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

4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

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

  • 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

    NYET THE NETS



    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM EST
    Where: The Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
    Officials: T. Brothers, T. Brown, E. Lewis

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Brooklyn Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / YES
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / Bloomberg 1130 AM
    NBA Feeds:

    REMINDER: Per PD policy, please do not share a link to, describe how to search for, request a link to, or request a PM about streaming video of a NBA game that is not coming directly through the NBA. Not even in a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean" round-about sort of way. Thank you


    49-29
    Home: 30-10
    East: 31-17
    46-32
    Away: 22-17
    East: 33-15
    Apr 14
    Apr 16
    Apr 17
    GAME 1
    3:30pm
    8:00pm
    8:00pm
    TBD
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    GEORGE
    STEPHENSON
    HILL
    LOPEZ
    EVANS
    WALLACE
    JOHNSON
    WILLIAMS


    PACERS
    Danny Granger - left knee surgery (dunzo)



    NETS
    Keith Bogans - tight lower back (out)




    Avi Friedman: Pacers Mount Epic Fourth-Quarter Comeback to Beat Cavs

    The Pacers started the game off looking like they were ready to end the two-game
    losing streak, going up 20-8 with 6 minutes left in the first quarter. Then the Pacers
    got outscored 76-44 over the next 30 minutes while shooting 30.4% and allowing the
    Cavs to shoot 59.6%.

    It got so bad that I was starting to think that the Pacers might not even hold on to the
    third seed. The way they were playing, I thought they’d lose on Friday to the Nets,
    lose to the Knicks on Sunday, lose to the Celtics on Tuesday and maybe beat the
    Sixers, but already be locked into the fourth seed.

    Then, towards the end of the third quarter, Frank Vogel got himself ejected from the
    game to try and inspire his team. It didn’t look like it was working going into the
    fourth quarter. The Pacers were playing as bad as they had all game long.

    Then, all of the sudden, the Pacers started scoring some points. Then they started
    scoring some more points. Then they started getting a lot of defensive stops. Before
    you know it, Indiana went on a 17-0 run and cut a 20-point deficit down to 2.

    The comeback was led by George Hill (the guy that always stops the bleeding) and
    great defense. Over the final 8 and a half minutes of the game the Pacers outscored
    the Cavs 29-6, on a 2-for-15 shooting performance from Uncle Drew & Co.

    Kyrie Irving is one of the best fourth-quarter players in the NBA. Last year, for
    example, he led the league in clutch points per game (this year he ranks third). So
    it was good to see a Pacers team that has struggled recently in clutch situations
    force Irving into some pretty bad plays.

    He got trapped...CONTINUE READING AT 8p9s

    Tom Ziller: How important are assists in the NBA?

    Passing is becoming more important than ever in the NBA due to modern defenses.
    Yet there are plenty of efficient, low-assist offenses and inefficient, high-assist teams.
    What gives?


    Zach Lowe has an unsurprisingly fascinating look at how the Tom Thibodeau-style
    defenses
    that have taken over the league have affected offenses. The short version:
    shooting and smart passing are more important than ever. To counteract the flood-
    heavy defensive style that is the norm, you have to spread the floor and have players
    who can hit the open man with quick, decisive strikes.

    As long as advanced basketball metrics have been discussed, passing has been a
    bramble. It's lightly represented in the box score and comes with its own set of
    preconceived notions. Traditionally, we think of the traditional pass-first, high-assist
    point guard as very desirable: think Bob Cousy, Steve Nash and John Stockton. Yet
    many of the great teams of the past three decades -- the '80s Celtics, the '90s Bulls
    and the '00s Lakers -- had non-traditional point guards (like Dennis Johnson) or lead
    guards who basically sat in the background. Even in the past decade, you have two
    NBA champions -- the 2008 Celtics and the 2011 Mavericks -- with traditional, pass-
    first point guards. And even then, Rajon Rondo averaged just five assists per game.
    (Tony Parker's assist numbers have gone way up since the Spurs' last title in 2007.)

    But judging anything's importance based on its presence on championship teams is
    oversimplification. The problem with assists is that it's basically impossible to find
    evidence in any data that they help teams score more efficiently. In other words,
    the relationship between tallying more assists and shooting better as a team never
    seems to show up in the data.

    To wit, this map shows teams' effective field goal percentage and percentage of
    field goals assisted this season. If there were a strong positive relationship, the
    points would group around something like a 1:1 slope. Instead, it's basically a
    jumble.


    There actually is a small positive relationship between effective field goal and
    assist percentage. But it's small, and it's been small as long as assists have been
    recorded. And this is looking at assists and shooting percentage, the piece of
    offensive performance most closely tied (in theory) to effective passing. When
    you look for a relationship between assists and overall offensive performance,
    you have even more trouble. It basically does not show up in the data at all.

    This is strange, of course, because on an individual level there is a relationship
    between assists and conversion. Studies have indicated that players shoot roughly
    ten percent better on shots that are assisted than ones that are not. (That may be
    understating it -- the studies on that didn't control for fast-break opportunities or
    putbacks.) So a player benefits from getting set up for an immediate shot, but a
    team doesn't necessarily benefit by having a player who sets up players for
    immediate shots frequently. Strange, huh?

    And that's why assists...CONTINUE READING AT SB NATION

    Devin Kharpertian: Is Brook Lopez the best center in the NBA?

    Brook Lopez is the antithesis to what we believe a superstar should be. He doesn't
    look at the game of basketball as life and death. His waking moments don't revolve
    around watching Synergy or NBA League Pass. He readily admits that he doesn't
    watch a lot of basketball when he's not working or scouting opponents. You wouldn't
    accuse him of having a "killer instinct." He's a walking paradox: an awkward,
    technically sound, brilliant offensive talent, who sometimes seems like he has a
    passing interest in basketball to fund his comic book collection. He's a better writer
    than a leaper, and smarter than he lets on with his goofy public persona.

    Lopez earned his first trip to the All-Star Game this season as a replacement after
    an injury kept Rajon Rondo out, and now with the season winding down, there's
    another award in his sights: a first-team All-NBA selection. The award is voted on
    by sportswriters and broadcasters (though for some reason they haven't given a
    vote to stupid Brooklyn Nets fans who started blogging because they couldn't sleep
    and felt like watching John Wall highlights when I was in college), and Lopez has a
    shot for a few reasons. Writers may feel anathema voting for Dwight Howard given
    his off-court issues and team struggles. They may feel that Chris Bosh, Kevin
    Garnett, and Tim Duncan aren't "true" centers, an admittedly silly distinction.

    But he's also got a shot for the most important reason: because he deserves it.

    Everything that Brook Lopez could have reasonably improved on this season, he's
    done. He leads NBA centers in scoring while doing so at the most efficient rate of
    his career. His rebound rate of 13.5% is the highest it's been since his second year
    in the league, and that's while playing most of his minutes with Reggie Evans, a
    player rebounding the ball at a historic rate. (For the record: Lopez's rebound rate
    with Evans out of the game is 14.6%, according to NBA.com.) His defense, while
    far from perfect and dipping in effectiveness as the season wears on, has still
    improved to "good enough" status. He's blocking shots at the best clip of his
    career while turning the ball over less. According to Synergy Sports Technology,
    only four players in the NBA have scored more points per possession while using
    more plays than Lopez: LeBron James, Kevin Durant, James Harden, and Tony
    Parker. (Side note: that looks like a pretty solid All-NBA team, no?)

    Lopez's biggest improvement has arguably come in the area of the game he was
    already great at -- finding little spaces in the defense to get quick, easy baskets.
    According to Synergy Sports Technology, Lopez has scored 348 points on plays
    classified as "cuts" -- far and away the best in the NBA despite missing seven
    games. No other player has...CONTINUE READING AT THE BROOKLYN GAME




    Pacers
    Mike Wells @MikeWellsNBA
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows


    Nets
    Tim Bontemps @TimBontemps
    Colin Stephenson @Ledger_Knets
    Nets Daily @NetsDaily
    The Brooklyn Game @TheBKGame
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

    I'm pretty upset that article isn't called, "Brook Lopez is the best center in the NBA, but is the NBA the (best) center of Brook Lopez?"
    You Got The Tony!!!!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

      What needs to happen for us to get the two seed?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

        Originally posted by Miller_time04 View Post
        What needs to happen for us to get the two seed?
        We win all our games, and Knicks have another non-Pacer loss.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

          13 seconds into the game and a foul, oh damn.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

            Anybody still think Roy wasn't worth that money?
            #LanceEffect

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

              Defense a mess thus far
              //

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

                I hate losing to the Nets.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

                  Originally posted by Pace Maker View Post
                  Defense a mess thus far
                  This and it seems like they can't miss so far.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

                    This is not looking good.

                    Evans is the guy I wanted the Pacers to get as backup center, damn.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

                      We're not going to go anywhere if Paul George keeps playing like a role player
                      //

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

                        This month Paul George is playin the same as the playoffs last season ............

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

                          If PG can't get up for this game and the next 3 then I don't know what would motivate him and he looks like he needs something to motivate him for the past few games.
                          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

                            Sam Young should avoid offense.
                            "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 4/12/2013 Game Thread #79: Pacers Vs. Nets

                              Man I don't understand why we struggle with the Nets.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X