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

Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

    Everyone needs to back off with the personal commentary.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

      And for all those who said "Teams probably never game planned for Rush's shooting", I have to ask what were they game planning against us then? After Danny and Troy, Brandon's 3 point threat was about the only thing we had on offense last year, especially with the way JOB would usually cripple Roy for the opposing team so they rarely had to worry about him.


      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        And for all those who said "Teams probably never game planned for Rush's shooting", I have to ask what were they game planning against us then? After Danny and Troy, Brandon's 3 point threat was about the only thing we had on offense last year, especially with the way JOB would usually cripple Roy for the opposing team so they rarely had to worry about him.
        Maybe thats why we lost so many games...

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

          Originally posted by ballism View Post
          Does it really matter enough to get down to 'loser' and 'tool' level?
          no it doesnt matter, but i believe i am entitled to stating such and such a person is a tool when they infer i have no sense of reality based on my POV regarding Rush.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

            Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
            Rush shoots 62 % from the free throw line.. 42 % from the field. your telling me this guy is an accurate shooter, but can only manage 62% from the free throw line, when no one is gaurding him and the shot is significantly closer?

            and i am suppose to believe that Rush is a consistent shooter, yet he can barely make 6 of 10 free throws.

            okay.. apparently good shooters in the nba knock down 42 percent from three but make only 60 percent of their free throws.

            its evident to me, if rush attempted anywhere near the 3's that granger or dunleavy averages his shooting percentage would drop significantly. if rush were actually more aggressive with his shot instead of simply shooting when he is wide open and stationary then his percentage would drop..

            give Granger the open looks that rush gets and Grangers 3 pt percentage would skyrocket to over 50 percent easily.

            ive said it before, and im gonna say it again, rush is not a consistently accurate 3 pt shooter regardless of how many yes votes there are on this thread; at least not at this point in his career anyways.
            Rush attempts over 3 threes a game on his career, how many would you like to see him attempt to get a reliable sample size?

            When answering this, please remember that you were willing to use his 3/10 performance thus far this season as a reliable indicator of his skill.

            Also, Dunleavy has only shot more 3s than Rush did last year once in his entire career, granted it was at a blistering 42% rate, but that year is a huge statistical outlier when you look at the rest of Dun's time in the NBA.

            Also, while free throws and 3's are both shooting the basketball and usually correlated to each other, it should be noted that they are still in fact two completely different scenarios. Also, I would wager that Rush shot one of the worst %'s in the NBA last season when he came to his mid-range jumper and his time spent around the basket, which are again totally different than what his 3 point shooting ability is and not what this thread is about.


            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
              Maybe thats why we lost so many games...
              I'm just saying to act like teams were probably 100% ok with leaving Rush wide open from 3 might be more of an indictment of the offensive futility that this team showed last year.


              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                Rush shoots 62 % from the free throw line.. 42 % from the field. your telling me this guy is an accurate shooter, but can only manage 62% from the free throw line, when no one is gaurding him and the shot is significantly closer?

                and i am suppose to believe that Rush is a consistent shooter, yet he can barely make 6 of 10 free throws.

                okay.. apparently good shooters in the nba knock down 42 percent from three but make only 60 percent of their free throws.
                Objection. Relevance.

                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                its evident to me, if rush attempted anywhere near the 3's that granger or dunleavy averages his shooting percentage would drop significantly. if rush were actually more aggressive with his shot instead of simply shooting when he is wide open and stationary then his percentage would drop.
                Isn't part of being a good shooter knowing not to take poor, contested shots? How or why is this an indictment of his shooting ability?

                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                give Granger the open looks that rush gets and Grangers 3 pt percentage would skyrocket to over 50 percent easily.
                I doubt it. With improved shot selection, Danny would probably get to the mid 40%s however. Which is about 6% better than Rush's avg.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  And for all those who said "Teams probably never game planned for Rush's shooting", I have to ask what were they game planning against us then? After Danny and Troy, Brandon's 3 point threat was about the only thing we had on offense last year, especially with the way JOB would usually cripple Roy for the opposing team so they rarely had to worry about him.
                  Teams game plan for every player, even Josh McRoberts, so even the claim that teams don't game plan for Rush is bunk.

                  I can give you Rush's offensive scouting report pretty easily. "Don't lose him. Force him to put the ball on the floor, because he will quickly give it up." Done. And while I'm sure they have multiple pages dedicated to him, a lot of it will be charts/graphs of where he likes to shoot, and most of it will be redundant.

                  Rush is definately a consistent 3pt shooter. But he is no way a consistent shooter overall. He would be if he shot the ball more, but he doesn't so....
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                    Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                    Just to commpare him to some of the great 3pt shooters in the league..

                    Paul Pierce 09-10 .414 3pt%
                    Brandon Rush 09-10 .411
                    Troy Murphy 09-10 .384
                    Ray Allen 09-10 .363

                    Brandon was 14th in the league in 3pt FG% with a minimum 50 attempts.
                    and as i stated earlier in this thread.. those of you in love with stats and %'s can have Brush all day long... give me Ray Allen and he is gonna knock down wide open 3's 60% of the time.

                    if its not clear now.. i dont know how else to illustrate it.. there is a difference b/t shooting the ball on the move, coming off a screen, and with a defender only trailing you for a second, which is what happens to ray allen, and then there is rush, who only shoots when he is open and feet are set.

                    but i guess that type of logic doesnt apply and clearly rush is a much better shooter than ray allen b/c the %'s are always 100% accurate.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                      Have I once IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD, compared Brandon Rush to Ray Allen and said that I would like to have Rush play shooting guard over Allen?

                      You are the one that keeps making those ridiculous comparisons. The poll does not say "is Brandon Rush the best shooter in the NBA" or "is Brandon Rush better than Ray Allen"?

                      How hard is that to comprehend?
                      Last edited by Trader Joe; 11-16-2010, 03:58 PM.


                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                        and as i stated earlier in this thread.. those of you in love with stats and %'s can have Brush all day long... give me Ray Allen and he is gonna knock down wide open 3's 60% of the time.

                        if its not clear now.. i dont know how else to illustrate it.. there is a difference b/t shooting the ball on the move, coming off a screen, and with a defender only trailing you for a second, which is what happens to ray allen, and then there is rush, who only shoots when he is open and feet are set.

                        but i guess that type of logic doesnt apply and clearly rush is a much better shooter than ray allen b/c the %'s are always 100% accurate.

                        Ray Allen camps corners way more than you would like to admit. He's the king of receiving the drive and dish.



                        Again, I said this much, much earlier in the thread:

                        All clutch shooters are good shooters, not all good shooters are clutch.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          Have I (or anyone else) once IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD, compared Brandon Rush to Ray Allen
                          Calling him a top 3 point shooter in the league is sort of misleading much like comparing his percentages to Ray Allen. Sure it looks nice but there is no meat and potatoes to that argument. One has a big stick that he whips out a lot and the other just keeps it in his pants..

                          Thats why I compared him to lowly Kapono
                          Last edited by Gamble1; 11-16-2010, 04:04 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                            He is one of the top 3 point shooters in the league on a % basis as well as %+attempts. That doesn't compare him directly to Ray Allen at all.

                            I mean Rush shot nearly 4 3s/game last year. That's not shooting it very often? How many times do you guys want him shooting the 3 to prove he's consistent? Should he be taking 6/game? 7? 8?
                            Last edited by Trader Joe; 11-16-2010, 04:06 PM.


                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              RE: PacersPride

                              All you are saying is that numbers can be misleading, but you have not made one coherent point as to what it is exactly that make's Brandon's stats misleading!

                              So far you started off referencing one airball that Rush had, even maintaining at one point that Reggie Miller had NEVER in his entire career airballed an open 3.

                              Then you also said, you don't like his follow through. Which again I will say, lots of great shooters have had unorthodox releases, even Reggie Miller.

                              And Kidd has been a very good 3 point shooter since he arrived in Dallas, suggesting perhaps that his problem was never his shot, but rather his shot selection. He does get more open looks in Dallas and hits them at a very reliable rate. Which is the entire point of taking an open 3 pointer no?
                              your correct, i have nvr seen REG jack up an airball from behind the arc when he was WIDE OPEN!! i have stated this more than once. I remember the play vividly last season, someone shot, pacers got the offensive board, they kicked it out to rush who was WIDE OPEN, and im thinking man if this guy cannot hit this shot than im not sure about his shooting.. what happened next, rush jacked up an airball.. a freaking airball when no one was around him. maybe if rush were playing outside with a strong gust of wind that might be understandable, but this is supposedley a great 3 pt shooter and he airballs it from deep when no one is within 5 feet of him..

                              c'mon man!!

                              form doesnt matter, i suggested rush improve his follow through in an effort to see him improve; but if a guy can shoot it with unorthodox form like REG.. so be it.

                              lastly, i have made several points on this and why Rush's stats are misleading. i dont know how to make it any clearer than i have already. rush likely shot a high % due to the fact he is WIDE OPEN when he does shoot it. if Allen or Granger were able to shoot wide open 3's, they would likely be in the 60's when it comes to percentages from behind the arc.

                              or.... if Rush ever shot the ball on a fast break transition attempt as opposed to a set shot, his %'s would not be as high.

                              maybe there is a misunderstanding b/t how i view an accurate 3pt shooter and your definition. rush was drafted on his ability to shoot. but good shooters in this league are not going to get wide open looks, they have to be able to move w/o the ball, get around screens, and still hit the shot with a hand in their face.. rush cannot do that and that is the REASON he attempts so few shots!!!

                              if Rush were a good shooter, he would be bold enough to shoot when his feet are not set, coming off a screen or in transition as Granger does.. but rush is not that good of a shooter and that is the reason his attempts are low. sure.. he can shoot 41 % when he is wide open.. but most players in this league that are SG's when left open should be able to hit the shot. what separates the good/great shooters from the average ones is the the ability to hit contested shots on the move.. something rush will not even attempt.

                              again, maybe he worked on his shooting over the summer and i will be proven wrong, but based on what i have seen, his brother was a much better shooter. does rush have the ability to become a good shooter, i believe yes, but i have yet to see any reason that i would trust him with a game winner.

                              Granger, Dunleavy, Posey, and even George appear to all be better shooters at this point in there career, and i might add aj price to the list if i have seen him play more than he has.

                              ive always been told and firmly believe that good shooting starts at the free throw line. if you are a good shooter than you should average 80%. rush is in the freaking 60's so pls spare me this "is this real life" stuff until rush gets around 75% from the stripe, and actually has the courage to take and make contested 3's.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                                Also, I have a feeling that if Rush was averaging 20 ppg and this thread was up, even if he was still only shooting 3.7 3s/game, we'd have an entirely different result up there. Which is a shame. Being a good scorer, and being a good shooter are not the same thing in every case. I feel Rush is being punished by some for not being a good scorer or not being aggressive enough.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X