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

Q&A with Bird

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

  • #16
    Re: Q&A with Bird

    Glad Bird realizes what I've been saying for a long time now. PG has no inside game. He's going to need to develop one to be a complete player and take the pressure off always having to hit the outside shot.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Q&A with Bird

      My favorite part of this entire article is the Myles Turner section. Saying Myles Turner is by far the hardest worker the Pacers have had in a while is a pretty big compliment.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Q&A with Bird

        Originally posted by DrFife View Post
        "I don't know if we have great leadership."

        To me, this was one of the comments that jumped out; it underscores Larry's appreciation for David West. Of the next few players we acquire or sign, one of them will have a strong reputation as a leader.
        Not necessarily, he said he believes Turner will become that guy.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Q&A with Bird

          Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
          My favorite part of this entire article is the Myles Turner section. Saying Myles Turner is by far the hardest worker the Pacers have had in a while is a pretty big compliment.
          Favorite thing I read. Turner is going to be a stud barring injury problems.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Q&A with Bird

            Anyway, Bird's interviews are always great, and this one isn't an exception.

            I like that Bird is a realist regarding this roster he's assembled:

            "I don't think we've got too much talent, but we've got too many guys who are all about the same. Good players, but not great players."

            "We're not a contender. With our young guys, going forward, if we get the right pieces, yeah, we can be right back in it. But I don't think right now with what we have as far as a solid group, I don't think we're a contender. That's why I say the playoffs."

            "We're relying on Paul a lot. We think Myles is good enough to give him some help. Now who's the other guy? Who's going to be that third guy? We've got to know what we're doing."
            Last edited by wintermute; 01-28-2016, 04:28 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Q&A with Bird

              A lot of content to digest, but it sounds like Bird really really doesn't like the direction Frank is going.

              Unfortunately, I am sure Frank recognizes that with this personnel and its physical limitations and lack of floor vision and passing so he is doing what he needs to do to try to minimize weaknesses and physical fatigue, which appears to be a factor whether Bird wants to admit it or not.

              We saw Bird give the command to Carlisle to make the Pacers run, which Carlisle tried mightily to do and then pretty quickly gave up for nearly the same reasons as Frank faces, though Carlisle had somewhat less athletic guys overall. When the end of the year came, Carlisle decided he had had enough (obviously not just the philosophical difference with Bird). Then Bird shoved O'B down the players throats, who in turn apparently was carrying out the wishes of Bird to an even larger extent than it even appeared back then. Just glad that when it came time to start talking season ticket renewals with major companies that the rising crescendo of dissatisfaction got so intense that they had to do SOMETHING.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Q&A with Bird

                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                Anyway, Bird's interviews are always great, and this one isn't an exception.

                I like that Bird is a realist regarding this roster he's assembled:

                "I don't think we've got too much talent, but we've got too many guys who are all about the same. Good players, but not great players."

                "We're not a contender. With our young guys, going forward, if we get the right pieces, yeah, we can be right back in it. But I don't think right now with what we have as far as a solid group, I don't think we're a contender. That's why I say the playoffs."

                "We're relying on Paul a lot. We think Myles is good enough to give him some help. Now who's the other guy? Who's going to be that third guy? We've got to know what we're doing."

                Translation = PG and Turner are the only 2 guys worth a damn in the long run. Beyond that, the roster is a pile of replaceable players.

                It's a transition year for the Pacers and Bird still needs to add another 1-2 players worth building around to put next to the 2 he already has. I dunno if he ever thought Monta would be one of those guys, but he's definitely not it. Monta would be OK in a Jason Terry from a few years ago type of role, but nothing more.

                Really doesn't matter what kind of lineups big or small that Vogel chooses to trot out this year. This is not a year that's going to end up mattering. In the long run, you need to find a way to put two guys out of Monta, CJ Miles and George Hill on the bench. Assuming Turner keeps developing, I suppose you can keep Manhimi as a Tiago Splitter level big to start alongside him.
                Last edited by d_c; 01-28-2016, 04:50 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Q&A with Bird

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  One thing of note...Bird talks about every player on the roster basically except, Budinger, Solo and Lavoy Allen. And when Larry talks about adding a big athletic guy, I can only think of one dude he's thinking of replacing....Lavoy. Which begs the question...why on earth did Larry pay him in the first place?
                  When he talks about adding a big athletic guy, is he talking about now or in the summer?

                  Doesn't really matter, you can still add a big athletic guy now or the summer and it makes no difference as to why Bird re-signed him in the first place. The new big athletic guy can be the Starter and it wouldn't affect Bird's intention of signing and keeping Lavoy as the backup PF.
                  Last edited by CableKC; 01-28-2016, 05:03 PM.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Q&A with Bird

                    Not gonna lie, this interview makes me more nervous for Frank than it does anything else. I have a feeling Bird is going to blame him for the system not working.


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Q&A with Bird

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      One thing of note...Bird talks about every player on the roster basically except, Budinger, Solo and Lavoy Allen. And when Larry talks about adding a big athletic guy, I can only think of one dude he's thinking of replacing....Lavoy. Which begs the question...why on earth did Larry pay him in the first place?
                      According to the Mark Montieth article I read today, it sounds like Frank is very pro Lavoy Allen. And very pro +/- analysis. I'll stick the article here.

                      Start Myles Turner? It's Complicated

                      It seems obvious on the surface, doesn't it?

                      Myles Turner is lighting it up, averaging 19.6 points on 65 percent shooting over the last five games along with 6.2 rebounds while playing just 27 minutes per game. Lavoy Allen, meanwhile, hardly seems to dent the box score. He's averaged 4.8 points on 48 percent shooting over those five games, along with 6.2 rebounds, in 25 minutes.

                      So why not drop Turner into Allen's spot in the starting lineup and see if that helps lift the Pacers out of the drought that has seen them lose six of their last seven games and drop to eighth in the Eastern Conference, just 2.5 games ahead of 12th?

                      If only it were that simple.

                      Coach Frank Vogel studies the numbers and understands the complexities of such a move. He's indeed planning to increase Turner's playing time beyond 25 minutes per game and wants to get a look at how Turner plays alongside center Ian Mahinmi. But starting Turner on Thursday against Atlanta?

                      He's considering it, but hasn't committed to it.

                      "We'll find the right time to put him in the starting lineup based on way he's playing," Vogel said following Wednesday's practice at Bankers Life Fieldhouse.

                      Vogel's decision regarding the roles of Turner and Allen is made easier by the fact both are willing to play off the bench. But it's made more difficult by the contrast between the box score stats and the more subtle ones — primarily, the fact Allen leads the Pacers in the plus-minus rating and Turner ranks ... well, last.

                      Allen's rating for the season is +173, which means the Pacers have outscored their opponents by that many points when he's played. Paul George is second (+147) and Jordan Hill third (+110). Turner's rating is -54.


                      The basic plus-minus rating deserves a degree of skepticism, particularly over relatively brief time periods, as several other factors can come into play. The more exhaustive advanced plus-minus rating — sometimes called "real plus-minus" — takes into account pace of play, a player's teammates when he's on the court and the opponent.

                      In that case, Allen's rating is slightly negative (-0.16), but still ahead of Turner's (-1.37). Regardless, no matter how you want to look at it, the Pacers have performed better when Allen is on the court than Turner, so the logic of giving Allen's starting role to Turner becomes strained – particularly when one considers the fact the Pacers' most successful lineup combinations over the course of the season have included Allen. Most of Turner's success, in fact, has come when paired with Allen.

                      Bottom line: Allen might not pass the eye test, but he passes the advanced statistical analyses that Vogel studies. And Vogel's not surprised by what he sees.

                      "When you have as many scorers as we have, it's good to have a big guy who doesn't need shots," Vogel said. "He's just willing to share the basketball, kind of like Dennis Rodman was with the Bulls. He goes and gets it and gets it in the hands of the guys who know what to do with it.

                      "He's definitely one of our glue guys. We're more productive when he's on the court than when he's off."

                      Vogel particularly likes what Allen and Mahinmi bring as a tandem.

                      "They do all the dirty work," he said. "Defense, rebounding, rim protection, running the floor, screening, and then being willing passers. They don't force anything offensively. The fact two of those guys are out there at the same time is a good thing."

                      All of this verbal and numerical endorsement comes as a bit of a news flash to Allen, who brings texture and depth to laid-back personalities everywhere. Why does he grade out so well?

                      "I'm not really sure," he said after a pause. "Just playing defense, I guess? Trying to be as good as I can defensively."

                      Turner shoots early and often when he gets the ball, so playing him in place of Allen could take shots away from the perimeter players and negatively impact chemistry. So far he's played mostly when George and Monta Ellis are not in the game, so it doesn't matter. And what happens if he's not shooting well, such as in the second half of Tuesday's loss to the Clippers, when he missed all four shots? Can he contribute in other ways?

                      Turner was wearing a blue shirt when practice ended on Tuesday, indicating he had worked with the starters. He only did so while working on end-of-game possessions, though. Allen was wearing blue as well.

                      Turner would welcome playing with the rest of the starters, and believes he could find a way to fit in and contribute.

                      "I feel like I'd fit just fine," he said. "We've been mixing our lineup all year, since training camp, trying different things. For the most part we're pretty comfortable with each other."

                      Even if it means scoring less?

                      "I'm about this team, man," he said. "It's not about individual performance or individual accolades. Whatever Coach wants me to do out I'll do it. If it's to go out and set a lot of screens, I'll pick and choose my spots. If he wants me to be the aggressor with the second group, I'll do it."

                      There's another bottom line at work here: Turner hasn't played with the starters in place of Allen for more than a minute or so in one game, so that lineup remains a mystery – and a gamble. Vogel admits Turner is coming along faster than he expected, though, and given the team's recent slide is more prone to taking a gamble.

                      It's just a matter of time.

                      "I don't know if we're there yet," he said.
                      http://www.nba.com/pacers/start-myle...ts-complicated

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Q&A with Bird

                        I hope to hell that Frank isn't starting Lavoy because of his plus-minus. That number is very misleading. (To be fair, the plus-minus thing seems to be more Montieth's obsession than Frank's)

                        I do understand and even agree a little with Frank that with 3 ball dominant guys in the starting lineup, it's better if the 2 other guys are very low usage. But that leads to an unbalanced and unhealthy offense. Surely Frank knows the actual solution there is to bench one of those 3 ball dominant guys, right?

                        Anyway, I hope Myles gets his shot at starting, if only to provide some spot up shooting. That team needs more shooting in the worse way.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Q&A with Bird

                          I do think the Joe Young bit is pretty interesting as well. He kinda bashed him as a player right now saying he hasn't been good. What? Joe Young had 3 very good games in his first real minutes. Then in the Clipper game he pretty much undid it all with his actions, but still kinda crazy to see him come down on him like that. Also said Joe Young wasn't a guy that can get others involved. From what I've seen, he is the best player on this roster at getting others involved.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Q&A with Bird

                            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                            I hope to hell that Frank isn't starting Lavoy because of his plus-minus. That number is very misleading. (To be fair, the plus-minus thing seems to be more Montieth's obsession than Frank's)
                            I could see it. I remember during the Heat playoff series a few years ago when Frank was asked if he should play the bench more. He responded that the starters had a +/- of 5.8 (or whatever) so he didn't think he was playing the starters too much. I cringed when I read that back then.

                            And I'm not sure that the +/- is a Montieth obsession. I doubt that he brought it up because he was fishing for a way to justify Frank's moves. More than likely he and Frank have discussed the metric and Franks feelings about it. Here's a bit from the article where he suggests that Frank is a numbers guy.

                            Bottom line: Allen might not pass the eye test, but he passes the advanced statistical analyses that Vogel studies. And Vogel's not surprised by what he sees.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Q&A with Bird

                              I have a feeling the advanced statistical analysis is more than just "do do dee oh lookie big plus minus yup yup yup yup yup"

                              Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Q&A with Bird

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                I have a feeling the advanced statistical analysis is more than just "do do dee oh lookie big plus minus yup yup yup yup yup"
                                Well, that's certainly how it's being communicated.

                                Strummer: maybe you're right. Maybe the media fascination comes from the coaches talking about it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X