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 vnzla81 View Post
    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).
    So he was a superstar when he was shooting 46%? That's what he shot the month of April, which was his highest FG% for a month that season. So if 46% is good enough to cross the superstar threshold, what category would a player who shoots a career 44% fall into?
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

    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).
      I know, but I'm just saying that I can understand why we continued to have Danny shooting. Roy is what he is (a 12 PPG player), West wasn't 100%, and PG was 21 years old (though he did increase his average by 4 and a half points). Staying with DG paid off when he got hot.

      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        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, maybe alien abduction, I'd like to hear it.
        This argument is silly to me. Paul makes passes that Danny can't even see. High assist guys always turn the ball over a lot because they sometimes make passes that are risky. The fact that their turnover rate is similar but Paul doubles his assist totals is telling. Danny simply doesn't risk passes because he often doesn't see them. I'm not saying he never passes but that lack of vision is a detriment to his teammates at times. There's no double standard.

        Comment


        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          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.
          He was destroyed by Lebron, here is a good video explaining what happened

          Last edited by vnzla81; 12-20-2013, 06:47 PM.
          @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 Since86 View Post
            So he was a superstar when he was shooting 46%? That's what he shot the month of April, which was his highest FG% for a month that season. So if 46% is good enough to cross the superstar threshold, what category would a player who shoots a career 44% fall into?
            I'm talking about the level he was playing on that month but sure keep moving the goal post.
            @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 CJ Jones View Post
              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.
              Shooting percentages were generally lower that year..it was the strike year...no training camp...no preseason...alot of people got off to slow starts...yet Danny averaged more points on basically the same amount of shot attempts if you compare that year to Pauls year last year...so saying hes a chucker...and oh by the way...he turned the ball over less...which probably doesnt come as any huge surprise given how each is used....

              And one more oh by the way....the Pacers got off to a pretty awesome start that year...and finished at 42-24 which was good enough for 3rd best in the eastern conference...so it couldnt be all that bad...not for a chucker anyway

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                This argument is silly to me. Paul makes passes that Danny can't even see. High assist guys always turn the ball over a lot because they sometimes make passes that are risky. The fact that their turnover rate is similar but Paul doubles his assist totals is telling. Danny simply doesn't risk passes because he often doesn't see them. I'm not saying he never passes but that lack of vision is a detriment to his teammates at times. There's no double standard.
                Most of pauls turnovers generally come from trying to split double teams and the like...even sheer carelessness...not usually passing

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                  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...
                  Danny defended better when JOB took over. I can agree with that. Offensively though, I didn't see much of change in 11-12, and that's what I was mainly talking about.

                  Danny's all-star year he was great all-around except defensively. I wouldn't say he was C word that year.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                    This argument is silly to me. Paul makes passes that Danny can't even see. High assist guys always turn the ball over a lot because they sometimes make passes that are risky. The fact that their turnover rate is similar but Paul doubles his assist totals is telling. Danny simply doesn't risk passes because he often doesn't see them. I'm not saying he never passes but that lack of vision is a detriment to his teammates at times. There's no double standard.
                    Yeah, it means he's better at passing to teammates in scoring position, not that he passes MORE.

                    So what was Danny doing with the ball, if he wasn't turning it over nor shooting it?
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      I'm talking about the level he was playing on that month but sure keep moving the goal post.
                      Moving the goalposts?

                      I know what you're saying. You said he was playing at a superstar level during the last month, when he "was able to pick it up." He "picked it up" by shooting 46%. If shooting 46% makes him a superstar, what does shooting 44% make him? I'm not moving anything, I'm asking YOU to give YOUR opinion.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        This whole "chucker" thing is ridiculous. Granger was the only weapon under a JOB philosophy of firing up 3pts. I do believe that JOB had a negative impact on Granger. All that has changed now,, unfortunately for Granger he has not been able to become apart of this just yet.

                        unless someone believes that murphy, dunleavy, rush, mcroberts were better options than I cant see where the chucker philosophy comes into play when Danny had solid #s forcing on the issue under a coach running a 3 pt centric offense.

                        Danny wasn't the issue, it was the coach and the talent.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                          Danny's all-star year he was great all-around except defensively. I wouldn't say he was C word that year.


                          Wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me get this straight. The year Danny was an All-Star, he wasn't a chucker? Do you even realize that his All-Star year is the year he shot the most during his entire career? That's the only year he shot 19 times a game.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me get this straight. The year Danny was an All-Star, he wasn't a chucker? Do you even realize that his All-Star year is the year he shot the most during his entire career? That's the only year he shot 19 times a game.
                            This is why I am having a very difficult time understanding....He goes from shooting it 19 times a game to 15 times a game....and defending better...not having the ball as much...more talent on the team...different philosophy...strike year...no training camp...all percentages were down...team gets off to a great start...one of best in league...and yet...this is the year thats the problem and hes a chucker...very confusing

                            Comment


                            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me get this straight. The year Danny was an All-Star, he wasn't a chucker? Do you even realize that his All-Star year is the year he shot the most during his entire career? That's the only year he shot 19 times a game.
                              Pfffffft. Those are just facts. Facts don't matter if they usurp ones argument.

                              I fart in the general direction of your facts.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                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.

                                Danny rolled his ankle badly in game 5. Reason his shots were low. Pacers were playing damn good basketball in that game as well up until Granger got hurt. You prove whatever point u want to make about game 5 by your own admission.

                                When Granger left in game 5 it was over. It happened sometime in the 2nd. We were up. Even when Danny returned for game 5 and 6... he played through the injury as best he could but was severely limited.

                                Granger was the best player in that series by far for us. We had a shot in game 5 until the injury. series was over from there.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X