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

Kahn's PG rankings

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Kahn's PG rankings

    I'm guessing most here will agree with #1 but hate 2-7. Here is the whole piece, the list is bolded if you want to skip to it

    http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/7708485

    These days, it's hard to fathom what a point guard in the NBA really is anymore.

    What we do know is he's the guy who handles the ball the majority of the time, is likely to have the most assists on his team and should be the best on-the-ball defender among the starters.

    Allen Iverson will run the show for the Sixers after several years at shooting guard. (Getty Images)
    And most important, he's the guy who will make everybody better.

    If you go by that theory, there is no doubt Jason Kidd -- with or without a surgically repaired left knee, whether he plays the first month of the season, whether the New Jersey Nets continue their deconstruction and deal him -- remains the best point guard in the NBA.

    And that leaves everybody else.

    Granted, the Phoenix Suns overpaid free agent Steve Nash because he is a proven floor leader who should help his young and restless teammates improve. And San Antonio Spurs prodigy Tony Parker has shown signs of being that kind of player.

    But the rest of the group has proved to have me-first, you-next inclinations.

    It's why Chauncey Billups struggled nearly the entire season and certainly into the playoffs as Pistons coach Larry Brown worked at transforming Billups into the kind of point guard who plays the right way. Ultimately it worked; the Pistons roared to the NBA title, and Billups was named MVP of the NBA Finals.

    Then again, we'll have to wait and see Year 2 of the great experiment to either acknowledge the transformation is complete or learn the Finals were just an aberration.

    His No. 2 ranking doesn't mean Allen Iverson isn't a special player and can't be a great point guard. New 76ers coach Jim O'Brien has made it clear he will play Iverson at the point despite Brown's insistence at playing Iverson at the shooting guard for their six seasons together in Philadelphia.

    "It was coach Brown's choice," Iverson said in an extended interview before the 2004 All-Star Game. "I always thought I should have the ball in my hands. I see the floor and can help my teammates get better shots."

    Of course, saying it and doing it are two different things. Brown went through a lot of the same pains during the Olympics with Stephon Marbury, another marvelously talented point guard who is inclined to shoot first. Although he and Oscar Robertson are the only players in history to average at least 20 points and eight assists for their careers, he was not the traditional playmaker Brown wanted either.

    Last year's rankings
    2004 Rank 2003 Stock
    1. J. Kidd 1 SAME
    2. A. Iverson 3-SG
    3. B. Davis 5
    4. C. Billups 9
    5. S. Cassell --
    6. S. Marbury 2
    7. S. Francis 4
    8. M. Bibby 7
    9. T. Parker --
    10. S. Nash 6
    Complete 2003 Rankings

    But Brown stuck with him throughout the Olympics and it got better, gradually.

    "It was tough," Marbury said. "But I learned a lot from him. It just takes time to adjust."

    And so it goes when it is instinctive to control the ball, but not include other players on a consistent basis.

    Steve Francis might be the most naturally gifted point guard in the whole group, but his inclination to put on a dribbling exhibition that runs down the shot clock, and ultimately force an off-balance shot, nearly drove Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy loony. Consequently, it precipitated a blockbuster trade that sent Francis to Orlando for Tracy McGrady.

    And then you have a career-long shoot-first point guard like Sam Cassell, who just happens to be coming off the best season of his career at the age of 34, leading the Minnesota Timberwolves to the Western Conference finals.

    So you see, it's possible to be effective as a shoot-first point guard. But it only works if there are mature players who accept it and are capable of helping the ball move.

    But if you ask any player in the league what point guard they would prefer to play with, you'd be, uh, kidding yourself to consider there would be any choice other than Jason Kidd.

    1. Jason Kidd, New Jersey Nets: He is 31 and his knee is a problem, but he's still the best at running an offense and his teammates love him.

    2. Allen Iverson, Philadelphia 76ers: This will be the most interesting season for the most exciting guard in the league to prove he can run an offense.

    3. Baron Davis, New Orleans Hornets: He is so gifted, and potentially better than any of these guys, but he's just too selfish too often.

    4. Chauncey Billups, Detroit Pistons: When Joe Dumars signed him as a free agent, he saw a lot of himself in Billups. This season we'll find out.

    5. Sam Cassell, Minnesota Timberwolves: Last season will be a tough act for him to follow, but if he does, the Timberwolves have a great shot to win the West.

    6. Stephon Marbury, New York Knicks: Isiah Thomas invested the future of the Knicks and his own credibility in Marbury. Will he step up this year?

    7. Steve Francis, Orlando Magic: It's impossible to know how getting traded will affect Francis, but he certainly has a lot to learn about running a team.

    8. Mike Bibby, Sacramento Kings: Some might believe he should be higher in this ranking, but defensive shortcomings and unpredictability in big games linger.

    9. Tony Parker, San Antonio Spurs: He could end up being the best of this group with his quickness and all-around ability, but only if he improves.

    10. Steve Nash, Phoenix Suns: It appears age is catching up to him considering how he has tired the past couple of seasons. We'll see what he has left.


    Also receiving consideration: Gary Payton, Boston Celtics; Dwyane Wade, Miami Heat; Gilbert Arenas, Washington Wizards; Andre Miller, Denver Nuggets; Jason Terry, Dallas Mavericks; Jason Williams, Memphis Grizzlies; Carlos Arroyo, Utah Jazz; Eric Snow, Cleveland Cavaliers; Damon Stoudamire, Portland Trail Blazers.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Kahn's PG rankings

    Nash might be getting old but there's no way that he's only the 10th best point guard in the league. I'd also include Arenas rather than Parker and slide Billups down to number 9. It somehow feels wrong to leave Wade out as well because I think he's gonna be a really special player, but the others are more proven so he's my number 11.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Kahn's PG rankings

      Tinsley didn't even receive consideration

      We all know how important Tinsley is to this Pacers team...I think this year he will really prove himself averaging around 10ppg, and almost 8apg.

      Tinsley is not a flashy point guard like a lot of those guys - but he is just solid and gets the job done. I can't wait to see him mature over the next few years.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Kahn's PG rankings

        You know, looking at this list it indicates to me how few true "passing wizards" there are in the NBA - or even "true" Point Guards. We do have a rare talent with Tinsley - of course, his rare talent is offset by his weak defense and suspect passing [edit - duh, that's supposed to read "suspect SHOOTING"].

        It seems to me not unlike the Artest situation - do the freakishly high positive scores in one aspect of a player's game make up for the negatives in other aspects?
        [edit=501=1096033145][/edit]
        "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Kahn's PG rankings

          Allen Iverson? We are talking about poing guards here right?

          I thought point guards were suposed to pass the ball to other people on the team. Maybe I am way off base but considering Iverson a pg is part of the problem with the game today.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Kahn's PG rankings

            Iverson has beeen a shooting guard but with Eric Snow being traded he's moving to point guard this season.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Kahn's PG rankings

              Hinrick should be on that list.
              [edit=136=1096040679][/edit]

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Kahn's PG rankings

                Even without his ridiculous salary, there's no way I'd take Damon Stoudamire over Tinsley, Hinrich, or about 5 other guys not on the "others" list
                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Kahn's PG rankings

                  I'd remove Iverson. He has yet to prove he can play an effective point in the NBA. He's a very good SG, but that shouldnt automatically make him a good PG.

                  I agree with pretty much everyone else on that list, but Remove Iverson and add Hinrich.

                  Wade isn't a PG. He's a SG pretending to play PG.

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Kahn's PG rankings

                    2003-2004 Stats:

                    Pos. Name APG
                    PG TINSLEY 5.8
                    SG IVERSON 6.8

                    Career Stats:

                    Pos. Name APG
                    SG IVERSON 5.7
                    SG MILLER 3.0

                    Somebody please teach Iverson how to pass.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Kahn's PG rankings

                      Originally posted by Fool
                      2003-2004 Stats:

                      Pos. Name APG
                      PG TINSLEY 5.8
                      SG IVERSON 6.8

                      Career Stats:

                      Pos. Name APG
                      SG IVERSON 5.7
                      SG MILLER 3.0

                      Somebody please teach Iverson how to pass.

                      Those numbers are incredibly skewed. Iverson touches the ball on EVERY PLAY. any decent PG would average 15 assists with the touches Iverson got.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Kahn's PG rankings

                        Originally posted by Kstat
                        Those numbers are incredibly skewed. Iverson touches the ball on EVERY PLAY. any decent PG would average 15 assists with the touches Iverson got.
                        What PG doesn't touch the ball every play? And Iverson hasn't been the PG. Name another SG who is counted on to score so heavily and still distributes as much. The numbers aren't "skewed", they are what they are. Its your logic that leaves out pertinate information when valuing him. How can his assist numbers not go up if he is actually playing the position of PG instead of just making up for the lack of talent normally positioned at point in Philly. I like Snow, he works hard and carved out a career but he can't create open shots where none existed or see openings others miss.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Kahn's PG rankings

                          Assists per 48 mins:

                          AI (03-04) - 7.7
                          Tinsley (03-04) - 10.5

                          AI (Career) - 6.6
                          Reggie (Career) - 4.2




                          Assists per TO;

                          AI (03-04) - 1.5 (2.2 after the break - 9 games)
                          Tinsley (03-04) - 2.8 (3.8 after the break - 24 games)

                          AI (Career) - 1.6
                          Miller (Career) - 1.7




                          And just for kicks, FGA per Assist:

                          AI (03-04) - 3.4
                          Tinsley (03-04) - 1.2

                          AI (Career) - 4.0
                          Miller (Career) - 4.2

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Kahn's PG rankings

                            Originally posted by MZahm
                            Assists per 48 mins:

                            AI (03-04) - 7.7
                            Tinsley (03-04) - 10.5

                            AI (Career) - 6.6
                            Reggie (Career) - 4.2




                            Assists per TO;

                            AI (03-04) - 1.5 (2.2 after the break - 9 games)
                            Tinsley (03-04) - 2.8 (3.8 after the break - 24 games)

                            AI (Career) - 1.6
                            Miller (Career) - 1.7




                            And just for kicks, FGA per Assist:

                            AI (03-04) - 3.4
                            Tinsley (03-04) - 1.2

                            AI (Career) - 4.0
                            Miller (Career) - 4.2
                            I'd be happy with those numbers if Iverson was on my team. Lets see, so while scoring twice as much as Tinsley per 48 minutres (Tins = 15/48 AI = 29.5/48) Iverson averages less than 3 assists less than Tinsley. Meanwhile, Tinsley averages only 1.3 more assists per turnover per 48 than AI while specializing in creating those assists. But Tinsley isn't a superstar so its expected.

                            Miller however is a superstar and one who never handled the ball a great deal yet his to/assist ratio is hardly any better than AI who is counted on to carry the ball for his team. I must say that I have never used FGA per assist but what it appears to be from the equation is the chance of the player hitting his shots versus passing the ball to a player who hits his shot. So in this case Reggie, the guy who made a living and a name as a sharp shooter is negligably more likely to lead to points when having the ball in his hands then AI who everyone says is a ball hog and shoots terribly.

                            And the make-up of the teams each played for hasn't even been entered into the debate.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Kahn's PG rankings

                              Such Bull, Tinsley not only should have recieved consideration, but he should have been close to making the list.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X