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

A theory on chronicly injured players

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

  • A theory on chronicly injured players

    A lot of people label players as injury prone, but that seems like a rather empty statement to me. Some people even go so far to say that injuries are just part of the game, well that is true...but only to a degree.

    This is an honest question....how many major injuries did the Pacers sustain during the Larry Brown era. I am curious.

    But here is a thought. When watching Jamaal Tinsley play basketball, he seems very out of control with his body. I mean everytime he drives for a lay-up it seems like there is a good chance he will land wrong and hurt himself.

    One time I saw him land on his ankle and he obviously sprained it, but then he did some crazy contorted roll that seemed to probably injure the already sprained ankle more.

    Watch the Detroit Pistons play and tell me how many times they do something overly flashy. These guys have a certain awareness about their bodies and I honestly think the only way one of their guys gets injured is if someone tries to take them out. These guys are too smart to get injured. No way will one of the Pistons not land right after a dunk/rebound. They are aware of their bodies.

    I mean Tinsley seems quite content with being injured and his style of play generally leads to injuries. The guy just doesn't know how to use his body or land properly. It's a certain awareness. I don't think it has a damn thing to do with conditioning.

    I think Jermaine to a degree, lacks awareness about his body and this is why he often has minor injuries through the season. I enjoy Jermaine's passion this year, i think his passion is unrivaled. Sure, i made the JO is the worst Pacer ever (out of anger, obviously)...but he wasn't playing well and his attitude was horrible for a while this year. And obviously in my book do be a worst pacer ever, you have to be a lot more than just a role player. But anyways, i dont want to derail the message im trying to convey here.

    There is nothing outrageously special about the conditioning of the Wallace Brothers and hell.... all of Detroit. I think somewhere along the line, they learned to play smart basketball, this means being aware of your body.

    I'd almost consider them a lock to win the finals this year, because none of their guys will get injured....and every other team probably will be dealing with banged up/injured players in the playoffs.

    Tinsley is not going to learn, he is a street baller. He gets satisfaction out of circus passes, circus dribbling, circus drives, circus layups. He seems least concerned with winning of all the Pacers, but of course he could just be a reserved/unexpressive person....i'm willing to accept that.

    My point is, players who are injured a lot have no one to blame but themselves. If I was a coach I would yank players for putting their bodies at risk.

    I don't watch the Pistons a lot so maybe Kstat can elaborate here, the few times I have seen them play....I RARELY see their players even get close to a situation where they might get injured.

    I think this type of mentality is vastly underrated in the NBA. Seems like under Carlisle we've been dealing with all sorts of injuries, but I don't remember many injuries back in the "old days" of course I wasn't very old back in the old days, thats why I asked the question about how many injuries we had under Larry Brown.
    *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

  • #2
    Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

    I think it has more to do with the pistons (A) not plying out of position banging against much stronger players, and (B) being a finesse team. They dont absorb as much contact as most other teams, because they all pass and shoot the ball so well. They expend much less effort than most teams per game.

    If you watch the Pistons play, they absorb less contact than any team in the NBA, bar none. Aside from turning an ankle (which Ben does quite a bit), they dont get involved in many collisions.

    I would disagree that there are two pistons that are outragously conditioned, Rip and Ben. Ben's a 6'8" center but he's chisled out of solid granite. He's not going to wear down physically, because he's in such awesome shape.

    Rip's the biggest health-nut in the NBA. He's got his own personal chef making him nothing but diet and energy food every night. He's insanely durable, even by NBA standards. He never drinks beer, eats cheeseburgers, or parties late after games.

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

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

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

      I thought it was just the fact that the Pistons are "the luckiest team in NBA history"?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

        Damn Rip really is a Reggie Miller clone, I didn't know that about him...but it certainly makes sense.
        *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

          Originally posted by Jon Theodore
          Damn Rip really is a Reggie Miller clone, I didn't know that about him...but it certainly makes sense.
          I remember Rip was featured in Men's health magazine, and he referred to his body as a sportscar. "You only get the most out of it if you give it premium fuel." He realizes his cardiovascular shape is the one physical advantage he has over every other guard, so he trains his body every day to keep it.

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

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

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

            Originally posted by Kstat
            I think it has more to do with the pistons (A) not plying out of position banging against much stronger players, and (B) being a finesse team. They dont absorb as much contact as most other teams, because they all pass and shoot the ball so well. They expend much less effort than most teams per game.

            If you watch the Pistons play, they absorb less contact than any team in the NBA, bar none. Aside from turning an ankle (which Ben does quite a bit), they dont get involved in many collisions.


            Do you really believe that. Seems like a looney theory to me.

            I don't consider the Pistons a finesse team at all.

            They just happen to have players who are not injury prone.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

              If the Pistons are finesse, it is the most physical kind of finesse there is.
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

                My last point is this:

                The Pistons going back to larry brown have been a passing-oriented offense. There is no isolation of one player going 1-on-1 and initiating contact. It's much more free-flowing, and typically ends up with a player taking an shot that doesnt involve getting hammered.

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

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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

                  I imagine playing small ball would cause excess wear on the body. Particularly 3's and 4's playing at 4 and 5, like Granger or JO. Granger seems like a pretty solid/chissled guy himself (wirey-strong), so he may (or not) be able to take it, but JO is someone who's body just can't seem to take that for a full season. There's no shame in it, it's simply how it is.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck
                    Do you really believe that. Seems like a looney theory to me.

                    I don't consider the Pistons a finesse team at all.

                    They just happen to have players who are not injury prone.
                    That's the biggest misconception in the NBA, UB.

                    The Pistons are either short or rail-thin at 4 of 5 NBA positions. Their most physically imposing player is their 6'8" center.

                    The only Piston that can physically push around everybody else at his position is Billups.

                    Everything they do is predacated on quickness. They beat other teams to the spot on defense, they dont hack people in the post, and they force other teams to beat them over the top.

                    They also have a lot of length, which is effective at playing 2-3 feet off their men, and still bothering the shot without being physical.

                    On offense, it's all motion and ball movement. They thrive on mid-range shooting, not in the paint.

                    What do I have to support this? Two points:

                    1. The Pistons are last in the NBA in fouls committed.

                    2. The Pistons are 2nd in the NBA in layups allowed. They dont get physical at the rim. If they can't block it, they cut their losses and let it go.

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

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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

                      I dont think its style of play. Maybe some but by no means all of it.

                      I dont know what the deal is with Jamaal. I dont see this out of controll thing that you seem to see. When he came into the league he was not in good condition and that can certainly lead to injuries. But he has improved his conditioning a lot over the last couple of years. Maybe he should go back to cheesburgers and beer.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

                        Tinsley always looks out-of-shape to me. Dunno why.

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

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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

                          In four years with Brown, only two players lasted all 82 games. Mark Jackson twice and Antonio Davis twice. Of course most players rarely play all 82 games in a season injured or not.
                          Games Missed by Key Players (over 10)
                          '93-'94
                          Dale Davis 16
                          Byron Scott 15
                          Pooh Richardson 45
                          Haywoode Workman 17
                          Vern Fleming 27
                          '94-'95
                          Antonio Davis 38
                          Vern Fleming 27
                          Haywood Workman 13
                          '95-'96
                          Rik Smits 19
                          Eddie Johnson 20
                          Travis Best 23
                          '96-'97
                          Rik Smits 30
                          Derrick McKey 32
                          Jalen Rose 16
                          Haywood Workman 78
                          Fred Hoiberg 35
                          Under Bird
                          '97-98
                          Derrick Mckey 25
                          Fred Hoiberg 17
                          '98-'99 (50 games season)
                          Derrick Mckey 37
                          '99-'00
                          Al Harrington 32
                          Chris Mullin 35
                          Derrick Mckey 50
                          Under Zeke
                          '00-'01
                          Jalen Rose 10
                          Sam Perkins 18
                          Jeff Foster 11
                          Jonathan Bender 23
                          Derrick Mckey 16
                          '01-'02
                          Jermaine O'neal 10
                          Al Harrington 38
                          I think Ron Mercer missed a number of games too. I'm too lazy to do the math.
                          '02-'03
                          Ron Artest 13
                          Reggie Miller 12
                          Ron Mercer 10
                          Jonathan Bender 36
                          Erick Strickland 11
                          Austin Croshere 33
                          Under Rick
                          '03-'04
                          Jamal Tinsley 32
                          Jonathan Bender 59
                          Kenny Anderson 38
                          Scot Pollard 16
                          '04-'05
                          Ron Artest 75
                          Jermaine O'neal 38
                          Stephen Jackson 31
                          Jamal Tinsley 42
                          Reggie Miller 16
                          Anthony Johnson 19
                          Jeff Foster 21
                          David Harrison 37
                          Jonathan Bender 75
                          Scot Pollard 33

                          Looks like more players missed due to injury under Larry Brown than any of the other coaches in the last ten years. If player age , suspensions , benchings(Tinsley/Anderson)and Bender are taken into consideration it looks like a wash really. Although last year , even if you take suspensions into conderation alot of games missed to injury.
                          I'm in these bands
                          The Humans
                          Dr. Goldfoot
                          The Bar Brawlers
                          ME

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

                            Ok i didn't know, good work on finding those stats.

                            UB i already stated how empty of a statement "injury prone" is. Just saying the Pistons aren't Injury Prone basically means absolutely nothing.

                            And most layups allowed is HUGE and only further proves my theory true. thanks kstat
                            *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A theory on chronicly injured players

                              Now, don't you know, it's all David Craig's fault. Can't you tell, we've been so much better this year with Hicks' little brother as our trainer.

                              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X