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.
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
-
The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
RSS Feed
Subscribe via iTunes
-
Re: Rookie report (Insider Request)
Rookie report: Disappointments and a surprise ROY
By John Hollinger
ESPN Insider
Archive
Earlier this week, our Chris Sheridan wrote about a number of players who were in the NBA last year and aren't this year. Want to know why they're gone? Because a bunch of rookies came in and replaced them. Think of it as the birth and death cycle for NBA careers -- a new generation comes in and, in equal numbers, the old one leaves.
This year's new generation isn't exactly off to an eye-popping start, as many of the top first-round picks were drafted more with an eye toward long-term development than immediate impact. Nonetheless, we've played about a quarter of the season already, so it's time to take stock. Obviously, in a draft like this one with so many players who were picked more for what they can do in 2009 than what they can do in 2006, it's way too early to start pegging guys as busts, steals or anything in between.
But what we can do is come up with some loose groupings to describe their progress so far, especially when compared to the expectations for these players heading into the season.
I've done that below for every first-round pick who's in the league (sorry, Oleksiy Pecherov fans, you'll have to wait 'til next year), as well the second-rounders, Europeans and other hangers-on who are getting regular minutes. (I stress the latter part; you'll see no updates on the Chris McCrays or Robert Hites of the world in this column. Maybe their fans can hold a candlelight vigil with the Pecherov fan club or something.)
Here's one man's analysis of how they stack up so far, including the worst, the best, and my pick for Rookie of the Year (so far):
The Disappointments
They all came in with high hopes, but all have seen their PERs in single digits for most of the season:
Adam Morrison, Bobcats: Look, we knew he'd be fairly one-dimensional, but lordy. This guy makes Lara Flynn Boyle seem well-rounded.
Morrison is a 6-9 forward playing 35 minutes a night, and yet he's grabbed three offensive rebounds the entire season. While I'd expect the 38.5 percent shooting mark to improve, Morrison's marks of 2.7 rebounds and 2.1 assists aren't nearly enough to offset his occasional scoring outbursts.
In fact, his 4.5 rebound rate is the worst of any player 6-7 or taller, and only one player bigger than 6-3 (more on him below) is worse.
Marcus Williams, Nets: The Nets thought they were getting the next Mark Jackson, not the next World B. Free.
But Williams has shown much more willingness to create shots for himself than for others thus far, which wouldn't be a problem if some of those shots came in the paint or went in the basket. He's hitting 41.5 percent, including 20.0 percent on 3-pointers, and his turnover rate has stayed stubbornly high despite a lack of assists to compensate.
Dude, you've got Vince Carter and Richard Jefferson on your team -- share the rock.
Rajon Rondo, Celtics: I put Rondo here only because expectations had been so elevated by his spectacular preseason.
Now that the real games have started, Rondo's limitations have become more apparent -- namely that no matter how impressive the rest of his game is, his inability to score is a huge problem.
Rondo averages only 8.8 points per 40 minutes, on 35.1 percent shooting. He hasn't made a 3-pointer and shoots 56.3 percent from the line, and he has more turnovers than baskets. There aren't enough Tommy Points in the world to overcome that.
Quincy Douby, Kings: Kings fans will think I'm being harsh because he's played only 21 minutes. But the 21 minutes are a red flag in themselves, because it means he's failed to beat out Ronnie Price and Jason Hart for minutes; last I checked, neither was contending for an All-Star berth.
Douby was supposed to provide instant offense off the pine, and has been unable to do it.
Shannon Brown, Cavaliers: Brown is another rookie guard who has failed to make an impact, getting surpassed by second-rounder Daniel Gibson in the Cavs' rotation this week.
Despite competing for playing time against a bunch of corpses, Brown has played only 92 minutes and hasn't earned more with his play -- he's shot 10-for-29 from the field in his limited minutes.
Dee Brown, Jazz: I had to include him since the first Irrational Jerry Sloan Personnel Decision (IJSPD) of the new season happened this week, with Brown -- who is shooting 16.7 percent -- taking Ronnie Brewer's spot in the rotation.
Brown was a second-rounder so it's not like big things were expected, but he shouldn't be playing.
The Guys Who Should be Starting
These players have seen plenty of action, and have shown they're ready for the next step -- a spot in the starting five.
Jordan Farmar, Lakers: Farmar's athleticism has won him a steady gig with the second unit, although he's struggled in two respects -- he's a shaky shooter and he takes bad fouls when he tries to pressure the ball.
But with Smush Parker struggling and Farmar's penetration skills adding a bit of zip to the Laker attack, it's more a question of when he takes over than if.
Daniel Gibson, Cavaliers: Well, it's easy to say now. With the Cavs suspending their retread-of-the-week program (sorry Messrs. Wesley and Pavlovic), Gibson finally got to the opportunity to start on Wednesday and shined in the win over Toronto.
The knock on him in the draft was that he was a shoot-first point guard, but with LeBron effectively playing the point it won't be an issue in Cleveland. As long as he knocks down shots he'll play.
Andrea Bargnani, Raptors: If Chad Ford's podcast with Bryan Colangelo didn't get Sam Mitchell's attention, perhaps Bargnani's recent play will. After a slow start, the top overall pick has put together six straight double-figure efforts and seems to be getting comfortable with the NBA 3-point distance.
Sure, he can't guard a rock right now, but the Raps aren't getting much from Rasho Nesterovic anyway, and the kid's translated European stats suggest he's even better than he's shown thus far.
The Imports
Several players with years of experience in Europe crossed the pond this summer. The results have been mixed.
Jorge Garbajosa, Raptors: He's pretty much been exactly what I expected.
On the one hand, he knows how to play and is a solid defender, which is something Toronto really needed.
On the other, his near-total reliance on 20-foot jumpers makes it virtually impossible for him to post decent percentages. He's shooting 43.5 percent with a low free-throw rate, and that's why he's backup material until further notice.
Yakhouba Diawara, Nuggets: The French swingman was advertised as a defensive specialist, which is a good thing because he's surely no offensive specialist.
Diawara is shooting 36.4 percent and seems intent on shooting 3-pointers despite the fact that he can't make them. He'll lose his spot in the rotation unless more shots start falling.
Sergio Rodriguez, Trail Blazers: Spanish Chocolate has taken over the Blazers' backup point guard job, and played well enough as a distributor to overcome some seriously shaky shooting.
Rodriguez's assist ratio is 49.2 (percentage of the possessions he uses that end in an assist), which if he kept it up would be the highest mark since I began tracking it. Chances are it won't stay that high, since he's only played 171 minutes, but his passing skills are exceptional.
Mickael Gelabale, Sonics: Another French defensive specialist, Gelabale hasn't seen as much action as Diawara and appears even less talented offensively.
We might get a much longer look at him if Ray Allen's injury turns out to be serious.
Vassilis Spanoulis, Rockets: Note to Mike Krzyzewski: Spanoulis is shooting 26.7 percent on 3-pointers in the NBA this year. Thought you might want to know.
Because half of Spanoulis' attempts have come from beyond the arc, his wayward shooting has been a problem. This is consistent with his European stats, so his performance won't improve until he spots up less and gets to the rim more.
On a side note, the competition between Spanoulis and Jorge "Eight-Day Shadow" Garbajosa for the league's worst rookie beard should go down right to the wire.
Laker reps are trying to get Vladimir Radmanovic involved too, arguing that while Radmanovic isn't a rookie, his beard -- a loaner from Barry Gibb, it appears -- is.
The Projects
In a draft with several wait-'til-next-year types, these are the most prominent.
Tyrus Thomas, Bulls: Broke his nose opening night. Welcome to the NBA, kid.
Since then he's had trouble cracking the Bulls' rotation, mixing intriguing athleticism with several moments when his inexperience (just one year of college) has become apparent. A lack of offensive polish is the biggest shortcoming.
Thabo Sefolosha, Bulls: A future defensive ace, the Swiss Mister already has Chicago's brass beaming over his long-term future.
But for the immediate future, Sefolosha's offense pales in comparison to his defense, so he's not useful for more than spot duty on a team hoping to win the East.
Patrick O'Bryant, Warriors: The 7-foot lottery pick has only played 68 minutes, limited by Andris Biedrins' development, Don Nelson's taste for small lineups, and his own ineffectiveness.
Don't plan on seeing much of him until next fall at the earliest.
Mouhamed Sene, Sonics: Here's another 7-foot lottery project, albeit much less far along in his development.
Remember, there are different levels of "project." If O'Bryant is a project in a "He needs to refine his skills" kind of way, Sene is a project more in a "He needs to learn the rules" kind of way.
Right now he's a poor man's D.J. Mbenga, but with his long arms and athleticism, Sene could be a ridiculously good defensive player down the road. The D-League was made for guys like this, so hopefully Seattle sends him down for a while.
Shawne Williams, Pacers: He was supposed to be a project after leaving Memphis following his freshman year, so the fact he hasn't played a minute shouldn't shock anyone. I'd expect him to get some D-League time except that the Pacers' affiliate is in Albuquerque, which doesn't make it real convenient.
Solid but not spectacular
These guys haven't made many highlight reels, but they've proven helpful right off the bat.
Randy Foye, Timberwolves: He defends and he makes some plays, but the Rookie of the Year talk might have been overblown.
While Foye has settled in as a solid reserve in the Minnesota backcourt, he's shooting 39.6 percent with a high turnover rate. It's going to be hard for him to increase his role unless there's an injury, because Mike James and Ricky Davis have been productive scorers and Trenton Hassell is defending like crazy.
Shelden Williams, Hawks: Williams earned Atlanta's starting power forward job despite some severe offensive limitations, because his muscle and defense were exactly what this team needed up front.
If the offense ever comes around he'll be a pretty good player, but I'm not sure that's going to happen. Right now his only "weapon," if you can call it that, is a shaky 15-footer.
Hilton Armstrong, Hornets: Armstrong seems to have fallen behind Cedric Simmons in the Hornets' big-man rotation, which is strange because he's played much better. In the two games he's played more than five minutes, he put up 17 and 9 in a win at Detroit, and went 3-for-3 with eight boards in 12 minutes against Dallas.
But by all means, keep playing the guy who can't score.
Leon Powe: Boston's frontcourt injuries have forced it to use the second-rounder and he's proven competent, continuing Danny Ainge's strong track record with second-round picks. I'm not sure Powe's defense will ever be up to snuff, but he knows his way around the basket. The other concern with Powe is his knees -- that's why he went in Round 2 -- but so far they've held up.
Spectacular but not solid
They look great on "SportsCenter," but have giant holes in their games:
Rodney Carney, 76ers: So if you're 6-6 and everyone talks about how athletic you are and how you can jump out of the gym, shouldn't you grab a rebound every once in a while?
Remember above when I said that only one player over 6-3 had a rebound rate worse than Adam Morrison's? This is the guy. Yes, the super-athletic Carney is the worst rebounder of any forward, and of any player over 6-3. At least he's beating Earl Boykins.
Renaldo Balkman, Knicks: He's been an electric performer off the bench because of his rebounding and shot-blocking. Yes, you read that right. He's a reserve small forward playing 12 minutes a game, but he leads the Knicks in blocks.
However, Balkman is held back by poor ball-handling and a complete lack of an outside shot. He's good enough now to be a decent rotation player, but he won't be anything more unless he picks up some new tricks.
Cedric Simmons, Hornets: Simmons is the kind of long, athletic guy that gets scouts salivating, especially with his shot-blocking ability. But his offense is putrid -- he's shooting 40 percent and scoring 8.3 points per 40 minutes. Wednesday against the Lakers he turned the ball over twice when he was just trying to unload a defensive rebound.
I'm not saying he won't be good eventually, but he's got work to do.
Rudy Gay, Grizzlies I had high hopes for Gay, but so far I'm underwhelmed, despite his Western Conference Rookie of the Month award.
The key is his shooting -- at 37.7 percent from the floor, 32.0 percent on 3s, and 62.2 percent from the line, he's been much less accurate than expected based on his results at Connecticut.
He also hasn't done much to dispel the doubts about his motor, as he's tended to settle for jumpers rather than attacking the rim. He's done a nice job on the boards, though.
The incompletes
Injuries and/or numbers games have conspired to keep these players off the court, so the jury's still out:
Brandon Roy, Trail Blazers: Roy was the leading Rookie of the Year contender after a solid start in the first five games, but a heel problem has him on the shelf indefinitely.
Kyle Lowry, Grizzlies: Lowry played the first 10 games and was so good that it's shocking he didn't get more playing time. He can't shoot, but his other numbers were attention-getters -- he rebounded like a forward, constantly got to the rim and drew fouls, and had a phenomenally high steals rate. Unfortunately, a wrist injury will keep him sidelined much of the season.
J.J. Redick, Magic: A back problem, the Magic's fast start, and the unexpected health of Grant Hill have conspired to keep the college player of the year bench-ridden for all but 12 minutes.
Smart-aleck comment: Orlando's lottery picks from 2005 and 2006 have combined to score six NBA points.
Maurice Ager, Mavericks: Ager won't get many chances in the Mavs' deep backcourt, and that 5-for-22 start from the floor isn't doing him many favors. He could be headed to the D-League.
Mardy Collins, Knicks: Another late first-rounder stuck in a deep backcourt, Collins is the fifth man in a four-guard rotation and has played just 34 minutes.
Josh Boone, Nets: New Jersey's other first-rounder was on the shelf with a shoulder injury until being activated earlier this week. In Nets' fans wildest dreams, he emerges as the answer in the middle and replaces Jason Collins. We'll see.
The under-the-radar studs
I'm saving the best for last here, so there's a little reward for both of you who read this far. These guys haven't received the hype of players like Morrison and Bargnani, but they've been excellent:
Ronnie Brewer, Jazz: A shooting guard who can't shoot from the outside, Brewer has been good enough in other areas to offset the shaky stroke.
He takes almost 60 percent of his shots on the inside (according to 82games.com), so his field-goal percentage is 52.1. And he averages better than a steal every 20 minutes.
But he fell out of the Jazz rotation this week because of the aforementioned IJSPD -- coming on the heels of another indignity when he served as C.J. Miles' backup for the first seven games.
Brewer will get more chances, though, and one presumes he'll keep producing.
LaMarcus Aldridge, Trail Blazers: The Blazers spent the whole summer sandbagging us, saying that Aldridge was a project and might not play much. Fuggedaboutit -- this guy is good.
He just reaches his arms way up and launches that 15-footer, and there's no way anybody can get near it. He's shooting 53.9 percent and put together his first career double-double on Tuesday to help Portland steal a win in Detroit.
Once he adds some muscle he'll be unstoppable.
Craig Smith, Timberwolves: Since I'm giving Sloan such a hard time, let's not give Minnesota coach Dwane Casey a free pass.
Here's a guy who is shooting 55.1 percent, has a high rebound rate and a prolific rate of steals for a big man, and is second among all rookies in PER -- and the T-Wolves are limiting him to 19 minutes a game so Mark Blount can stay in the starting lineup? Seriously? It's not like there's a question of untapped potential here -- we know Blount is a stiff.
Look, I realize Smith is only 6-7 and it's a tough hurdle mentally to think of your starting center conceding half a foot every night, but how obvious does it have to be that this is their best option before Casey makes a move?
The Rookie of the Year
Paul Millsap, Jazz: Who knows if he'll eventually win the trophy? A lot of guys are getting more minutes and will exceed him hype-wise, while Utah's deep frontcourt is going to limit him to 20 minutes a game or so. But to date Millsap has been the best rookie, hands down.
He's managed to earn steady playing time even though the Jazz didn't have a rotation spot for him when the year opened, and has been so good that the IJSPD factor (see above) hasn't been an issue. He's shooting 58 percent and has one of the highest rebound rates at his position, and despite a short, wide build he's a good shot-blocker. Overall, he's leading all rookies in PER, and he's done it for a team that sports the league's best record.
Speaking of which, perhaps it's time for the league's scouts to reevaluate their position on short power forwards. The two best rookies so far were second-rounders who lasted that long based largely on their stature -- even though both racked up huge numbers in college.
There's a historical basis in this, as 6-7 and 6-8 power forwards don't have a great track record of success. But one has to wonder if the shift to smaller lineups in recent seasons has made it possible for these guys to thrive again, and if scouting has to adjust to the NBA's new realities. Just food for thought as we close out the rookie report.
Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest! -
Re: Rookie report (Insider Request)
Interesting read. Thanks again.
I especially liked the "Spectacular but not solid" category.The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
RSS Feed
Subscribe via iTunes
Comment
-
Re: Rookie report (Insider Request)
Wow. This class really is terrible.Comment
-
Re: Rookie report (Insider Request)
I knew Millsap would be good if someone gave him a chance. I didn't count on AK's injury being that chance but he has shown in the NBA what I saw from him in college. A very impressive transition. There's no way he's ROY but it's great he's being recognized.You Got The Tony!!!!!!Comment
Tweet
Comment