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

The Rush factor/Mike Wells

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

  • The Rush factor/Mike Wells

    http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...sh_factor.html

    THE `HOUSE - Brandon Rush spent the days leading up to Tuesday's game against the Philadelphia 76ers listening to Dahntay Jones mess with him about a line Bob Kravitz used in his column on Sunday.

    "I want to see if someone else can find the light switch in Brandon Rush's head -- assuming there is a light switch, a questionable proposition at best," Kravitz wrote.

    Rush was looking for Kravitz after he scored a season-high 24 points in 40 minutes.
    Rush took a team-high 20 shots because a lot of the plays are meant for the small forward, which is where he started at in place of the suspended Danny Granger.

    Rush hasn't necessarily been shooting the ball real well from the field, but he's at least been looking for his shot more often recently. He could be on his way to another strong end of the season for the second straight year
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

  • #2
    Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

    I have always wondered how much attention the players pay to the local media. It was great to see Brandon looking for his shot last night and his defense was again really good, if not great.
    Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

      During the begining of the season - November and December I was disgusted with Rush's unaggressive play. During January and a good portion of February I just didn't care anymore about hiom and in many ways had just given up on him. Then the almost trade and I think since then he's played better (still inconsistant though) and once again he seems to be coming on strong at the end of the season maybe he plays better when the games are less meaningful.

      I said before the season that Rush was the x-factor this season - he has the talent to be the second best player (easily) on this team and he is needed to be the second best player. I still wonder if he'll ever be a consistantly aggressive enough player, whether he can overcome his laid back personality.

      Not sure what to think of him at this point

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

        Buck - I'll simply say that per usual I couldn't disagree more.

        I could easily go back and find tons of great play by Rush. He had one fault - he wasn't hitting the 3.

        3P%
        NOV - 31% (oh no, his career is over, I guess he doesn't care)
        DEC - 38% (well, that's better but still, why doesn't he score 20ppg like most #13 picks do?)
        JAN - 44% (sure it's 44%, but remember that 31%)
        FEB - 46% (when will he stop wandering through life and play as well as Danny or Troy)
        MAR - 42% (yep, it was only a matter of time till he fell apart)

        The view of Rush and his contributions has to be one of the most insane things I've seen around here in a while, other than the 2-3 man defense team for JOB. I'm sorry, but right now if you need a one on one defender you want Rush over DJones and definitely Granger.

        Don't get me started on the Buck darling Watson who typically gets lost from his man 2 seconds into a play, at least the past 2-3 months.

        If I need a guy closing out his man before the pass gets there, never giving up uncontested shots, blocking shots at the rim (from the SG no less) and getting some tough defensive boards, this is my guy. And he drops 40+% from 3? That's a bonus.

        This is not the #5 draft pick people. This is a #13 pick. Bayless ain't shooting 40% from 3 and he darn sure doesn't play defense like Rush. I like C Lee or CDR, but their defense also leaves a lot to be desired. The idea that Rush is underperforming his stock is just dumb. I see little factual evidence to support it, few to no counter examples of better, similar expectations players.



        And when he drives the lane, draws a double team from the corner, kicks it cleanly to that corner (TJ Ford) and then Ford wastes that spacing by just passing it to Watson for the less open 3, that's not a mistake by Rush. That's TJ's mistake. Drive baseline, force them to keep rotating, move that empty space from you to the next option and that might well be Rush at the rim even. (example from PHI game)


        Rush isn't afraid to shoot, he's unwilling to shot JUNK shots when he can just keep the ball moving and looking for something better. He has a little something called shot selection, an extreme rarity in the JOB era I realize. Perhaps that's why it confuses people.




        I will say that last night was one of his best games ever, simply because he looked confident in nearly every move. He had two brilliant drives to the rim that came up short, but clearly showed that he knew he make those plays.

        In that way alone I think he's hitting a "click" point where he's seen an option in his own game that can work for him.

        But on the other end he's been dialed in all year, and frankly was about the same last year.


        It's become trendy to view Rush as "uninspired" or something, as if aggressive defense and rebounding are signs of not trying. The McKey factor just rolls on, so much so that it surprises even me, the person that said this to everyone on draft night and at the summer PD party prior to his rookie year.
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-10-2010, 11:39 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          Buck - I'll simply say that per usual I couldn't disagree more.

          .
          Oh come on. I didn't really even say anything - just sort of a real general discussion of my feelings toward Rush throughout this season. How can you disagree so much.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

            For me, it's just the panicky way he seems when he has the ball and he's not shooting an open 3 or the stutter step drive is cut off. If he could calm down with the ball when he's not sure what to do, I'd feel much better about him. Really I'd like him to run off some Reggie type screens aggressively. Not sure that will happen. Again, love to see him under another coach who could maybe help him maximize that sizeable talent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

              I tend to believe that Rush, like everyone else on the roster, is a victim of the system.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                During the begining of the season - November and December I was disgusted with Rush's unaggressive play. During January and a good portion of February I just didn't care anymore about hiom and in many ways had just given up on him. Then the almost trade and I think since then he's played better (still inconsistant though) and once again he seems to be coming on strong at the end of the season maybe he plays better when the games are less meaningful.

                I said before the season that Rush was the x-factor this season - he has the talent to be the second best player (easily) on this team and he is needed to be the second best player. I still wonder if he'll ever be a consistantly aggressive enough player, whether he can overcome his laid back personality.

                Not sure what to think of him at this point
                Remind me... you were one of McKey's biggest detractors, right? You just hated how little he tried on the offensive end, and how much wasted offensive talent he had?
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                  Rush is one player I tend to stay quiet about, and I believe I do so b/c I really don't have an answer

                  I think the guy is an awesome defender. I think it's sometimes hidden due to the Pacers team defense itself, or the opponent simply making tough shots. He still makes mistakes, but he's starting to be become a really good shot blocker, and he's actually not biting on pump fakes that use to give him fits.

                  It pretty much comes down to his confidence on the offensive end. The kid can shoot when he's confident and on his game, but when that confidence isn't there, or his misses a couple early, he really looks lost and very timid. He also appears to be trying to hard on his drive to the bucket, which causes him to miss easy layups or runners b/c he's in such a hurry and appears to be thinking to much.

                  I personally didn't mind the Bobcats rumors with him going to Bobcats and Henderson coming here b/c I'm not sure if Brandon can put it all together, and though Henderson is stuck on the Bobcats bench, he brings a lot of the same quality someone like Rush can bring. The hiccup being, if Rush does "get it" and put it altogether, he's going to be a really good player, and able to impact both side of the floor. Like a taller and more athletic Joe Dumars

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                    My short answer is simply to say that under almost no circumstance is it ok for your starting shooting guard to score 5 points in a game.

                    Notice I said almost.

                    He is a hell of a defender, I said at one of the party's last year that it would not suprise me at all if he isn't named to 2nd team all defensive some day.

                    I also think in a more structured system that he would produce better on the offensive end.

                    However, let's not pretend he is not without fault either. There are just to many times that you forget that he is even on the floor because he is just not doing anything. He also had a horrid start to the season. Now it is fair to say that expectations were to high for him because of the way he finished last year.


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                      I don't believe we can give up on this guy, especially given the fact that the whole team seems to have given up on the coach (or the opposite?).
                      You know Kravitz will be pounding this guy this afternoon and hopefully Rush can just ignore and make it his goal to prove the "pundits" wrong. Much of this season has proven to be the same: high hopes followed by enigmatic questions!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Buck - I'll simply say that per usual I couldn't disagree more.

                        I could easily go back and find tons of great play by Rush. He had one fault - he wasn't hitting the 3.

                        3P%
                        NOV - 31% (oh no, his career is over, I guess he doesn't care)
                        DEC - 38% (well, that's better but still, why doesn't he score 20ppg like most #13 picks do?)
                        JAN - 44% (sure it's 44%, but remember that 31%)
                        FEB - 46% (when will he stop wandering through life and play as well as Danny or Troy)
                        MAR - 42% (yep, it was only a matter of time till he fell apart)

                        The view of Rush and his contributions has to be one of the most insane things I've seen around here in a while, other than the 2-3 man defense team for JOB. I'm sorry, but right now if you need a one on one defender you want Rush over DJones and definitely Granger.

                        Don't get me started on the Buck darling Watson who typically gets lost from his man 2 seconds into a play, at least the past 2-3 months.

                        If I need a guy closing out his man before the pass gets there, never giving up uncontested shots, blocking shots at the rim (from the SG no less) and getting some tough defensive boards, this is my guy. And he drops 40+% from 3? That's a bonus.

                        This is not the #5 draft pick people. This is a #13 pick. Bayless ain't shooting 40% from 3 and he darn sure doesn't play defense like Rush. I like C Lee or CDR, but their defense also leaves a lot to be desired. The idea that Rush is underperforming his stock is just dumb. I see little factual evidence to support it, few to no counter examples of better, similar expectations players.



                        And when he drives the lane, draws a double team from the corner, kicks it cleanly to that corner (TJ Ford) and then Ford wastes that spacing by just passing it to Watson for the less open 3, that's not a mistake by Rush. That's TJ's mistake. Drive baseline, force them to keep rotating, move that empty space from you to the next option and that might well be Rush at the rim even. (example from PHI game)


                        Rush isn't afraid to shoot, he's unwilling to shot JUNK shots when he can just keep the ball moving and looking for something better. He has a little something called shot selection, an extreme rarity in the JOB era I realize. Perhaps that's why it confuses people.




                        I will say that last night was one of his best games ever, simply because he looked confident in nearly every move. He had two brilliant drives to the rim that came up short, but clearly showed that he knew he make those plays.

                        In that way alone I think he's hitting a "click" point where he's seen an option in his own game that can work for him.

                        But on the other end he's been dialed in all year, and frankly was about the same last year.


                        It's become trendy to view Rush as "uninspired" or something, as if aggressive defense and rebounding are signs of not trying. The McKey factor just rolls on, so much so that it surprises even me, the person that said this to everyone on draft night and at the summer PD party prior to his rookie year.

                        I don't buy it, sorry. Rush needs to be aggressive and take the ball to the hole. He is tentative. What good is it when your "second best scorer" doesn't score? You praise his shot selection, but he does the Pacers no favors by not forcing defenses to acknowledge his presence.

                        If he racked up 7 assists a game, maybe I'd be ok with it - but he doesn't. He needs to make plays, rather than just swing the ball and be part of the offense.
                        Last edited by nerveghost; 03-10-2010, 12:46 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                          Kravitz should write an article about Rush everyday, I like the way he plays but he needs to be more aggressive in the offensive end, at the same time I think he is underrated on this team, he does things during the game that don't show on the stats.

                          I also want to remind everybody that he was not drafted by the pacers, the pacers drafted Bayless who at this moment I think is a bust.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                            Originally posted by nerveghost View Post
                            I don't buy it, sorry. Rush needs to be aggressive and take the ball to the hole. He is tentative. What good is it when your "second best scorer" doesn't score? You praise his shot selection, but he does the Pacers no favors by not forcing defenses to acknowledge his presence.

                            If he racked up 7 assists a game, maybe I'd be ok with it - but he doesn't. He needs to make plays, rather than just swing the ball and be part of the offense.
                            I think if people are expecting Brandon Rush to be Robin to someone's Batman, they're going to be waiting a long time.

                            Isn't this exactly the way he played at Kansas? I remember him being a fill-in-the-blank type of player who would do what you needed him to do, but essentially picked his spots during the course of the game. In that way, he's very much like McKey. Also, much like McKey, it's very frustrating, because you know he's more capable on the offensive end than what he's showing.

                            I think at the end of the day, Brandon needs to be the third best player on a team that doesn't expect him to do more than play solid defense and do whatever is needed to help the team win. This stands in stark contrast to his brothers, who seemed to be far more interested in seeing how many points they could score, and if their team won, that would be great, too.

                            Much like Shane Battier, Brandon's ultimate role will be as a glue guy that helps the rest of the offense work better. That type of player is very important to the success of a basketball team, but an All-Star, they aren't.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Rush factor/Mike Wells

                              Unfortunately, yes, I believe your analysis (and prediction) will prove to be spot on. But "I am what I am" is ok for Popeye, but not an NBA player in his second year. He needs to improve. Glue guys are important for playoff teams, but the Pacers need a reliable scorer right now.
                              Last edited by nerveghost; 03-10-2010, 01:14 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X