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

Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

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

  • #16
    Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

    Originally posted by I Love P View Post
    Larry's track record with seniors is not very good. Solomon Hill, Tyler Hansbrough, Miles Plumlee. He drafted those seniors with a relatively young roster that season, with an average of less than 4 years experience per player.
    Hans and Plumlee were misses....but I don't think that Solo is a miss. Many people here know what I think about Solo , so I digress.

    Originally posted by I Love P View Post
    Last year he took freshman Myles Turner with a little bit of an older roster at an average of 5 years experience per player.

    I expect either a freshman or a sophomore in this draft with freshman being a heavy favorite. IMO Larry probably notices how big of an impact these freshman can have coming in right away whereas years ago it took 2-3 years to develop an 18 year old.

    Thon Maker at 20 is my educated guess.
    The reality is that we have no clue what Bird will do in this draft.

    I have no idea if the Bird that is looking to find an impact Player now will show up, if he will draft the BPA or if he'll draft on potential ( see Lance ). IMHO, the drafting of Myles ( and PG13 ) was a luck.....he turned out to be combination of all of this....he turned out to be an impact Player that was able to contribute immediately, the BPA and has a high ceiling.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      The impression I get is that McCaw is looked as a perimeter defender / stopper ( as a floor ) with the hope that he can become a 3D Wing like DeMarre. The difference being, will he be a bench role Player or a Starting contributor? Maybe that's why he's looked at as some fringe lottery to some Player drafted in the late teens / early 20s ( if not later ). Teams that are assessing him as a 3D type Wing will rank him higher.....but those that consider him closer to a Thabo / Tony Allen type Player will rank him lower .

      Also...add in the Taurean Prince seems to fill a similar role and maybe considered closer to a 3D type Player...maybe that is pushing his stock down.
      Most 3 and D players are just that though, McCaw has skills as a creator and slasher as well. Now, they may never be GREAT NBA skills, but a great 3&D guy, that can make plays, and has no major weaknesses would be a good get.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

        Has it been established that he is a solid offensive creator as a guard with 3D skill sets?

        Or

        Are u looking at him more as a defensive stopper with the potential to become one?
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          Has it been established that he is a solid offensive creator as a guard with 3D skill sets?

          Or

          Are u looking at him more as a defensive stopper with the potential to become one?
          I think he has proven more than most wing prospects(not just this year) that he has the ability to make plays. Is that an elite skill? No, not yet anyway, but the ability is there.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

            Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
            The problem with Thon at 20 is he isn't even a freshman. Also, he's a project with no set position, will not help us right away at all (unlike Myles, PG). His upside is too similar to Myles to make sense unless we want to become like the 76ers. Makes much more sense to go w/ McCaw at 20, or even Prince if Bird feels like he wants to make people feel better about the Solomon Hill thing.

            Back to McCaw, the ceiling is tempting. And he can put on 20 lbs before the season starts w/ a nutritionist and strength coach. We'd be looking at a point guard who can do almost everything above average for his position, even if he doesn't excel at one particular thing. I think I might still go Ulis based on potential fit with Paul George (or Bembry and live with Lawson for a year or two), but I'd have no quarrel with McCaw being a Pacer at all.
            PG didn't help us right away.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

              Originally posted by dgranger17 View Post
              PG didn't help us right away.
              He was starting by the end of his rookie year and guarding the league MVP in the playoffs.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

                Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                Most 3 and D players are just that though, McCaw has skills as a creator and slasher as well. Now, they may never be GREAT NBA skills, but a great 3&D guy, that can make plays, and has no major weaknesses would be a good get.
                I don't see him as a Great 3D guy just yet though, it will take work to improve his shot, especially at NBA range imo. He isn't too impressive of a shooter from what I've seen. That being said, he's in my top 4 or 5 guys in this draft at our position.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

                  Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                  He was starting by the end of his rookie year and guarding the league MVP in the playoffs.
                  I'll give you he showed potential right away. To say he helped right away is... Well, I guess impossible to argue because yourmind is made up.
                  Last edited by dgranger17; 06-16-2016, 04:01 PM. Reason: PG4MVP2017

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

                    Originally posted by dgranger17 View Post
                    I'll give you he showed potential right away. To say he helped right away is... Well, I guess impossible to argue because you're mind is made up.
                    It depends on how you define right away. Was he a key contributor from the very second he was drafted? No. Did he contribute in his rookie season? Absolutely. Even if you don't love his offensive numbers, his defense was outstanding.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

                      Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                      It depends on how you define right away. Was he a key contributor from the very second he was drafted? No. Did he contribute in his rookie season? Absolutely. Even if you don't love his offensive numbers, his defense was outstanding.
                      I'll also give you that "helped right away" is incredibly vague and misleading.

                      Back to the original point that I think started all of this, I agree that Larry might feel comfortable taking BPA regardless of age because of the roster we currently have. 1. Because we should go after the Front Office's opinion of their BPA to begin with and 2. We've got enough vets (and solid coaching) to make, at least me personally, happy with the potential of this young rookie, whoever he may be

                      I'm still not convinced we don't trade the pick either. But In Larry I Trust. Whatever he does is likely the best decision for the franchise no matter how much this forum may or may not agree

                      For what it's worth and more on theme with this thread, I've got a list of about 35-40 guys I'd take at either 20 or 50. McCaw is on that list
                      Last edited by dgranger17; 06-16-2016, 04:09 PM. Reason: Go Pacers

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

                        Originally posted by I Love P View Post
                        Larry's track record with seniors is not very good. Solomon Hill, Tyler Hansbrough, Miles Plumlee. He drafted those seniors with a relatively young roster that season, with an average of less than 4 years experience per player.
                        And they all ended up being pretty serviceable players.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

                          I'm looking forward to Tbird's full ranking. Mocks are wild this year. Prospects from like 11 to 30-something are ranked in very different orders by different mocks.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

                            Originally posted by I Love P View Post
                            Larry's track record with seniors is not very good. Solomon Hill, Tyler Hansbrough, Miles Plumlee. He drafted those seniors with a relatively young roster that season, with an average of less than 4 years experience per player.

                            Last year he took freshman Myles Turner with a little bit of an older roster at an average of 5 years experience per player.

                            I expect either a freshman or a sophomore in this draft with freshman being a heavy favorite. IMO Larry probably notices how big of an impact these freshman can have coming in right away whereas years ago it took 2-3 years to develop an 18 year old.

                            Thon Maker at 20 is my educated guess.
                            Bird's misses are due to trying to fill needs vs taking the BPA. Hansbrough and Plumlee were picks to fill the frontline and Hill was to be the 3D guy. Bird could have picked another senior instead of Plumlee who ended up being an allstar on a championship team. BPA should be the plan going forward.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

                              Originally posted by eldubious View Post
                              Bird's misses are due to trying to fill needs vs taking the BPA. Hansbrough and Plumlee were picks to fill the frontline and Hill was to be the 3D guy. Bird could have picked another senior instead of Plumlee who ended up being an allstar on a championship team. BPA should be the plan going forward.
                              Every team could have picked him.

                              Its really easy to criticize after the fact, but in reality, NO ONE projected he would be this kind of player.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tbird 2016 NBA Draft Analysis #8: Patrick McCaw

                                Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                                Every team could have picked him.

                                Its really easy to criticize after the fact, but in reality, NO ONE projected he would be this kind of player.
                                The problem was, Green and PJ (fell hard and fast cause of knee issues) were listed as the 2 best available with Green going to the pacers. Bird wanted plum in the second round but heard someone ahead of us was going to take him, so Bird stretched like 8 spots.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X