say this, A. Lance is not nearly as good a defender as you think, B. He gets like two of his rebounds per game because rips them out of his own teammates hands on easy rebounds and it was a contributing factor to their chemistry issues. That being said the numbers don't lie and I'm gonna say 81 for now because Harden is an 88 with dick for defense so I really can't hold that against Stephenson can I?

[Deleted]

I think Barber employs the argument that "if Stephenson were on another team he would produce more." While I agree with this to an extent, it sets a bad precedent to raise players based on what they COULD do rather than what they are doing. In my personal opinion, I would be comfortable with giving him an 80 IF he keeps playing lights-out against Miami.

[Brian Scalabrine]

I think we should wait to raise lance. I'm gonna stay with 78,i feel like this move would contribute to the overall rating inflation we have.

[Andrei Kirilenko]

May 21, 2014 15:19:55 GMT Vlade Divac said:

I think Barber employs the argument that "if Stephenson were on another team he would produce more." While I agree with this to an extent, it sets a bad precedent to raise players based on what they COULD do rather than what they are doing. In my personal opinion, I would be comfortable with giving him an 80 IF he keeps playing lights-out against Miami.

I don't think that's my argument at all. I'm asking you guys to look at his CURRENT stats and impact on the game and make a decision therein. I've provided numerous examples of how he is amongst the leaders in shooting guards in multiple facets of the game.

[Deleted]

NBA Live 2014 has these ratings for Indiana's players..

P.George 90 D5 88
R.Hibbert 83. 81
D.Granger 81. 78
D.West 80. 82
A.Bynum 80. 80
G.Hill 79. 77
L.Scola 78. 79
L.Stephenson 75. 78

Its hard to compare players to him, but he's who he is.

Above is ratings from NBA Live 2014.

Most of the ratings we have for those players above are 2-3 points lower than that of Live 14.

We(D5 Gms) already have Lance 3 points higher than that of Live 14.

At this time or at least until next season or until he woes us in future games this season and they move past Miami..I say we keep him at 78 and adjust after we see more...

I know the ratings for Live 14 are from before the playoffs and even the Granger trade... But cat the very most he could be boosted to an 80-81.

I just don't see him doing that much better since the Granger trade...personally I believe him and the entire Indiana team have played worse since that trade. Proving that some player ratings are encouraged by other teammates and team record.. Which it should not...at least somewhat.

At least that is my opinion.

Ill raise his rating to 79 and no higher until he proves himself..

[Andrei Kirilenko]

I feel like Walt over here... everyone is just disregarding all the statistical evidence I've provided

[Jeremiah Hill]

To be fair the new NBA Live game sucked if I remember right.

[Deleted]

Stats are great. But stats don't always prove the truth. The truth can be and is hidden at times. The truth us he's good as Indy makes him. As good as many mins the coach gives him. Waiting until after the season won't hurt your team. Your not in the playoffs. I say wait until after the playoffs and closer to the All Star game next year to change his rating. At least until he proves more..

[Deleted]

And the game might suck, but comparing its ratings to ours shows that somewhat we are keeping our players close by league. I'm not sure if you can understand..but it makes sense to me. I'm not going by the games ratings really. Just going by it somewhat. And stating that we are on the right path of getting players to the correct rating. Its just a pattern to compare to. Not the actual ratings...

[Deleted]

His statistics are not mind blowing by any means or at leas they aren't to me. In fact, I think they constitute a 78 especially given his small sample size. On the eye test, however, he should be an 82. That's why I am willing to go 80 if he keeps playing well against Miami.

[Andrei Kirilenko]

Would you guys recommend downgrading Paul George to the 78 range?

Last year he averaged 17.4 ppg, 7.6 rpg, and 4.1 apg on 42% shooting. So he's right on the money for rebounds and assists, but got 3.6 more ppg on much worse shooting %.

We boosted him to an 88 with those numbers... and Lance Stephenson is rated TEN whole points lower.


And I'm not buying the "Lance Stephenson isn't a good defender" argument (which Jeremiah said). The only reason Lance was even in the lineup last year was for his defense.

Here's your defensive win shares graphic: i.imgur.com/MBWtIxN.png

Notice that Lance is behind only Paul George and Jimmy Butler for wing players.

[Deleted]

Paul George - 21.7 PPG, 6.8 APG, 3.5 RPG

www.nba.com/playerfile/paul_george/

[Charles Barkley]

I would argue and say that if Bledsoe had played a full season, he would give Lance a run for his money as the best rebounding guard in the league. And Lance has 4 inches on Bledsoe, but that doesn't really matter.

I think an 82 is fine for Lance, it reflects how he played this season in total, which, IMO, is what the stock watch should represent: how a player is performing.

To JR's statement about the NBA Live ratings, does EA update their ratings throughout the season like they do with Madden? Because with those ratings, I would think that they don't. Because anyone with eyes can see that Lance was at least the 3rd best player on the Pacers this season.

[Andrei Kirilenko]

May 21, 2014 18:03:16 GMT Vlade Divac said:

Paul George - 21.7 PPG, 6.8 APG, 3.5 RPG

www.nba.com/playerfile/paul_george/

I was using his stats from last year (2012/13) when we boosted him to 88

[Deleted]

May 21, 2014 18:31:48 GMT Andrei Kirilenko said:

May 21, 2014 18:03:16 GMT Vlade Divac said:

Paul George - 21.7 PPG, 6.8 APG, 3.5 RPG

www.nba.com/playerfile/paul_george/

I was using his stats from last year (2012/13) when we boosted him to 88

17.4 PPG, 7.6 RPG, 4.1 APG?

stats.nba.com/playerCareer.html?PlayerID=202331&PerMode=PerGame

I agree that's not an 88 but it's certainly better than Stephenson right now.

[Andrei Kirilenko]

May 21, 2014 18:37:57 GMT Vlade Divac said:

May 21, 2014 18:31:48 GMT Andrei Kirilenko said:

I was using his stats from last year (2012/13) when we boosted him to 88

17.4 PPG, 7.6 RPG, 4.1 APG?

stats.nba.com/playerCareer.html?PlayerID=202331&PerMode=PerGame

I agree that's not an 88 but it's certainly better than Stephenson right now.

Yes, my point was that Stephenson has very similar stats to when we raised George to an 88, yet people are arguing that Lance should be a 78.

17.4 ppg, 7.6 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.8 spg, 0.6 bpg, 41.8% shooting
13.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, 0.7 spg, 0.1 bpg, 49.1% shooting


The first player scores 3.6 more ppg but shoots a much lower % than the second player.
The first player gets slightly more rebounds but slightly less assists.
The first player has better steals and blocks than the second player.

This of course does not take into account defense (except for steals and blocks), but both players are very good defenders. We can even give the edge to the first player.

Regardless, I don't see any reasons for the first player to be rated 10 points higher than the second player. Perhaps 5 points max, but not 10. Especially when you take the shooting percentages into account to balance out the differential in ppg.

[Alex English]

When I was scrolling through the most recent posts, by seeing all the fuss made about this thread I thought Josh might be asking for an 88 or something, considering his very low opinion of Paul George and very high one of Lance. But he is asking for an 82. So what the hell is the big deal?

Lance is a very good player and has mostly overcome his reputation as a buffoon. He is an excellent rebounder, good playmaker, and he is quite competent on offense. I don't personally agree with the Paul George comparisons, since George has the primary role, is the better defender, and is the better offensive player when he is actually playing like he should (though PG is still wildly inconsistent at this point). But I also get why the comparisons were made since they are on the same team.

That said, asking for an 82 is completely reasonable in my opinion. For the people who want him to stay at a 78: what NBA are you watching that Lou Williams deserves a higher rating than Lance?

My only real problem is that his resume is still extremely short. Two seasons ago he averaged 2.5 ppg, 1.3 rpg, 1.1 apg, and was having a hard time being taken seriously as an NBA player. So because of that I will be a little more cautious and give him an 81. But either way I think an increase is deserved.

[Andrei Kirilenko]

May 21, 2014 23:47:09 GMT @swooshthehoop said:

80, same as Louis Williams

[Jeremiah Hill]

I have to agree with Alex here, I actually think that Lance Stephenson is incredibly overrated but at the same time I don't think that Josh went crazy with the rating he's asking for.

[Andrei Kirilenko]

May 22, 2014 0:21:42 GMT @swooshthehoop said:

Lou averages more points, steals, and shoots a better percentage from the free-throw line.

Lance gets more rebounds and one more assist but thats it.

I'd be inclined to go higher but you need to show me how he's a good defender before I do that.

In what world?

Louis Williams: 10.4 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 3.5 apg, .8 spg, .1 bpg, 40.0% shooting (lol)
Lance Stephenson: 13.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, .7 spg, .1 bpg, 49.1% shooting


Yes, those .1 more steals per game sure do make up for the fact that Lance dominates Williams in every single other aspect of the game.

[Jeremiah Hill]

May 22, 2014 0:45:09 GMT Andrei Kirilenko said:

May 22, 2014 0:21:42 GMT @swooshthehoop said:

Lou averages more points, steals, and shoots a better percentage from the free-throw line.

Lance gets more rebounds and one more assist but thats it.

I'd be inclined to go higher but you need to show me how he's a good defender before I do that.

In what world?

Louis Williams: 10.4 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 3.5 apg, .8 spg, .1 bpg, 40.0% shooting (lol)
Lance Stephenson: 13.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, .7 spg, .1 bpg, 49.1% shooting


Yes, those .1 more steals per game sure do make up for the fact that Lance dominates Williams in every single other aspect of the game.

I think we can both agree that Lance Stephenson doesn't shoot almost 50% as the number one scoring option though.

[Andrei Kirilenko]

May 22, 2014 0:47:51 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

May 22, 2014 0:45:09 GMT Andrei Kirilenko said:

In what world?

Louis Williams: 10.4 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 3.5 apg, .8 spg, .1 bpg, 40.0% shooting (lol)
Lance Stephenson: 13.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, .7 spg, .1 bpg, 49.1% shooting


Yes, those .1 more steals per game sure do make up for the fact that Lance dominates Williams in every single other aspect of the game.

I think we can both agree that Lance Stephenson doesn't shoot almost 50% as the number one scoring option though.

This is getting annoying... everyone is just projecting things and making up hypothetical situations to justify Lance not getting an increase. It's stupid. I'm presenting you present day facts about how good he is as a player. He shoots 49.1% and averages nearly 14 ppg.

Here's the list of wing players who average more PPG than Lance and shoot at least 49.1%:

Goran Dragic (might even be a stretch to call him a wing)
Lebron James
Kevin Durant


Would his shooting percentage go down if he had to carry more load? Probably. Guess that means he isn't Lebron or Durant. The fact of the matter though is he averages 13.8 ppg and shoots 49.1% from the floor. The only other wing players in the league who can say that are the three listed above.

[Jeremiah Hill]

May 22, 2014 0:58:42 GMT Andrei Kirilenko said:

May 22, 2014 0:47:51 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

I think we can both agree that Lance Stephenson doesn't shoot almost 50% as the number one scoring option though.

This is getting annoying... everyone is just projecting things and making up hypothetical situations to justify Lance not getting an increase. It's stupid. I'm presenting you present day facts about how good he is as a player. He shoots 49.1% and averages nearly 14 ppg.

Here's the list of wing players who average more PPG than Lance and shoot at least 49.1%:

Goran Dragic (might even be a stretch to call him a wing)
Lebron James
Kevin Durant


Would his shooting percentage go down if he had to carry more load? Probably. Guess that means he isn't Lebron or Durant. The fact of the matter though is he averages 13.8 ppg and shoots 49.1% from the floor. The only other wing players in the league who can say that are the three listed above.



I voted for an increase, I'm not against him having an increase. I was making a point that you didn't try and say he was a 90 or something. It was more of a compliment than anything.

[Walt Frazier]

May 21, 2014 16:48:53 GMT Andrei Kirilenko said:

Would you guys recommend downgrading Paul George to the 78 range?

Last year he averaged 17.4 ppg, 7.6 rpg, and 4.1 apg on 42% shooting. So he's right on the money for rebounds and assists, but got 3.6 more ppg on much worse shooting %.

We boosted him to an 88 with those numbers... and Lance Stephenson is rated TEN whole points lower.


And I'm not buying the "Lance Stephenson isn't a good defender" argument (which Jeremiah said). The only reason Lance was even in the lineup last year was for his defense.

Here's your defensive win shares graphic: i.imgur.com/MBWtIxN.png

Notice that Lance is behind only Paul George and Jimmy Butler for wing players.

David Lee is 20th in Defensive Win Shares?! Stat fail.

[Bryan Colangelo]

May 22, 2014 0:10:26 GMT Andrei Kirilenko said:

May 21, 2014 23:47:09 GMT @swooshthehoop said:

80, same as Louis Williams

i actually cant stop laughing LOL

[Walt Frazier]

Man, seeing those stats, I couldn't help it. My Nicolas Batum radar went off.

13.8 - 7.2 - 4.6 - 2.7TO - 0.7 - 0.1 - 49.1/35.2/71.1
13.0 - 7.5 - 5.1 - 2.5TO - 0.9 - 0.7 - 46.5/36.1/80.3

Remarkably similar stats...Player A gets the slightest advantage in points, and a noticeable but not huge advantage in FG%. Player B gets the slight advantage in Rebound/Assists/TO/Steals/Blocks/3pt%...and a pretty decent advantage in FT%

A is Stephenson, B is Batum.

Much like my argument how Batum put up 11 rebounds per game for an entire month, among other things, I like Stephenson's 5 Triple Doubles this year. It shows what he is able to do. He doesn't have to do it every single game, for ME, for him to get credit for it. I can see he is capable and I'd like to give him credit for it in his rating.

I personally see Batum as an 85 (even though ya'll have him staying at an 83), and I'm gonna put Stephenson at an 82 because Batum has a bit larger sample size, mainly, and more advantages over Stephenson to this point, even though they are small.

82.