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

Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

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

  • #31
    Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

    I tend to think it has to do more with his contract than anything. Both him and Dun always will be looked at as having two of the worst contracts in the league for what they produce on the court. Those two contracts hender the Pacers from having financial flexibility. I tend to think that the past couple of seasons the reason that the team did not make the playoffs was the lack of defense. Murphy is slow footed and tends to get a lot of his rebounds uncontested which increase his numbers. You couple that with his hugeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee contract people tend to have harsh feelings.
    JOB is a silly man

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      I for some strange reason still do not think that the +/- is a fair assessment of a player. It really dismisses any other kind of intangible play.
      You're right. Individual +/- is about as useful as adding the temperature to the day of the month and dividing by miles per gallon.

      Sure, its a stat/ number. Just a worthless one.

      Five-man +/- is very, very useful, however. Its a great assessment of a LINEUP, which consists of ... players.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
        You're right. Individual +/- is about as useful as adding the temperature to the day of the month and dividing by miles per gallon.

        Sure, its a stat/ number. Just a worthless one.

        Five-man +/- is very, very useful, however. Its a great assessment of a LINEUP, which consists of ... players.
        Yeah, but even the 5-man +/- doesn't tell the whole story. For example lately the Pacers starters have a much worse +/- than the bench players, but two huge factors. The starters generally play against the other team's starters, so yes the fact that they aren't doing well maks some sense. Also the flow of the game isn't factered in to the stat. For example if the starters fall down by a score 34 - 15 by th end of the first quarter it only makes sense that the second quarter is going to be a lot different the chances of another 34-15 against quarter are nil, in fact chances are the score will tighten up no matter if the starters are in the game or the reserves, just the law of averages and opponent letting up.

        Plus a lot of times if the game is decided before the fourth quarter starts, the bench players will play the fourth and invariably the score tightens UP AND THE BENCH PLAYERS +/- will be much better than the starters

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

          Like any other statistic, +/- is only useful IN CONTEXT. ANY statistic taken out of context can be made to mean whatever you want it to mean.
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

            Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
            But we lost and things truly began to go down hill in a hurry once he went out with a sprained ankle. I'm not defending Troy, just saying the team losing can't be blamed on him alone.
            Err, the 19 point hole?

            Yes, apart from that it was all good till he went out.


            His defense is just amazingly bad at times. Don't watch the ball, just watch him for a few trips. Or rewind plays on the DVR. It's rough.


            Individual +/- over the long haul is easily as valuable as the 5 man. The problem with 5 man stats is the amount of measure minutes for any 1 group is tiny. Contrast that with the season long individual +/- and that guy has eventually played with every other guy on the court.

            It's twice as damning when one starter is really high and the other is really low. Somehow one guy just always gets stuck playing with the duds for 5 minutes night after night?

            People have this misconception that you only have 10-15 core 5 man groups, but that's not true. I did my own 5 man +/- a few years ago and it was ridiculously complex. I couldn't believe that every single game you saw 2-3 combos you'd never seen before, but I had to keep adding them.


            If you have a poor individual +/- then you are definitely going to be part of some of the worst 5 man groups. That's the math on it. So then you look at those other 5 man groups that are "dragging him down" and wonder "why aren't those other 4 below him on the individual list".

            +/- doesn't say what, but it does notice that something is wrong, and it's not just "bad luck with game time or slop time". In a given game, sure. You can live off other guys.

            But then isn't that true for individual stats? Do you throw out garbage time rebounds or assists? Hell, we don't even throw out "rotate the pass, chuck a 3" assists as if they are the same as a drive to double team, dump for dunk pass from Stockton.


            Have you really looked at the +/- for the season and thought "no way, that guy's the best"? Typically when a guy is too high or too low FOR THE MOMENT it's because he's trending up or down.

            Saras was always up on the +/- his first year, but that was due to his first month when it was way way up. So were his other stats though, so the +/- was legit to say "this dude is tearing it up". He was 50/40/90 shooting his first month.

            Then he started to suck. His total +/- stayed in the positive, a tribute to how much of an early impact he had. But his total past that first month was way in the red, indicating that the failure people were seeing was actually there.

            So the Saras nuts would say "he's got a good +/-", ignoring the giant -50 or whatever over the last month.


            BTW, Granger's +/- early in his career wasn't so hot and as we saw him improving so did his +/- relative to the rest of the team.


            Right now you see Troy and Ford way at the bottom and guys like Head and Watson looking pretty good, especially in the per minute rating. Does anyone really want to tell me that the +/- is wrong when nearly ever post-game thread tends to agree with it?

            Even DJones had a rough stretch after a good early start, and at times has had less focused defense as things have gone south.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

              Originally posted by WetBob View Post
              Murphy looks much better on paper than he does on the court. He gets his numbers, but opposing team bigs routinely have career nights against the Pacers. Murphy's defense is a primary reason.
              It's funny, but when we made the trade a Golden State fan came on here and said the same thing.
              Protect the Promise!!!!

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

                he's a fantasy stud.....

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  Like any other statistic, +/- is only useful IN CONTEXT.
                  There are positives and negatives about the +/- concept.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

                    Originally posted by Hoop View Post

                    +/-
                    T. Ford -180
                    T. Murphy -227

                    And the numbers grow every game.
                    Yeah, but if a team is losing most of its games its only logical that those numbers are going to grow.
                    Haggard's Blog: Can't Buy a Basket. Covering the highs and lows of the NBL

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

                      Slow, No toughness, No athleticism...leading to very poor defense. As a result, players can go by, through and over him. I can't say that for any of our other bigs. He is so bad he hurts other player's defensive performances. It's exacerbated because our young C is slow too. He's basically the opposite of Dale Davis. Even undersized SF's can post the man up for an And-one.

                      On offense, I think he hurts our ball movement. But the worst part is, he has poor endurance in many games. Not all of them, but more than half. His shot comes up short too often in the 4th. I would love to see his shooting percentage later in the game. While he spreads the floor, he doesn't put pressure on their interior defenders. IMO, I think it would be harder to defend a team that has their PF shooting the midrange game like Antonio McDyess...but hey, I like to win. Also, quick guards are more capable of getting open looks...going around screens...when it's harder to score late in games. Murphy's offensive game is simply easier to shut down...and is one important reason why we had a number of 4th quarter collapses last year.

                      Thanks for the thread...
                      Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Most of his three point shot attempts come off of delayed fastbreaks or high pick and rolls. You (not you specifically) can't have it bith ways, I heard for years that Foster boggs down the offense because he can't shoot so no one guards him, well Troy by any measure is a good shooter and he is guarded.
                        Yep, almost all of his 3's come from him trailing the "break" and popping from the top of the key. Seems to me that if we want Roy to be a low post scorer, having our 4 be a "stretch" guy should be a good thing.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

                          It's simply because he doesn't produce at a rate equal to his salary. If he was a lower paid guy doing what he does, we'd be pretty tolerant of him. That said, it's not his fault he makes that much. He just signed the contract offered to him. Was he supposed to say 'Uh, no ......... I'm not worth that much - I'm slow and don't play any defense, better make it a lower number' ??

                          At 5, 6 or 7 a year, we're looking at him as a bargain. Blame the Warriors.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

                            Thank you for posting this.

                            I would have to say and not because I'm a fan of his, he's been the star of this team since Danny has been out. He's been playing his tale off and he truly cares about the team and does his best to step up and help us win which hasn't happened, but he's a reliable star on this team and deserves a lot of credit for doing his best.

                            Oh yeah and he's been a decent defender, but it hasn't been enough for the team.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

                              Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                              I don't think people have a problem with Murphy. I think People have a problem with the amount of time JOB plays him.

                              Murphy would be a good player off the bench somewhere.
                              in a nutshell, this would be my answer as well.

                              ideally, murphy should be a shooting specialist, essentially a bigger version of a guy like steve kerr. when he gets on a hot streak, murphy should be able to win some games with his shooting. the defensive rebounding is a bonus.

                              the problem is, the coach considers him the second or third best player on the team, and gives him a role and minutes to suit. this season, it's been pretty clear that murphy is overmatched on most nights.

                              the caveat is that murphy really might be the second or third best player on this talent depleted team. even so, i'd rather give the starter's role to a (currently) lesser player, but who's all-around game is a better fit to the starting lineup, i.e. hansbrough.

                              it also doesn't help that murph is the highest paid pacer for the next 2 seasons. it shouldn't matter on the court, but certainly it affects fans perceptions.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Why all the negativity towards Murphy?

                                Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                                There are positives and negatives about the +/- concept.
                                There is no way we can let you off the hook for that pun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X