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

JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

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

  • JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

    I have always thought that JO was overrated. While I am glad that he is one of the better power fowards in the league, I have never thought that he was better than Artest or better than Miller or better than the top big men in the league. I decided to run a statistical comparison with some other of the top big guys in the league to see if maybe I was hallucinating.

    Min Fg 3p Ft Or Dr Tot As St Bl To Fl Ppg
    Amare 36.8 .574 .000 .706 2.40 6.00 8.40 1.6 1.16 1.67 2.44 3.40 26.1
    Shaq 35.3 .607 .000 .459 3.50 7.10 10.70 2.8 .43 2.52 2.89 4.00 23.1
    KG 39.3 .499 .211 .793 3.30 11.1 14.30 6.0 1.58 1.44 2.74 2.70 22.9
    TD 35.1 .496 .250 .650 3.40 8.50 11.90 2.5 .80 2.84 2.11 2.20 21.6
    CWeb 35.9 .459 .421 .801 1.90 7.70 9.50 5.0 1.50 .74 2.92 3.00 21.6
    JO 36.5 .459 .200 .765 2.20 7.20 9.40 1.8 .68 2.36 3.28 4.20 27.0

    (Sorry, but I can't get the numbers to match up in even columns.)

    Notice how low JO's field goal percentage is. Guys like Gasol and Brand also have much higher field goald percentages. That's the main observation that I make, and the main problem that I have with him getting so many isolated shots. Let's face it. Going to Shaq in the paint again and again works because he's dropping 60%. Going to a guy at .459 is not that effective, especially when you try to overload the number of shots. The only PF in that range is Weber, though you figure he makes up for it in the number of assists and the three point percentage which has him taking quite a bit of long range jumpers.

    Now this is not meant to cut JO down or anything like that. It's just to suggest that maybe trying to get him 30 shots a game is not the best idea. I think the most hilarious thing about all of the stats is how many points Amare Stoudamire averages because the Suns almost never isolate him in the post, yet he scores tons because they play a team game, get a lot of shots, and therefore he shoots at a much higher percentage than he would if he was trying to shoot over two outstretched defenders like JO so often is.

    All those other top big men are playing on teams that share the ball. The only player with less assists than JO is Amare because he is the finisher and his team as a whole averages way more. Also notice that JO averages the most turnovers and the most fouls. Now this is an elite group to compare him with, but people have been comparing him to KG and TD so there you have it. Also, I know that Amare and Shaq are centers, but I look at this as a "big men who are scoring threats in the paint" list. I did not include Novitzki because he plays so much on the perimeter. Though perhaps Brand and Gasol should have been included. Truthfully, I got tired of cutting and pasting.

    Again, I may have my own analysis of the numbers, and stats aren't everything, but the Pacers aren't doing ****e going to JO 30 times a game and the stats show that he might not be as good as people are making him out to be. If someone is going to get a lot of shots, I want a high field goal percentage, and JO does not have it. (Nor did he last year at .434-ouch.)

  • #2
    Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

    JO doesn't get the calls half the players in the league do.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

      That's not true, he gets to the free throw line a lot for a big man. Not as much as Shaq or Duncan, but that's about it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

        While I'm not one to put too much on the ref, even if I did that wouldn't affect his fg% or his abilities to pass.

        I'm in the middle of the road on this one. While I don't think he's on Garnetts or Duncans level yet, I still think he improves every year to the point where I think he at least has the ability and talent to get there. But there's alot more to it than stats I also think.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

          Originally posted by MSA2CF
          JO doesn't get the calls half the players in the league do.
          He's still the only player this year to shoot 25 FTs in a game......

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

            The bottom line is he still shoots too many turnaround jumpers in the post and too many Webber-like 18 footers

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

              Not getting calls would affect his FG%, because the shots he missed because of contact would count negatively against his %, but would not count at all if a foul was called.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

                Ah, didn't know that. I stand corrected. However, my point is still made if what Kstat said about his FT's is correct.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

                  People make to big of deal about FG%. David Harrison has a 60% FG percentage, let's start letting him have 30 shots a game. JO takes 10 FT's a game, I'd say whatever he is doing is pretty damn effective.

                  And he isn't better than Miller? What in the world are you talking about?

                  The answer to why players like Gasol and Brand have higher FG% is pretty obvious. They don't have to take the amount of shots JO has had to so far. Anyone who is taking 30 shots a game, their FG% will dip, unless maybe they are Shaq.
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

                    Overrated? By who?

                    The guy gets no recognition outside Indiana. So he can't be overrated there.

                    Inside Indiana, we realize he's the best NBA player we've ever had.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

                      i agree with you "MillerArtest" 100%... because in my Mind and my Team/Coaches mind we think that all players that Have LOW percantage and HIGH Attempts are true so called "BallHoggers"... like Allen Iverson... and dont you guyz even try protecting JO.. just face the truth and move along... and dont tell me he is playing this way because of the "Team Strategy"... Rick Carlisle aint that dumb to put in a Big PowerForward who struggles with 30 Attempts and 40% accuracy... and i DO think that MILLER and ARTEST are better than him... Im not Comparing "Prime Reggie" with him (prime reggie cant be compared to anybody ffs!).. but the New OLD REggie today... Didnt you see that he averaged over 20 PPG when Jermaine was gone? He still has "IT" and he needs JO to pass him back the ball when he is OPEN when he is doubled or having a tough time.. god knows... and ARTEST is my Favourite player today.. a heart of a LION and the strength of an Dinasour.. he is better then JO in many ways.. Scoring, Accuracy, Defense... Artest makes such an Impact on the Pacers and brings the balance of Defense/Offense to the team so they win all the time... Pacers without Artest is like, a Ferrari with a 50 horsepower engine.. lol

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

                        Sorry to say but JO shoots a better percentage than Reg. So maybe Miller is the ballhog?

                        You can't really think Reggie of today is better than Jermaine of today can you...
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

                          I like Artest too. There was a month last year where I was saying he was more important to the team than Jermaine.

                          But that doesn't mean Jermaine's anything other than the best power forward (and second best post player besides the other O'Neal) in the Eastern Conference.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

                            Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                            Sorry to say but JO shoots a better percentage than Reg. So maybe Miller is the ballhog?
                            Hicks, we need a "guiness" smiley.... BRILLIANT!
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: JO is Overrated - Elite big men comparison

                              It seems the longer Artest sits, the better he gets. He has gone from one of the better second-fiddles in the league, to an all-world Wilt/Micheal dominator, all without playing a single game.
                              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X