Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

ESPN Insider request....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ESPN Insider request....

    It sure would be nice to read what they say about all the Pacers in the article about player efficiency ratings.....

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/hollinger?team=ind

    No biggie, but it would be much appreciated!




    RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

  • #2
    Hollinger Profiles: Indiana Pacers

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/hollinger?team=ind

    Hollinger Profiles: Indiana Pacers
    Player Efficiency Rating (PER)

    League average: 15.0


    Ron Artest
    PER 23.52
    League Avg: +8.52
    Nobody doubts Artest's talent. The only question is if he can keep his head screwed on straight for an entire season. A forgotten footnote to his season-long suspension for the brawl in Detroit is that the Pacers had already suspended Artest earlier in the month because he had asked for time off.

    In the seven games he played, Artest was a terror, with a top-10 PER and his usual manic defense. The Pacers can only hope that the year off mellowed him enough that his distracting antics come to an end and he focuses on being an All-Star basketball player.


    Jonathan Bender
    PER 5.62
    League Avg: -9.38
    Bender looked like he was ready to break out in 2004-05, but knee problems kept him on the shelf virtually the entire season. The knee injuries have been persistent enough that one wonders if he'll ever stay healthy for a full season, but Bender has considerable potential as a scorer if he can get on the court. The 7-footer has a nice mid-range jump shot that he can shoot over anybody and handles the ball well for his size. His length also is a major asset on defense, allowing him to play several feet off his man and still contest shots. He needs to add more strength, however, and will have to battle his way back into a crowded forward rotation.


    Austin Croshere
    PER 13.52
    League Avg: -1.48
    Croshere became the starting power forward after O'Neal's suspension but gradually faded from the rotation as the year wore on. Despite his horrible shooting percentages, Croshere is a decent offensive player who has 3-point range and uses the threat of his outside shot to set up his drives to the basket. That's actually the most potent part of his game -- Croshere averaged better than a free-throw attempt per two field-goal attempts and shot 88.3 percent from the line. He struggled in his supposed specialty though, by hitting only 25.9 percent from downtown. In addition, the penalty for his aggression in going to the basket was a high Turnover Ratio.

    Croshere's offense is getting tough to live with, however, because his defense is so bad. A competent defender in his younger days, Croshere's blocked shot rate is but a fraction of what it was in his mid-20s, and his Rebound Rate has declined too. Plus, he has slow feet and isn't strong enough to push opposing players out of the post. Overall, his Defensive PER was among the worst in basketball.

    Croshere won't be going anywhere since he's signed for two more years at over $7 million per, but in order to justify even a portion of that income, he needs to either improve his shooting percentage or ramp up the defense. Due to the crowded frontcourt, he'll need to do that just to get onto the court.

    Most similar at age: Sam Perkins


    Jeff Foster
    PER 15.38
    League Avg: +0.38
    Foster is one of the best rebounders in all of basketball, especially at the offensive end, because he is unusually quick for a man of his size and aggressively chases caroms. He had the fourth-best Rebound Rate among centers, and those rebounds provided most of his offense in the form of easy put-backs. Foster is a good leaper who can finish dunks, but he's usually looking for rebounding position rather than getting himself open for a shot. He also will shoot an 18-foot jumper on occasion, but he should probably stop. Foster shot 20.7 percent on jump shots but they accounted for nearly a third of his attempts last season. If he deleted that from his arsenal, he would shoot over 60 percent from the field.

    Because of his quickness, Foster is a fine defensive player who is at his best when matched up against quick forwards. In strength match-ups, he doesn't fare quite as well, but his rebounding is an asset and he's quick enough to step out on guards against the pick-and-roll. Despite Foster's quickness and leaping ability, however, he's a terrible shot-blocker who had only 12 all season -- three fewer than Anthony Johnson.

    Foster should retake his spot in the starting lineup this year after hip problems slowed him down in 2004-05. His ability to create havoc on the glass should be an upgrade from Davis. Ironically, as the Similarity Scores show, Foster plays as a younger version of the man he's replacing.

    Most similar at age: Dale Davis


    Eddie Gill
    PER 9.41
    League Avg: -5.59
    The Pacers signed Gill when the injuries hit and he ended up being their backup point guard for most of the season. He was a pretty bad one too. Gill shot incredibly poorly, hitting 33.5 percent, but his stewardship of the offense was even worse. Gill was near the bottom of his position in both Assist Ratio and Turnover Ratio, and he nearly accomplished a difficult feat for a point guard by having more turnovers than assists. He was adequate defensively and on the boards, but unless his offense shows major improvement, he won't be able to hang on to a job.

    Most similar at age: Greg Anthony


    Danny Granger
    PER --
    At 22, Granger is old for an NBA rookie these days, but his collegiate numbers suggest he'll contribute immediately and be among the best rebounding small forwards in basketball. Granger averaged nearly a rebound every three minutes, and his averages of over two steals and two blocks are further indicators of how active he was at New Mexico. Offensively, he shapes up even better. Granger averaged 25 points per 40 minutes as a senior while shooting 52 percent from the field and 43 percent on 3s. How he fell to the Pacers with the 17th pick is a mystery, but he'll be a big improvement on James Jones.


    David Harrison
    PER 12.77
    League Avg: -2.23
    Indiana's first-round draft pick in 2004 put up a reasonably solid performance at the offensive end where he shot 57.6 percent and showed some flashes of having a decent post game. His TS% was among the best at his position and he scored at a decent rate for a big man. He needs to be more careful with the ball and set fewer illegal screens though, because his Turnover Ratio was way too high.

    The bigger disappointment was Harrison's mysterious lack of aggression on the glass. Only Peja Drobnjak and Clifford Robinson were worse among centers, and neither of them are seven feet tall and weigh 280 pounds. Harrison also struggled at the defensive end, although that's hardly unusual for a rookie, and his size and strength should allow him to be a good post defender in time.

    Harrison had minor knee surgery and missed the second half of the season, but he should return healthy for his sophomore campaign. If he can improve his work on the glass, his offensive skills may allow him to elbow aside Pollard and Croshere for minutes off the Pacers bench.

    Most similar at age: Jelani McCoy


    Stephen Jackson
    PER 15.87
    League Avg: +0.87
    Other than that little incident in Detroit, Jackson had a very solid first season as a Pacer. He stepped up his offensive contribution when O'Neal went out late in the season and ended up averaging a career-best 21.1 points per 40 minutes. While his field-goal percentage dipped, his overall numbers didn't suffer too much because he got to the line more and hit a career-high 83 percent.

    Jackson has steadily cut down his Turnover Ratio during his pro career, and last year's drop was noteworthy because he went to the basket as often as ever. Jackson dribbles the ball extremely high, which makes him vulnerable to deflections, but he has become better at protecting the ball and avoiding high-traffic areas. He's also a good scorer in transition, which is amazing for a guy who appears to run without bending his knees.

    Jackson had to be the Pacers' defensive stopper last season, which was perhaps a bit beyond his skills. While he's a good athlete and has the size to alter shots, he's not particularly nimble and his instincts are more as a scorer than as a stopper. He'll gladly relinquish that duty to Ron Artest this season.

    Most similar at age: Walt Williams


    Sarunas Jasikevicius
    PER --
    A forgettable player while at Maryland, Jasikevicius has blossomed in Europe. He's been the starting point guard for the Euroleague champion for three straight seasons, and he earned further notoriety when he led Lithuania to a win over the U.S. in the 2004 Olympics.

    At this point, however, he may be overrated. Three other players on his Maccabi Tel Aviv team rated higher (Maceo Baston, Anthony Parker and Nikola Vujcic), and of his past three seasons, only one has been statistically impressive.

    The Pacers signed him for a three-year deal in the offseason, and though they may have overpaid, he'll be an upgrade on Anthony Johnson.


    Anthony Johnson
    PER 14.25
    League Avg: -0.75
    Johnson chose a good time to have his best pro season, because he was able to help the Pacers weather the loss of Tinsley and subsequently squeak into the playoffs. Johnson was particularly solid as a distributor, as he got into the paint on pick-and-roll plays and repeatedly found the open man. He ended up with the 11th-best Assist Ratio in the league. Offensively, Johnson has the size to post up and is a decent 3-point shooter. However, his scoring rates have never been impressive because he's slow and can't jump.

    Defensively, Johnson's lack of speed was a bit of a problem, and he tended to foul jump shooters a lot. He mostly made up for it because he's bigger and stronger than most guards, helped out on the boards, and didn't make mistakes. Johnson is extremely unlikely to repeat last season's performance, so the Pacers will welcome Tinsley back to the lineup with open arms. The bigger question is whether he'll even be the second string, as Sarunas Jasikevicius may steal most of Johnson's minutes.

    Most similar at age: Chris Childs


    Fred Jones
    PER 13.28
    League Avg: -1.72
    Jones was supposed to come off the bench for 15-20 minutes a night but instead led the team in minutes due to all the injuries. He improved his offense somewhat from his second season, particularly his jump shot. Jones hit 38 percent on 3-pointers, making him less dependent on drives to the basket for his points. He can be a spectacular dunker when he goes to the basket, but he isn't very elusive as a dribbler and so he doesn't get to the rim as often as one might expect. Consequently, his scoring rate is low. He is a good passer though.

    Jones' defensive stats were much worse than they were in 2003-04, because he didn't have Ron Artest to bail him out. Jones is small for a shooting guard so bigger, more physical guards gave him problems. Despite his leaping ability, he's also a poor rebounder who should get more aggressive on the boards.

    Barring injury, Jones will move back to his bench role this season and is a perfectly adequate player in that setting. But 2004-05 exposed why he's not quite ready for duty as a full-time starter.

    Most similar at age: Khalid Reeves


    Jermaine O'Neal
    PER 22.85
    League Avg: +7.85
    O'Neal was a more potent offensive force last season because he settled for fewer jumpers and drove to the rim, especially with his improved left hand. As a result he averaged about one free-throw attempt for every two field-goal attempts, compared to his prior-year ratio of 1 to 3. This accounts for the improvement in his TS%.

    Plus, O'Neal was more aggressive about going for his shots, leading to another big spike in his Usage Rate. As a result, he scored 27.9 points per 40 minutes, but he might want to tone it down a bit. While O'Neal can create shots from the post at will, his TS% shows he's not a high-percentage player. He's also a poor passer, leaving him vulnerable to double-teams. Indiana averaged a tenth of a point more when O'Neal was off the court than when he was on it, supporting the view that he should focus more on quality than on quantity.

    With the return of Artest and the rest of Indiana's walking wounded, reducing O'Neal's shot attempts shouldn't be a problem. Last year the Pacers didn't have as much of a choice -- pounding it into O'Neal was one of their few consistent offensive weapons. With more options this season, force-feeding O'Neal should become a lower priority.

    Despite my misgivings about his shot frequency, O'Neal's defense, rebounding, and post game make him one of the best big men in basketball. Having him for 82 games instead of the 44 he played a year ago improves the Pacers' outlook considerably.

    Most similar at age: Derrick Coleman


    Scot Pollard
    PER 11.12
    League Avg: -3.88
    Pollard is a very solid defensive center when his back allows, as he is physical enough to bang with opposing centers and versatile enough to help guards against the screen-and-roll. However, the bad back limited him to 49 games last season and he rarely had his usual verve when he played. His Rebound Rate is a good example, as it has declined sharply from his days in Sacramento.

    Pollard is a good finisher around the basket with an above-average left hand, but he contributes little else. He has trouble with illegal screen calls, which is where he accumulates most of his turnovers, and has no post game to speak of. But if he can overcome the back trouble, he's still good enough to be a productive frontcourt sub for 15 minutes a night. However, Pollard might want to keep his bags packed until February. His contract expires after the season, which means he's the likely bait if the Pacers go shopping for additional help at the trade deadline.

    Most similar at age: Amal McCaskill


    Jamaal Tinsley
    PER 18.57
    League Avg: +3.57
    With Indiana's three best scorers suspended, Tinsley shifted his energies from setting up others to scoring himself. He raised his 40-minute scoring average by six points and more than tripled his rate of free-throw attempts. Tinsley was especially effective going left. He would come down the left side of the court, fake a crossover and continue hard to the basket. The move was so convincing that defenders bit nearly every time. Also, Tinsley has improved as a shooter, making 37 percent on 3-pointers for the second straight season after struggling with the jumper early in his career.

    The Pacers needed the scoring, but Tinsley should return to his more natural role as a distributor this season. A point of emphasis should be reducing turnovers, which have plagued him his entire career. However, one good sign is that Tinsley managed to hold his Turnover Ratio steady last year despite the drastic increase in shots. It also might help him if Indiana ran more, as Tinsley is at his best in transition.

    Defensively, Tinsley is one of the best guards in basketball. He has good quickness and fast hands that plucked two steals a game. Moreover, he's a good rebounder for a guard and is big enough to defend shooting guards if the situation requires.

    Overall, he's on the cusp of becoming an All-Star point guard if he can ever stay healthy. Tinsley has played only 92 games the past two seasons and has limped through Indiana's playoff defeats in two straight postseasons. While much of the attention will be on Ron Artest, Tinsley is arguably a bigger key to Indiana's championship hopes. If he's in one piece in June, the Pacers will be tough to beat.

    Most similar at age: Doc Rivers

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: ESPN Insider request....

      Danny Granger
      PER --
      At 22, Granger is old for an NBA rookie these days, but his collegiate numbers suggest he'll contribute immediately and be among the best rebounding small forwards in basketball. Granger averaged nearly a rebound every three minutes, and his averages of over two steals and two blocks are further indicators of how active he was at New Mexico. Offensively, he shapes up even better. Granger averaged 25 points per 40 minutes as a senior while shooting 52 percent from the field and 43 percent on 3s. How he fell to the Pacers with the 17th pick is a mystery, but he'll be a big improvement on James Jones.
      I see what they're thinkin!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: ESPN Insider request....

        Jackson has steadily cut down his Turnover Ratio during his pro career, and last year's drop was noteworthy because he went to the basket as often as ever. Jackson dribbles the ball extremely high, which makes him vulnerable to deflections, but he has become better at protecting the ball and avoiding high-traffic areas. He's also a good scorer in transition, which is amazing for a guy who appears to run without bending his knees.
        I'm definitely going to have to keep an eye on that. It's hilarious on paper, and I've never noticed it before.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: ESPN Insider request....

          I havent noticed that either! lol

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hollinger Profiles: Indiana Pacers

            Originally posted by jrm7one
            http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/hollinger?team=ind

            Hollinger Profiles: Indiana Pacers
            Player Efficiency Rating (PER)
            THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!



            RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: ESPN Insider request....

              Thank you!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: ESPN Insider request....

                Nice to see some good stuff. I like how they didn't compare Artest to anyone, but compared JO to Coleman. Then again, I never really saw Coleman when he was in his prime.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: ESPN Insider request....

                  "Defensively, Tinsley is one of the best guards in basketball"

                  Huh, I didn't know that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: ESPN Insider request....

                    Originally posted by Mac_Daddy
                    Nice to see some good stuff. I like how they didn't compare Artest to anyone, but compared JO to Coleman. Then again, I never really saw Coleman when he was in his prime.
                    yeah Me too.. I'm a lil shocked at all of the comparisons....


                    Chris Childs.... Jelini McCoy....

                    is he for real... thanks for the Insider Post and welcome to the Board to mate...
                    Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: ESPN Insider request....

                      I really can't say I've ever even seen Coleman play...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: ESPN Insider request....

                        The age comparisons come from a matematical formula. Sometimes they're pretty well on, and sometimes they're pretty far off.
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: ESPN Insider request....

                          what ever happend to Coleman anyway... I know his size bloomed and thats about all i know... last played in 99 I think....
                          Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: ESPN Insider request....

                            Originally posted by GO!!!!!
                            what ever happend to Coleman anyway... I know his size bloomed and thats about all i know... last played in 99 I think....
                            99? Nah, he's been around.

                            74 games w/Hornets in 2000
                            34 games w/Hornets in 2001
                            58 games w/Sixers in 2002
                            64 games w/Sixers in 2003
                            34 games w/Sixers in 2004
                            5 games w/Pistons in 2005 (was suspended one game due to the brawl)

                            I do believe he's currently not on anybody's roster, so he may be done, finally. For all the bashing he's got, if you check his numbers, he's had a solid career.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: ESPN Insider request....

                              Originally posted by gilpdawg
                              99? Nah, he's been around.

                              74 games w/Hornets in 2000
                              34 games w/Hornets in 2001
                              58 games w/Sixers in 2002
                              64 games w/Sixers in 2003
                              34 games w/Sixers in 2004
                              5 games w/Pistons in 2005 (was suspended one game due to the brawl)

                              I do believe he's currently not on anybody's roster, so he may be done, finally. For all the bashing he's got, if you check his numbers, he's had a solid career.
                              No Kidding.... wonder who I was thinking of then.... some other stuf from the class of 90

                              Amazing... he was the No 1 Pick that year.. ohh the Past...

                              has 20pts and Ten boards in 94 and all down hill since...
                              Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X