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

The George Hill Trade

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

  • Re: The George Hill Trade

    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    I mean, who thinks we had a better chance of beating Miami if we swapped Teague and GHill? Not losing anything on defense IMO. You have PG and Hib, and Teague has started on top defenses.

    Then you add a player that would SURELY improve our dreadful offense.

    But we were very successful with GHill as starting point. Not taking that away, just something to think about when saying he was the perfect fit.
    You're crazy to say we aren't losing anything on defense.

    Comment


    • Re: The George Hill Trade

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      Hill was NEVER the second option. West and Paul both were around 3 more shots/gm than Hill in 13. Teague is nearly an entire shot higher than Turner in terms of FGA/gm. Teague is the second option (FGA is the best way for me to figure the offensive hierarchy).

      They did average similar FGA, but we also played at a slower pace. Teague is getting to the FT line more than Hill did that year which would present why he scored more while shooting less efficiently from the field.

      But you were talking about the 2015 season originally. But now you're switching it up, so which is it?
      I'm talking about 12-13 right now, as I have been for the last few posts.... Teague hardly shot less efficiently, he was below GHill by about .5%, so that's not exactly a big victory for him. Pace can also explain somewhat of his lower PPG, but Teague is also nearly doubling Hill in assists per game.

      Comment


      • Re: The George Hill Trade

        Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
        You're crazy to say we aren't losing anything on defense.
        In that series? How?

        Don't get me wrong, GHill is w/o question the better defender, but does the drop off prevent you from getting to the ECF? Then once your there, wouldn't you rather have an All Star talent instead of GHill?

        Comment


        • Re: The George Hill Trade

          I think Freddy's point is it doesn't matter if Teague or Hill was guarding Chalmers. Chalmers is just going to sit behind the arc and shoot 3's from plays LeBron created. I would take his offense, because it would be more valuable than defense on Chalmers.

          Comment


          • Re: The George Hill Trade

            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
            In that series? How?

            Don't get me wrong, GHill is w/o question the better defender, but does the drop off prevent you from getting to the ECF? Then once your there, wouldn't you rather have an All Star talent instead of GHill?
            Needed to lock down Mario Chalmers
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: The George Hill Trade

              I will say that I do think Hill will have a career year. Partly because he's in a really good situation for him on a good team, but also because he's in a contract year. I think most people probably aren't that surprised about what he's doing because we all wanted him to do that here, but he never asserted himself like we wanted. Even his most diehard fans that like to blame everybody but Hill has to admit that at times, throughout the course of his stay here, he seemed content with taking a supportive role. Now he's motivated to show he can be more than that for several reasons including a chance to make a **** ton of money. A motivated, assertive Hill is most likely gonna have a damn good year.

              Comment


              • Re: The George Hill Trade

                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                I mean, who thinks we had a better chance of beating Miami if we swapped Teague and GHill? Not losing anything on defense IMO. You have PG and Hib, and Teague has started on top defenses.

                Then you add a player that would SURELY improve our dreadful offense.

                But we were very successful with GHill as starting point. Not taking that away, just something to think about when saying he was the perfect fit.
                Teague never made it to play the Heat in the playoffs, but he did struggle mightily in one of the playoff series against Cleveland. And those Miami teams were better defensively.

                He did have a great series scoring in 2015 however. So again a higher high, though his team getting swept also has to be taken into account as well.

                Hill meanwhile had two solid but unspectacular series against Miami both years. He didnt shoot as well from the field as you'd expect, but did shoot well from 3 and kept his turnovers low in both series.

                Just something to think about before you say he for sure would have helped our offense in those series.

                There are a lot of variables.

                Edit: how would Jeff had fit with Lance? How would Jeff had fit with a slower offense that lacked three point shooting? Just some examples
                Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 01-12-2017, 07:38 AM.

                Comment


                • Re: The George Hill Trade

                  Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                  You're crazy to say we aren't losing anything on defense.
                  Or 3pt shooting.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The George Hill Trade

                    Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                    I will say that I do think Hill will have a career year. Partly because he's in a really good situation for him on a good team, but also because he's in a contract year. I think most people probably aren't that surprised about what he's doing because we all wanted him to do that here, but he never asserted himself like we wanted. Even his most diehard fans that like to blame everybody but Hill has to admit that at times, throughout the course of his stay here, he seemed content with taking a supportive role. Now he's motivated to show he can be more than that for several reasons including a chance to make a **** ton of money. A motivated, assertive Hill is most likely gonna have a damn good year.
                    Though I'm sure a contract year helps tremendously, I think George wants to show what he can do more consistently.

                    You can tell by his quotes that he's happy to be in a situation where he feels appreciated and invested in.

                    I agree that George could be more selfish and be more aggressive as opposed to being so willing to take a supporting role.

                    But you also have to consider that following his two best seasons here, he was immediately paired with someone that was going to take the ball out of his hands the next season.

                    Lance's emergence was a bit more organic. But the Pacers adding Monta AFTER Hill had such a strong 2015 season had to have been a let down for George. We could have easily added a shooter as opposed to a guy that was taking him back off the ball after showing what he could do if we gave it to him consistently.

                    Then to have been probably the second best player in the Raptors series only for Bird to basically say that the Pacers only had Paul and Monta show up? Yeah I'm sure that's extra motivation.

                    Hell even Teague struggled a bit while playing next to a guy he was constantly sharing ball handling duties with. George was asked to do that twice after having pretty good success being the main ball handler himself.

                    Luckily for Teague, Monta got hurt and moved to the bench. Which allowed his game to truly flourish.

                    So yes George could have been more consistently aggressive. I'll never say different. But he was also constantly paired with others that mitigated and compromised his time on the ball at times also.

                    I'm glad he's in Utah where they seem to value him quite a bit.

                    Edit: if he didn't fully take advantage of the opportunity here, he's definitely doing just that thus far playing in Utah. Perhaps he "learned from his mistakes" here.
                    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 01-12-2017, 07:27 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The George Hill Trade

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      Teague never made it to play the Heat in the playoffs, but he did struggle mightily in one of the playoff series against Cleveland. And those Miami teams were better defensively.

                      He did have a great series scoring in 2015 however. So again a higher high, though his team getting swept also has to be taken into account as well.

                      Hill meanwhile had two solid but unspectacular series against Miami both years. He didnt shoot as well from the field as you'd expect, but did shoot well from 3 and kept his turnovers low in both series.

                      Just something to think about before you say he for sure would have helped our offense in those series.

                      There are a lot of variables
                      I think his playoff role and performance was just better. Gotta factor in his assists and penetration that breaks down the defense and gets guys easier shots. While he scored more, it was his floor game and assists in particular that was more important IMO.

                      He may not be as good defensively, but Jeff Teague is not a bad defender. He's not as good, especially as long as Hill. But his consistent aggressiveness has proven to be very important in the playoffs.

                      Edit: Let me clarify something. Jeff is aggressive most of the time. Not only does he get assists from his own ability to create. He probably triggers other plays with his energy on offense that doesn't show up in the stat sheet. Hill simply doesn't bring that value because he's quite passive.
                      Last edited by BlueNGold; 01-12-2017, 07:36 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The George Hill Trade

                        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                        In that series? How?

                        Don't get me wrong, GHill is w/o question the better defender, but does the drop off prevent you from getting to the ECF? Then once your there, wouldn't you rather have an All Star talent instead of GHill?
                        You're also giving Miami a couple extra turnovers per game for a team whose entire defense was predicated on getting turnovers and getting into transition. Also, not as big of a threat as a shooter, which means Miami can more freely double Hibbert/West post ups (although not so bad that Miami could ignore him either).

                        Comment


                        • Re: The George Hill Trade

                          I agree the Pacers brought in guys who might take the ball out of George's hands and that negatively affected his numbers. But it's because he didn't know how to share it and he wasn't aggressive enough...and better players like Paul George and DWest were not taking a back seat.

                          The fact is, our offense has struggled his entire time in Indy and him not being a true PG is a big reason for that. Like I have said before, if Hill is paired with a wing who can create, he fits very well in a starting lineup. But you gotta get guys easy buckets. That's really what Lance brought and why he was effective. That's just not Hill's game and somebody on the floor needs to create.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The George Hill Trade

                            Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                            I will say that I do think Hill will have a career year. Partly because he's in a really good situation for him on a good team, but also because he's in a contract year. I think most people probably aren't that surprised about what he's doing because we all wanted him to do that here, but he never asserted himself like we wanted. Even his most diehard fans that like to blame everybody but Hill has to admit that at times, throughout the course of his stay here, he seemed content with taking a supportive role. Now he's motivated to show he can be more than that for several reasons including a chance to make a **** ton of money. A motivated, assertive Hill is most likely gonna have a damn good year.
                            Teague is in a contract year and a pretty good situation in Indy for himself aswell... not necessarily disagreeing with you, just saying.
                            Last edited by Mourning; 01-12-2017, 07:49 AM.
                            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                            Comment


                            • Re: The George Hill Trade

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              Needed to lock down Mario Chalmers
                              I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly, but wasn't Collison atleast partly responsible for Chalmers?
                              2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                              2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                              2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                              Comment


                              • Re: The George Hill Trade

                                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                                Teague never made it to play the Heat in the playoffs, but he did struggle mightily in one of the playoff series against Cleveland. And those Miami teams were better defensively.

                                He did have a great series scoring in 2015 however. So again a higher high, though his team getting swept also has to be taken into account as well.

                                Hill meanwhile had two solid but unspectacular series against Miami both years. He didnt shoot as well from the field as you'd expect, but did shoot well from 3 and kept his turnovers low in both series.

                                Just something to think about before you say he for sure would have helped our offense in those series.

                                There are a lot of variables.

                                Edit: how would Jeff had fit with Lance? How would Jeff had fit with a slower offense that lacked three point shooting? Just some examples
                                Teague wouldn't have to be the leading scorer AND assist man on the team like he was in Hawks ECF trip. In 2013, 2014 seasons if you would have asked every GM about this it wouldn't even be a question. Teague was a far superior talent at the time, there was no consistency with GHill.

                                To argue that Teague struggled in his ECF vs the Cavs completely misses what Teague would have done for the Pacers.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X