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

Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

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

  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
    And Dannys 2011-12 season that he seemed to have a problem with was very similar to Pauls numbers last year....go figure...and which team was more talented??? Its like people either never actually watched or have no real clue what theyre watching because they already have their mind made up...from the time Vogel took over things have evolved pretty dramatically...yet some would have u believe everyone evolved EXCEPT Danny...which is completely baseless
    Are we really comparing a prime Danny to a 22 year old player in his first year as the go to guy? Danny needed a super human like 6-8 weeks towards the end of the season to get his numbers up to where they were. He was pretty bad for most of that season.

    Please tell how Danny evolved his game with Vogel in charge, I'm interested in that.

    Comment


    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      So Danny is a chucker when he shoots 19 shots per game, Paul isn't a chucker when he shoots 19 shots per game, when they have the ball in their hands the same amount of the time. Just making sure we're all on the same page.

      Gotta love when people pick and choose their definitions arbitrarily.
      Yes. I've explained how I define it. What's the confusion? If it's not how PD defines I'm ok with that.

      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

        Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
        Yes. I've explained how I define it. What's the confusion? If it's not how PD defines I'm ok with that.
        There's no confusion. I'm just getting your blantant double standard out in the open.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

          Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
          I saw PG as the future and Roy was emerging as an all-star level player, and we had acquired an all-star level player in D. West. I hoped Danny could change his game and become a bit more of a facilitator and that he'd force less shots and I didn't see that happen. That was probably unreasonable expectations on my part though.
          But Danny hasn't played in a long time, yet Roy's offense is really no better than it was two years ago when Danny was still playing. I think we just have to face the reality that Roy is probably never going to be any better than a 12-13 PPG player. I wish that he could take it to the next level, but it is what it is. But he's worth every last penny because of his interior defense and rebounding. After the game last year when Roy was suspended against the Clipps and they easily took it inside all night, I told myself that I would never complain about Roy's contract. The good news is that his offense somehow turns into Hakeem when we play Miami (aside from the other night).

          11-12 West was coming off of the ACL tear and injury. He only averaged 29 MPG (compared to 33 last year) and while he was a very good player, he wasn't 100%. Last year he was noticeably more spry and agile.

          Maybe 11-12 PG could have done a bit more without DG, but he was still just a 21 year old second year player. And he did increase his PPG by 4 and a half points from his rookie season. I do agree with your premise that DG's absence last year forced PG to become the leader on the offensive end overnight.

          It's hard for me to complain about 11-12 DG because he was the leading scorer on a team that won 63% of its games. A lot has certainly changed since then, but he was a pretty good player that year.

          Comment


          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

            PG was not ready to take the reins in 11-12. Everyone knew that. He made a huge leap between then and 12-13. Danny was still the best offensive weapon that season. West wasn't 100%. And wasn't that the season Roy was an all star? He was used pretty effectively.

            Comment


            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

              I expect a player that has the ball in his hands a lot to do more then score with it. How's that a double standard?

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                I expect a player that has the ball in his hands a lot to do more then score with it. How's that a double standard?
                Paul doesn't have the ball in his hands any more than Danny did. That's what usage rate measures. Their usage rate is the same. Their shooting rate is the same. Their turnover rate is the same. So if Danny has the ball in his hands the same amount as PG, shoots the same amount, turns the ball over the same amount, what is Danny doing with the ball during the times he doesn't shoot and doesn't turn it over?

                Logic would lead us to one conclusion.....


                IF you have another possibility,

                Don't need this part to make your point, but it can be seen as rude or disrespectful

                , I'd like to hear it.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  But how does that make him a chucker? Just because a player isnt a creator, he is a chucker?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                    Are we really comparing a prime Danny to a 22 year old player in his first year as the go to guy? Danny needed a super human like 6-8 weeks towards the end of the season to get his numbers up to where they were. He was pretty bad for most of that season.

                    Please tell how Danny evolved his game with Vogel in charge, I'm interested in that.
                    Now I'm really confused...

                    So an in his prime recent Allstar Danny has very similar shot attempts, usage rates, percentages etc with a less talented team than a young up-n-coming Paul who has much more talent around him and DANNY is the chucker? And oh by the way, Paul was an Allstar and all NBA performer with last seasons numbers....but he wasnt a chucker...Danny was...even though they took the same amount of shots, etc...

                    Makes zero sense....if one is a chucker then obviously the other would be a chucker...the numbers bare that out....now...i am of the opinion neither were anything close to being a chucker...But to call one a chucker and one not when they have very similar shot attempts, usage rates and conversion rates seems pretty hypocritical....

                    As for Danny evolving it seems very very clear...What he was asked to do changed....From the very first game Vogel took over his shot attempts dropped significantly...he went from taking 18 or 19 a game for a few years to taking 14 or 15...and he was doing a bit more driving and definitely changed the way he was defending...all these things were pretty obvious....different coach..different philosophy...game changed...Danny did what he was asked to do..always...whether it be from Rick Carlisle...JOB...or Vogel....and quite frankly if we were going to compare, he probably did so with more humility and less diva....but to be fair..he was older, wiser and in some ways more mature than Paul is...thats why Paul gets a pass...

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      So many people forget that in that Heat series, Danny was the only player who was consistently hitting his shots. West and Hibbert both had up and down games during that series. And it was Danny who knocked off Lebron's headband LOL. Tru-Warrior. Granger was still easily our best player that season. Pacers went on a tear the final 20 games of the season. That was team that featured Lou Amundson as the back up Center. So this idea that Granger was never a good player on a good team is just preposterous. He led a pretty good team. They had Miami on the ropes. The only real quality vets on that team were Granger, West, and Barbosa.
                      ..
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                        PG was not ready to take the reins in 11-12. Everyone knew that. He made a huge leap between then and 12-13. Danny was still the best offensive weapon that season. West wasn't 100%. And wasn't that the season Roy was an all star? He was used pretty effectively.
                        I was wrong to expect a change. It still annoyed me to watch him shoot sub 40% for the majority of the season while his assist % dipped to a career low.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          But Danny hasn't played in a long time, yet Roy's offense is really no better than it was two years ago when Danny was still playing. I think we just have to face the reality that Roy is probably never going to be any better than a 12-13 PPG player. I wish that he could take it to the next level, but it is what it is. But he's worth every last penny because of his interior defense and rebounding. After the game last year when Roy was suspended against the Clipps and they easily took it inside all night, I told myself that I would never complain about Roy's contract. The good news is that his offense somehow turns into Hakeem when we play Miami (aside from the other night).

                          11-12 West was coming off of the ACL tear and injury. He only averaged 29 MPG (compared to 33 last year) and while he was a very good player, he wasn't 100%. Last year he was noticeably more spry and agile.

                          Maybe 11-12 PG could have done a bit more without DG, but he was still just a 21 year old second year player. And he did increase his PPG by 4 and a half points from his rookie season. I do agree with your premise that DG's absence last year forced PG to become the leader on the offensive end overnight.

                          It's hard for me to complain about 11-12 DG because he was the leading scorer on a team that won 63% of its games. A lot has certainly changed since then, but he was a pretty good player that year.
                          He was a horrible chucker for the majority of the season and a good player for like 2 months, people called it "he always starts slow reason why he is chucking it at a low percentage", I remember that he had the lowest shooting percentage in the NBA for a long time that year.

                          Lets note that I called him superstar for about a month when he was able to pick it up and was killing teams(but he was a chucker for longer than that).
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                            So many people forget that in that Heat series, Danny was the only player who was consistently hitting his shots. West and Hibbert both had up and down games during that series. And it was Danny who knocked off Lebron's headband LOL. Tru-Warrior. Granger was still easily our best player that season. Pacers went on a tear the final 20 games of the season. That was team that featured Lou Amundson as the back up Center. So this idea that Granger was never a good player on a good team is just preposterous. He led a pretty good team. They had Miami on the ropes. The only real quality vets on that team were Granger, West, and Barbosa.
                            ..

                            Danny averaged 13.3 PPG on 37.6% shooting in that Heat series. He was pretty bad in games 1 and 2 in Miami (West and Hill were top 2 scorers in game 2). He played pretty good in games 3 and 4 back home, but wasn't that good in the final two games of the series (only shot the ball 6 times in game 5). It's certainly fair to wonder whether Danny's health was beginning to bother him in that series, but he was hardly consistently hitting shots against Miami. But Miami was a brutal opponent and everyone was inconsistent to a point.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                              I see that people are using the same stats they used to compare Reggie to DG to now compare him to Paul George yeah that is not going to work
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                He was a horrible chucker for the majority of the season and a good player for like 2 months, people called it "he always starts slow reason why he is chucking it at a low percentage", I remember that he had the lowest shooting percentage in the NBA for a long time that year.

                                Lets note that I called him superstar for about a month when he was able to pick it up and was killing teams(but he was a chucker for longer than that).
                                You really refuse to say a nice thing about him?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X