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

Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

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

  • Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

    Holiday logistics had me watch the last two games on Tivo today (Thursday). The overriding takeway from these two games is how bad Jackson is--not just with shot selection but also with attitude and defensive focus. Even the opposing commentators--for both games--were constantly talking about how Jackson hurt the Pacers.

    But this thread is about why I think Jackson especially stands out in our minds as not being good for the team: because this is an Indiana club. This also makes Tinsley, IMO, especially trying to many of us on the board. Those guys would not stand out nearly as clearly in Philly, L.A., Dallas or other Western teams with more flash and less fundamentals.

    Therefore, I am going to place an "Indiana rating" for each of our players and see what you guys think. Feel free to give your own rating. I will include Artest in the list because I think he was complex for Indiana fans, gaining high marks in some areas and low in others. I'll also include Reggie Miller, Dale Davis and James Jones (the Pacers for calender year 2005) which makes for interesting comparisons.

    (Caveat: I am not from Indiana, so I apologize for the perception of speaking for the state. It's just my own comments. I do have one small Indiana claim: my Dad played at UCLA for one of the great legends from Indiana--John Wooden. I was raised on his high standards.)

    An "Indiana rating" consists of the following components:

    1. Fundamentally sound (Boxing out, no fancy risks, good shooting form)
    2. Strong work ethic
    3. Team before self
    4. Loves defense
    5. Makes his free throws (i.e. works at it)
    6. Good attitude on the court
    7. Person of character off the court


    Stephen Jackson: Total Indiana rating: C-

    1. Fundamentally sound: B
    2. Strong work ethic: B
    3. Team before self: D
    4. Loves defense: C
    5. Makes his free throws: C
    6. Good attitude on court: F
    7. Person of character off court: C (went down after Artest comments)


    Jamaal Tinsley: Total Indiana rating: C

    1. Fundamentally sound: C
    2. Strong work ethic: C
    3. Team before self: C
    4. Loves defense: D
    5. Makes his free throws: C
    6. Good attitude on court: C
    7. Person of character off court: B


    Jermaine O'Neal. Total Indiana rating: B+

    1. Fundamentally sound: B (Boxing out comes to mind)
    2. Strong work ethic: A
    3. Team before self: B (Passing still needs improvement)
    4. Loves defense: A-
    5. Makes his free throws: B
    6. Good attitude on court: B
    7. Person of character off court: A


    Jeff Foster: Total Indiana rating: B

    1. Fundamentally sound: A- (Good shooting form but still doesn't work!)
    2. Strong work ethic: A
    3. Team before self: A
    4. Loves defense: A
    5. Makes his free throws: F
    6. Good attitude on court: A
    7. Person of character off court: A


    Austin Croshere: Total Indiana rating: A

    1. Fundamentally sound: A
    2. Strong work ethic: A
    3. Team before self: A
    4. Loves defense: B+
    5. Makes his free throws: A
    6. Good attitude on court: A
    7. Person of character off court: A


    Ron Artest: Total Indiana rating: B- (but depends on the month)

    1. Fundamentally sound: B+ (Everything but boxing out)
    2. Strong work ethic: A
    3. Team before self: C (Depends on the month)
    4. Loves defense: A
    5. Makes his free throws: B (Depends on the month)
    6. Good attitude on court: B
    7. Person of character off court: D (Depends on the month)


    Anthony Johnson: Total Indiana rating: A-

    1. Fundamentally sound: A
    2. Strong work ethic: A
    3. Team before self: A
    4. Loves defense: B
    5. Makes his free throws: A-
    6. Good attitude on court: A
    7. Person of character off court: A


    Danny Granger: Total Indiana Rating: A-

    1. Fundamentally sound: A- (This will be an A soon)
    2. Strong work ethic: A
    3. Team before self: A
    4. Loves defense: A
    5. Makes his free throws: B
    6. Good attitude on court: A
    7. Person of character off court: A


    Sarunas Jasekevicus: B+

    1. Fundamentally sound: B (Still a little too fancy for Indie liking. Should improve.)
    2. Strong work ethic: A
    3. Team before self: A
    4. Loves defense: C
    5. Makes his free throws: A
    6. Good attitude on court: A
    7. Person of character off court: A


    Fred Jones: Total Indiana rating: B+

    1. Fundamentally sound: B
    2. Strong work ethic: B
    3. Team before self: B
    4. Loves defense: A-
    5. Makes his free throws: B
    6. Good attitude on court: A
    7. Person of character off court: A


    David Harrison: Total Indiana rating: B-

    1. Fundamentally sound: B
    2. Strong work ethic: C
    3. Team before self: B
    4. Loves defense: B
    5. Makes his free throws: C
    6. Good attitude on court: B
    7. Person of character off court: C- --Picture breaker


    Scott Pollard: Total Indiana rating: B+

    1. Fundamentally sound: A
    2. Strong work ethic: B
    3. Team before self: A
    4. Loves defense: A
    5. Makes his free throws: C
    6. Good attitude on court: A
    7. Person of character off court: A


    James Jones: A

    1. Fundamentally sound: A
    2. Strong work ethic: A
    3. Team before self: A
    4. Loves defense: A
    5. Makes his free throws: A
    6. Good attitude on court: A
    7. Person of character off court: A


    Reggie Miller: A

    1. Fundamentally sound: A- (Again, boxing out the only slight weakness)
    2. Strong work ethic: A
    3. Team before self: A
    4. Loves defense: B
    5. Makes his free throws: A
    6. Good attitude on court: A
    7. Person of character off court: A


    Dale Davis: B+

    1. Fundamentally sound: A
    2. Strong work ethic: A
    3. Team before self: A
    4. Loves defense: A
    5. Makes his free throws: D
    6. Good attitude on court: A
    7. Person of character off court: A


    I'm going to leave out Gill and Samaki because of no playing time. Same goes for Jon Edwards. That leaves us with the following summary:

    The "Indiana Rating" for 2005 Indiana Pacers:

    Stephen Jackson: C-
    Jamaal Tinsley: C
    Jermaine O'Neal: B+
    Jeff Foster: B
    Austin Croshere: A
    Ron Artest: B-
    Anthony Johnson: A-
    Sarunas Jasekevicus: B+
    Fred Jones: B+
    Danny Granger: A-
    David Harrison: B-
    Scott Pollard: B+
    James Jones: A
    Reggie Miller: A
    Dale Davis: B+


    Interesting to think about. We have let go two high rated Indiana players (Davis and JJ) and are about to trade, begrudgingly, a low-rated player (Artest). Perhaps TPTB would do well to make its future trades and picks based on an Indiana rating. Is it possible that we have lost our way the past few years?

    --McKeyFan
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


  • #2
    Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

    Any system that puts Reggie Miller and James Jones in the same class is inherently flawed.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

      The only rating I'm concerned about is an NBA rating.

      I could go line by line and argue many of your ratings, but if the Pacers rate players based on some local system, they won't ever win anything

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

        Stephen Jackson: C
        Jamaal Tinsley: B-
        Jermaine O'Neal: A-
        Jeff Foster: C+
        Austin Croshere: B-
        Ron Artest: F--
        Anthony Johnson: D+
        Sarunas Jasekevicus: B+
        Fred Jones: B-
        Danny Granger: B+
        David Harrison: B+
        Scott Pollard: B-

        Not sure what standard I used, just rated them
        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

          Originally posted by SoupIsGood
          Stephen Jackson: C
          Jamaal Tinsley: B-
          Jermaine O'Neal: A-
          Jeff Foster: C+
          Austin Croshere: B-
          Ron Artest: F--
          Anthony Johnson: D+
          Sarunas Jasekevicus: B+
          Fred Jones: B-
          Danny Granger: B+
          David Harrison: B+
          Scott Pollard: B-

          Not sure what standard I used, just rated them
          Any standard that rates David Harrison higher than Austin Croshere is inherently flawed.

          Unless we are using the "Potential Meter"
          House Name: Pacers

          House Sigil:



          House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

            Originally posted by Diamond Dave
            Any standard that rates David Harrison higher than Austin Croshere is inherently flawed.

            Unless we are using the "Potential Meter"

            I think it was the "How much does Soup like this player / want him on the team" meter really.


            In that case David got a low grade.
            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

              David Harrison: Total Indiana rating: B-

              1. Fundamentally sound: B
              2. Strong work ethic: C
              3. Team before self: B
              4. Loves defense: B
              5. Makes his free throws: C
              6. Good attitude on court: B
              7. Person of character off court: C- --Picture breaker
              =========================

              Well this life-long Hoosier will tell you that for him DH's lackadasical attitude both on the bench and entering the game is a real turn off. You were speaking of what Indiana bball fans like/dislike about a player, right? I was a big fan last year but he ain't making it this year. Effort..total effort is paramount at least for us long time observers of Indiana basketball. Gimme the guy that dives on the floor for loose balls, never gives up on a play, and involves his teammates and I'll support him with standing ovations. That is why Jeff is so appreciated.
              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

                My Ratings:
                Jermaine O'Neal: A
                Fred Jones: B
                Stephen Jackson: B-
                Jamaal Tinsley: B
                Jeff Foster: C+
                Austin Croshere: B-
                Ron Artest: Z
                Anthony Johnson: D
                Sarunas Jasikevicius: B+
                Danny Granger: B+
                David Harrison: B
                Scott Pollard: B

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

                  Now this is a funny thread.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

                    Your rating of Tinsley is way too low.

                    Jamaal Tinsley: Total Indiana rating: C

                    1. Fundamentally sound: C [true once but he's got to be a solid B by now]
                    2. Strong work ethic: C [flat out not true]
                    3. Team before self: C [I'd give him a C+]
                    4. Loves defense: D [If Sarunas got a C, Jamaal should get a C+]
                    5. Makes his free throws: C [please explain how Anthony Johnson got an A- with an identical percentage]
                    6. Good attitude on court: C [I think he's got a decent attitude on the court, but I agree the pouting early in the season hurts him. Plus, he's not an emotional, expressive player, which hurts him in this category.]
                    7. Person of character off court: B [Fair enough]
                    If Tinsley's healthy and on his game, everybody in Indy loves him.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

                      Originally posted by indygeezer
                      David Harrison: Total Indiana rating: B-

                      1. Fundamentally sound: B
                      2. Strong work ethic: C
                      3. Team before self: B
                      4. Loves defense: B
                      5. Makes his free throws: C
                      6. Good attitude on court: B
                      7. Person of character off court: C- --Picture breaker
                      =========================

                      Well this life-long Hoosier will tell you that for him DH's lackadasical attitude both on the bench and entering the game is a real turn off. You were speaking of what Indiana bball fans like/dislike about a player, right? I was a big fan last year but he ain't making it this year. Effort..total effort is paramount at least for us long time observers of Indiana basketball. Gimme the guy that dives on the floor for loose balls, never gives up on a play, and involves his teammates and I'll support him with standing ovations. That is why Jeff is so appreciated.
                      But when does he get the time to show effort? All he gets now is garbage time which does no one any good whatsoever and every player knows it, or he is forced to go in after having not played in a week to take on Shaq or Big Z or Yao Ming. He is in the worst possible situation right now.

                      Oh and Jeff Foster is over appreciated, at least by Rick Carlisle. Does he hustle? Yes. Does he try hard? Yes. But that doesn't make up for the liability he creates when he is out there. I appreciate him, but his glaring weaknesses this year are completely making careless about the 2 loose balls he chases down in a game.
                      House Name: Pacers

                      House Sigil:



                      House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

                        Originally posted by Diamond Dave
                        But when does he get the time to show effort? All he gets now is garbage time which does no one any good whatsoever and every player knows it, or he is forced to go in after having not played in a week to take on Shaq or Big Z or Yao Ming. He is in the worst possible situation right now.

                        Oh and Jeff Foster is over appreciated, at least by Rick Carlisle. Does he hustle? Yes. Does he try hard? Yes. But that doesn't make up for the liability he creates when he is out there. I appreciate him, but his glaring weaknesses this year are completely making careless about the 2 loose balls he chases down in a game.
                        I agree... in fact I was going to type the almost exact same thing.
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

                          My Ratings:
                          Jermaine O'Neal: B
                          Fred Jones: T
                          Stephen Jackson: T (soon, please)
                          Jamaal Tinsley: T
                          Jeff Foster: B+
                          Austin Croshere: T (and I like him)
                          Ron Artest: G- for gone
                          Anthony Johnson: C
                          Sarunas Jasikevicius: A but needs to play.
                          Danny Granger: A because he's good. (see above)
                          David Harrison: T
                          Scott Pollard: B
                          Samaki Walker (who?)
                          Eddie Gill C

                          T=trade
                          G=gone

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

                            Originally posted by Anthem
                            Your rating of Tinsley is way too low.

                            Jamaal Tinsley: Total Indiana rating: C

                            1. Fundamentally sound: C [true once but he's got to be a solid B by now]
                            2. Strong work ethic: C [flat out not true]
                            3. Team before self: C [I'd give him a C+]
                            4. Loves defense: D [If Sarunas got a C, Jamaal should get a C+]
                            5. Makes his free throws: C [please explain how Anthony Johnson got an A- with an identical percentage]
                            6. Good attitude on court: C [I think he's got a decent attitude on the court, but I agree the pouting early in the season hurts him. Plus, he's not an emotional, expressive player, which hurts him in this category.]
                            7. Person of character off court: B [Fair enough]

                            If Tinsley's healthy and on his game, everybody in Indy loves him.
                            Several good points.

                            1. Fundamentals: Well, I suppose you've got a point that he's better than he was.
                            2. Work ethic: I guess it depends on the year. I'll concede that this has improved as well.

                            4. Loves defense. The category is not "good defense" so much as loves defense. This is why Freddy didn't get an A+ and its why Sarunas is slightly ahead of Tinsley. It would be fair to argue the category.
                            5. Free throws. Well, you got me on this one. In my defense, I guess I was thinking about crunch time where AJ unsually hits and Tins is unpredictable.
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rating the players, esp. Jax and Tins, by Indiana standards

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan
                              Several good points.

                              1. Fundamentals: Well, I suppose you've got a point that he's better than he was.
                              2. Work ethic: I guess it depends on the year. I'll concede that this has improved as well.

                              4. Loves defense. The category is not "good defense" so much as loves defense. This is why Freddy didn't get an A+ and its why Sarunas is slightly ahead of Tinsley. It would be fair to argue the category.
                              5. Free throws. Well, you got me on this one. In my defense, I guess I was thinking about crunch time where AJ unsually hits and Tins is unpredictable.
                              Actually Tins is far better at crunch time than he is the rest of the game. He wont hit them at all early in the game but hits most of them at crunch time. He has sealed a lot of games for us at the line.

                              My biggest complaint about Tinsley is that loses interest in the game and that shows at the line early on.

                              Putting Sarunas ahead of Tinsley in defense is absurd. Tinsley may not be in the top 5 on the team for D but Sarunas is not in the top 15.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X