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

Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

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

  • Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

    With all of the free agency rumors, Eric Gordon trade rumors, etc. floating around I thought it would be a good time to take a look at Paul George's career thus far, and his potential in the future. PG is a more natural 3, but has played well at the 2, giving him some nice versatility, particularly defensively. Given his body type, athleticism, and versatile game I've compared his career numbers to 2 historical players and 2 current players.

    Rookie Season:
    mpg ppg rpg apg spg bpg fg 3p ft
    George 20.7 7.8 3.7 1.1 1 0.4 45 30 76
    Pippen 20.9 7.9 3.8 2.1 1.2 0.7 46 17 58
    McKey 20.8 8.5 4 1.3 0.8 0.8 49 37 77
    Iguodala 33 9 5.7 3 1.7 0.6 49 33 74
    Deng 27.3 11.7 5.5 2.2 0.8 0.4 43 26 74
    George compares very closely to Pippen and McKey in their rookie seasons. Iggy and Deng played more minutes, but had relatively similar numbers with the rest of the group.

    Sophomore Season:
    mpg ppg rpg apg spg bpg fg 3p ft
    George 29.7 12.1 5.6 2.4 1.6 0.6 44 39 80
    Pippen 33.1 14.4 6.1 3.5 1.9 0.8 48 27 67
    McKey 34.2 15.9 5.7 2.7 1.3 0.8 50 34 80
    Iguodala 37.6 12.3 5.9 3.1 1.6 0.3 50 35 75
    Deng 33.4 14.3 6.6 1.9 0.9 0.6 46 27 75
    George, Pippen, and McKey all saw their minutes increase quite a bit in their 2nd seasons. McKey nearly doubled his scoring, while Pippen also took a big step forward. Pippen and George's 3P% took the biggest leap in terms of the shooting categories. Here George compares nicely with Iguodala and McKey in particular. Those 3 are the best shooters of the group at this point. While McKey and Iguodala have a better FG%, George is the best 3P shooter of the bunch.

    3rd Season:

    mpg ppg rpg apg spg bpg fg 3p ft
    George ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
    Pippen 38.4 16.5 6.7 5.4 1.9 0.8 49 25 67
    McKey 34 15.7 6.1 2.3 1.1 1 49 13 78
    Iguodala 40.3 18.2 5.7 5.7 2 0.4 45 31 82
    Deng 37.5 18.8 7.1 2.5 1.2 0.6 52 14 78
    Here we start to see some differences. Iggy and Deng are more featured scorers, and make a nice jump in that category. Pippen continues to grow. McKey essentially plateaus, and has very similar numbers for the next 8 years.

    So what will George do next season? He's in the unique position, of these players I've compared him to, of being essentially the 4th or 5th option consistently. Deng and Iggy were being featured more often offensively throughout their careers to this point. I can't speak to the Pippen/McKey comparison as much, as I didn't see it myself. But, while those players continued to grow, the only player you could argue was a "franchise" player is Pippen.

    Each of these players is very good, borderline All-Star, versatile, and would start for most teams. They're all 2 way players. However, none is a "franchise" guy that you build around (once again, you could argue Pippen could have been). They can be key pieces, core pieces, but they aren't guys you can run your offense through or expect big scoring nights regularly. They'll fill different parts of the box score nightly, but you aren't winning a championship with them as your best player.

    The only player of this group to EVER average over 20 ppg was Pippen, and even he did it only 4 times in his career (2x without MJ of course).

    The Pacers have the difficult decision of whether they should hope that he becomes that kind of player, or if we will continue to have a group of good versatile players without any go-to player. It has hurt us in the playoffs when plays break down. My other concern is that George could plateau like McKey did by settling into his current role with the Pacers. Not that that is a bad career by any means. George would likely benefit either be being a more prominent feature of our offensive attack, or by being traded in a deal for Gordon where he would be prominently featured in New Orleans' offense. Doing that could help him possibly make a leap to All-Star caliber.

    So George appears to be on the path to a very good career, but will likely never be a "franchise" player. He may be a borderline All-Star at some point, but not without a more prominent offensive role. He'll certainly be an important part of the team going forward, unless the Pacers decide that the risk of Gordon's potential "franchise"/superstar level is worth sacrificing George for.

  • #2
    Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

    I think the Rudy Gay comparisons are pretty good.
    //

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

      I think George will probably end up at about 15/6/3 this coming season. I also expect he'll work on his dribble/driving and get to the foul line more often.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

        If Paul had Jamaal Tinsley's ball-handling skills, Stephen Jackson's confidence, and Jeff Foster's intensity, his ceiling would be really, really high.

        I don't think he'll ever be more than a good role player (a defensive specialist who can shoot the 3) unless he progresses in all three areas.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

          Originally posted by Pingu View Post
          If Paul had Jamaal Tinsley's ball-handling skills, Stephen Jackson's confidence, and Jeff Foster's intensity, his ceiling would be really, really high.

          I don't think he'll ever be more than a good role player (a defensive specialist who can shoot the 3) unless he progresses in all three areas.
          I'm okay if he would have Granger's ball-handling skills. Not a lot of players have Tinsley's seldomly-used skill.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

            Paul George also needs to get bigger. Hit the weights, bulk up for a year or two.

            That would make him more enforcing in his line drives, his post game, and his balance much better. Work on strength, ball handling, and specifically go to moves off the dribble. If he works on those three things, his game would open up like an envelope

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

              Some people compared him to T-Mac.

              I dont see it at all.

              He doesnt have his scoring ability or ball handling which is key to getting to the rim.

              T-mac is a once in a life time talent and I would love George to develop into a 20 ppg scorer!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

                Originally posted by The Future View Post
                Some people compared him to T-Mac.

                I dont see it at all.

                He doesnt have his scoring ability or ball handling which is key to getting to the rim.

                T-mac is a once in a life time talent and I would love George to develop into a 20 ppg scorer!
                It really was a shame to see him fade into obscurity. He could have been one hell of a HoFer.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

                  The number one skill Paul needs improvement on is finishing strongly around the rim. Too many times, instead of dunking it powerfully like a man, he would try some dipsy-do nonsense that rarely worked. Paul is so athletic and talented, he should really be dunking in peoples faces way more often
                  Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

                    The turnovers and passive offense in the playoffs have me doubting what the Pacers really have in PG. There is time and players mature at different rates but I'm concerned the phrase "solid third option" will be how we ultimately describe his impact on the offense.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

                      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                      The number one skill Paul needs improvement on is finishing strongly around the rim. Too many times, instead of dunking it powerfully like a man, he would try some dipsy-do nonsense that rarely worked. Paul is so athletic and talented, he should really be dunking in peoples faces way more often
                      Ha yeah, there were times when he would drive to the basket and I would be like yes..YES...YESSS, anticipating a nasty dunk on the guy standing there, and he would just toss up some nonsense tough layup.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

                        Most of his flaws can be worked on and a lot have to do with him being so young. His ceiling is ridiculously high. He's amazingly athletically gifted. 6-10 guy who can guard point guards, was in the dunk competition, and can hit 3s? Once he bulks up, gets more confident, and becomes a better dribbler, all of which are very possible and maybe probable, he'll be killing teams.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

                          Don't think he will ever get a killer instinct so I say Fringe All-star at best...
                          Why so SERIOUS

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

                            Originally posted by Really? View Post
                            Don't think he will ever get a killer instinct so I say Fringe All-star at best...
                            I could see a rich man's Thabo Sefolosha, but I hope for more.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Analyzing the Ceiling of Paul George

                              I don't think its a matter of killer instinct. Its more of his IQ and being a raw talent.

                              If he would put in the work to become a consistent post player, read defenses better, better dribbling and

                              develop a few goto moves he would start to reach his potential. He runs into guys to much and picks up fouls.

                              He's much like Brandon Rush but ovs bigger body and more athleticism but they just don't utilize it to what they could.

                              Nonetheless PG is still an effective player now. He's career would last much longer if he were able

                              to develop the above if not once his athleticism runs out hes done.

                              I think he can reach his potential esp givin his age. The jump to the third year is huge. But he has to put in the work.
                              Last edited by PacersForever; 07-03-2012, 02:04 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X