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

Insider Request

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

  • Insider Request

    Anyone who could post the article would be greatly appreciated.

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...26id%3d2317102

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...26id%3d2317689

    Hip-Hop ,Guitar & Martial ArtsEnthusiast
    Tony Jaa could beat you up with his pinky.

  • #2
    Re: Insider Request

    Diaw leads strong group of Most Improved candidates
    Insider
    Hollinger
    By John Hollinger
    ESPN Insider
    Archive
    click this

    When it comes to breakout years, few can match what Phoenix Suns forward Boris Diaw has done this season.

    When we last saw the 23-year-old Frenchman, he was mired at the end of the bench for the lowly Atlanta Hawks. After briefly breaking into the starting lineup as a rookie, he quickly fell out of the rotation in his sophomore season and by the end of the year rarely saw action. When he did play, his inability to connect from long range and his reluctance to shoot from any range were a constant source of frustration. He was, arguably, the worst player on the worst team in the league.

    That all changed when he arrived in Phoenix as a throw-in to the sign-and-trade deal for Joe Johnson. Suns coach Mike D'Antoni thought the 6-foot-8 Diaw's combination of size and versatility would be an asset in Phoenix's open-court system and figured Diaw might be a diamond in the rough. But even D'Antoni wasn't totally sure.

    Boris Diaw
    Andrew D. Bernstein/Getty Images
    Boris Diaw has soared beyond the Suns' expectations.

    "I thought he could be effective as a four or five," said D'Antoni. "But I didn't know if he could guard fours or fives because he always played one, two or three [in Atlanta]. ... Then he came in and he could guard fours and fives really well. That just opened his whole game up, because he can drive to the basket, he plays like a point guard at the four position, and we can run offense through him."

    Diaw took that opportunity and ran with it, thriving as a power forward in the Suns' small-ball lineup and creating nightly mismatches with his varied skills. He averages 11.7 points, 6.5 rebounds and 5.9 assists for the Pacific Division-leading Suns. Additionally, Diaw is shooting 49.7 percent and has keyed one of the league's most improved defenses. As a result, he's one of the favorites to win this year's Most Improved Player award.

    Diaw credits a better fit in Phoenix for his sudden blooming.

    "The philosophy of the game, they way we play here in Phoenix, it's really unselfish," said Diaw in his French accent. "A lot of passes, a lot of shots, a lot of up and down. The game is faster, too. When I'm on the court I'm able to read better and make passes to my teammates because I know where they're going to be."

    Needless to say, his exploits have left those who saw him in Atlanta flabbergasted. While many Hawks fans complained that the team gave up too much by sending two No. 1s to the Suns for Johnson, absolutely nobody said a peep about throwing Diaw into the deal. His hesitant offense made him a bad fit in the backcourt, and the Hawks' overcrowded forward position made moving him to the frontcourt impossible.

    "You've got to be happy for a player like that." his former coach, Mike Woodson, said. "I think he's always had skills. I think the fact they're playing him at the four and five has put him in a position where he's found a niche for his game."

    That's not to say Diaw is done enduring growing pains. His shooting remains a work in progress -- 20 percent on 3s, 69.3 percent from the line -- and the passive play that marked his years in Atlanta still creeps to the fore once in a while. For instance, during one sequence in his return to Atlanta last week, Diaw caught a pass in the lane and had a chance to post up from short range. Instead he took a dribble, surveyed his options and fed the ball back out to the perimeter, earning a three-second violation for his efforts.

    "He's still got to be more aggressive, he's still got to dunk with authority, he's still got to work on his shot," said D'Antoni. "He has those [reluctant to shoot] tendencies, but you can't get upset with him. That's how he plays, that's his game. He'll do that, but I think little by little we can get him to be a little bit more aggressive in finishing."

    Despite D'Antoni's efforts, Diaw isn't planning to go on a Kobe-esque gunning rampage anytime soon. That unselfishness, though taken to extremes at times in Atlanta, is part of his style.

    "I don't think I changed a lot," said Diaw of his breakout. "I still play the same way, kind of a versatile player. I got better for sure, I get better every year, but I don't think I changed as a player."

    Regardless, he's changed enough to have the inside track on the Most Improved trophy. "I didn't realize he was this good," admitted D'Antoni, even though the Suns had been interested in Diaw since he was playing professionally in France.

    But the race isn't over just yet. Here's a look at some others who figure to get votes for Most Improved (in alphabetical order):

    • Steve Blake, Portland Trail Blazers: Blake was a free agent in the offseason and wasn't exactly overcome with offers after shooting .328 in Washington. He finally landed in Portland, where he figured to be the third-string point guard behind Sebastian Telfair and rookie Jarrett Jack. Instead, Blake has nearly doubled his PER, taken over the starting job and helped make the Blazers much more respectable of late.

    • Chris Bosh, Toronto Raptors: In his third pro season, Bosh has taken another big step forward, launching himself past Carmelo Anthony as the third-best player from the loaded 2003 draft. Bosh's averages of 22.6 points and 9.1 rebounds are so impressive that he'll probably pull off the rare feat of making the All-Star squad despite playing for a horrible team. It's not like he's just been firing away for a bad team, either -- he's hitting 50.6 percent from the floor and 81.5 percent from the line.

    • Elton Brand, Los Angeles Clippers: With a new commitment to conditioning and an improved mid-range jump shot, Brand has pushed himself into the MVP race and kept the Clippers on pace for a rare playoff berth. The lighter-on-his-feet Brand is averaging career highs of 24.9 points and 2.6 blocks while shooting a sizzling 52.3 percent from the floor. He's been so good, in fact, that the Western Conference coaches might not be able to shaft him this time when picking reserves for the All-Star Game.

    • Josh Howard, Dallas Mavericks: Who says four-year college players can't become stars? Howard is another stud from the 2003 draft, stolen at the end of the first round by the Mavs, who've watched him become the second-best player on what is arguably the league's second-best team. His numbers (15.8 points, 6.9 boards) are solid rather than spectacular, but he has one of the league's lowest turnover rates and is a major reason Dallas has improved so much defensively. When he plays at least 15 minutes, the Mavs are a Pistons-like 30-7.

    • Andres Nocioni, Chicago Bulls: I didn't include any second-year players on this list except Nocioni, because in general we expect those guys to make sharp improvements. (Besides, have you seen the sophs this year? Ugh.)

    Nocioni is the exception, for two reasons. First, he was a much older rookie -- coming to the league at 25 -- so nobody expected him to take a major step up in year two. Second, of all the players to play more than 2,000 minutes or 70 games in 2004-05 and on pace to do so again in 2005-06, he's improved his PER more than anyone except Bosh (see chart).

    Now that he's accustomed to the NBA's longer 3-point line, Nocioni has nearly doubled his 3-point accuracy -- from a miserable 25.8 percent to a nearly league-leading 47.5 percent. With that threat established, he can also use shot fakes to set up his drives to the basket. Unfortunately, he's playing fewer minutes because Luol Deng is healthy again, but that's not his fault.

    Biggest PER improvement, 2004-05 to 2005-06*
    Players 2005-06 PER 2004-05 PER Difference
    Chris Bosh 23.55 17.54 6.01
    Andres Nocioni 15.75 9.96 5.79
    Kobe Bryant 28.83 23.28 5.55
    Chauncey Billups 24.32 19.05 5.27
    Elton Brand 27.76 22.54 5.22
    *Players with 70 games or 2,000 minutes in 2004-05 and on pace for the same in 2005-06

    • Tony Parker, San Antonio Spurs: Stat of the year: Parker, not Shaquille O'Neal or Tim Duncan, leads the NBA in points in the paint. Yes, it's been beaten to death, but it's still amazing. Diaw's teammate on les blues has done so largely by eschewing the 3-pointer -- he's tried only 22 all year -- in favor of repeatedly driving to the rim for layups and short floaters. The change appears to have worked, as he is shooting 54.8 percent (!), good for second-best in the NBA, and should be making his first All-Star appearance.

    • Smush Parker, Los Angeles Lakers: Of course, Tony might not even be the most improved Parker. Smush's career seemed headed straight to nowhere until he arrived in L.A., but he's taken over the starting point guard job for a Lakers team that appears playoff bound. He's not just handing off to Kobe either, putting up 11.5 points and snatching 1.6 steals.

    • Gerald Wallace, Charlotte Bobcats: It's no accident that the Bobcats dropped 13 in a row after Wallace went out of the lineup -- the 'Cats are a quasi-respectable 9-21 when Wallace plays at least 15 minutes, and a putrid 2-15 when he doesn't. The high-flying forward leads the NBA in steals and is 10th in blocks, a rare defensive double whammy normally reserved for the likes of David Robinson and Hakeem Olajuwon, and he's also upped his field-goal average nearly a hundred points. The league's other 29 teams should be embarrassed right now. They paid scant attention to Wallace in the free-agent market this past summer.

    • David West, Hornets: Chris Paul might be the biggest reason for New Orleans/Oklahoma City's surprise playoff run, but West's development runs a close second. After a sophomore season that was ruined by injuries and poor shot selection, West showed up this year with a greatly improved jump shot and shrewder judgment regarding when to use it. That has upped his field-goal mark from .436 to .512, and he's improved his other numbers to 17.0 points and 8.0 boards per game -- all of which makes him the biggest threat to Diaw for the award.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Insider Request

      Three new Cavs add up to one big train wreck
      Insider
      Hollinger
      By John Hollinger
      ESPN Insider
      Archive
      click this

      They say good things come in small packages. But bad things can come in packages too, and not necessarily small ones.

      For further proof, just take a look at this year's most disappointing players. As luck would have it, each has been packaged by fate with an equally disappointing partner, either by playing with him, being traded for him or being replaced by him.

      Having already gone over my candidates for most improved, it's only fitting that I also present the list of candidates for the year's "least improved" -- those who dropped off last year's "most" list. Since the league won't be presenting an award in this category, I have my own name for it -- the All-Train Wreck team.

      Before I present the list, note that I left off a few people whose problems seem more related to injuries than ineffectiveness – Peja Stojakovic, Tim Duncan, Quentin Richardson, Jamaal Tinsley and Jason Collins, for instance, don't appear on the list below.

      And of course, you'll notice the members of the All-Train Wreck come in packages. For instance:

      Larry Hughes and Antonio Daniels. Washington thought it had a replacement for the departed Hughes when it signed Daniels, but he's been arguably the most disappointing player in the entire league. The steady scoring off the bench that Daniels provided in Seattle instead turned into a stream of bricks this year. He's shooting a career-worst 37.5 percent from the floor, and his once passable 3-point shot is now hitting at ghastly 17.0 percent clip. In nearly the same minutes, his scoring average dropped from 11.2 to 6.9.

      Here's the punch line -- it turns out the Wizards were screwed either way. Using their full midlevel exception on an unproductive Daniels was bad, but dropping $60 million to keep Hughes might have been worse. After a breakout 2004-05, Hughes struggled to mesh with LeBron James in Cleveland's backcourt. He somehow found a way to take nearly five fewer shots a game but still make more turnovers, and his league-leading steal total of a year ago has been cut nearly in half. Making matters worse, Hughes suffered his annual 20-game injury and is back on the injured -- 'scuse me, inactive -- list.

      PER: "All-Train Wreck" Team
      PLAYER 2004-05 PER 2005-06 PER DIFFERENCE
      Antonio Daniels 18.08 10.86 7.22
      Desmond Mason 14.72 7.55 7.17
      Larry Hughes 21.63 14.56 7.07
      Damon Jones 15.57 9.17 6.40
      Donyell Marshall 19.92 14.13 5.79
      Devin Brown 14.57 10.72 3.85
      Michael Finley 14.34 10.50 3.84
      Brent Barry 14.01 11.00 3.01
      Jamaal Magloire 12.80 11.76 1.04

      Desmond Mason and Jamaal Magloire. Is it possible for both teams to get the worst of a deal? Both Mason and Magloire have become significantly worse in their new homes, leaving execs in Milwaukee and Oklahoma City scrambling to hit the Ctrl-Z buttons.

      Let's start with Mason, my choice for the worst offensive player in the league who still gets plays run for him. He's hitting a career-worst 37.8 percent with his weird, hands-way-out-in-front-of-the-body shooting motion, and finding time to commit nearly two turnovers a game on the side. He suddenly forgot how to pass, too, registering 0.9 assists per game.

      As for the Bucks, Magloire was supposed to rebound from an injury-plagued 2004-05 campaign and solidify the Bucks' soft interior. Guess not. Milwaukee remains a poor defensive team even with the Big Cat, and his numbers have never approached those of his All-Star season in 2003-04. It's hard to know what's more puzzling -- how a guy who shot better than 70 percent from the line three years in a row can be mired at 54.3 percent this year, or how a guy who never gets the ball can still make 2.4 turnovers per game.

      Michael Finley, Brent Barry and Devin Brown. San Antonio's wingmen (current and former) aren't looking nearly as mighty as they did a year ago. En route to the Spurs' championship, Barry and Brown played important roles off the bench with their shooting and ball handling. That hasn't been the case this year. Barry's normally reliable shot has deserted him -- for a guy who might be the best standstill shooter of the past decade, 34.7 percent on 3-pointers is unacceptable.

      Meanwhile, Brown left as a free agent for Utah but forgot to take his game with him. The 6-foot-5 swingman is shooting a career-low 39.8 percent and has nearly doubled his turnovers from a year ago in similar minutes. It's been so bad that he was passed over for a start this week in favor of Milt Palacio.

      Then again, his replacement hasn't done any better. Michael Finley was supposed to energize San Antonio's second unit with his offensive skills, but instead has looked very old. He's averaging a modest 9.4 points despite plenty of minutes (27.4 a game) and, like many players on this list, is shooting a career low at 38.3 percent.

      Damon Jones and Donyell Marshall. It's kind of amazing to see the Cavs at 27-18 when you look at what a disaster their free agents have been. I mentioned Hughes above, but after the Cavs nabbed him, they turned their attention to Jones and Marshall, both of whom have been tremendous disappointments.

      Jones, the self-proclaimed best shooter in the world, has disguised that fact exceptionally well this year. He's hitting only 36.9 percent overall and 35.7 percent on his trademark 3-point shots, both of which are huge declines from his breakout year in Miami in 2004-05. He's also annoying fans with his bragging and strutting, stuff that plays much better with the locals when the shots are falling. Since he's a sieve on defense and doesn't create shots for others, he needs to start finding the range.

      At least Marshall has still been an effective player, but he's not nearly the weapon he was a year ago in Toronto. Marshall shot over 40 percent on 3-pointers for three straight seasons, but the trip across the border has devalued him to a mere 31.9 percent in Cleveland. With LeBron James providing him with plenty of open looks from his favored spot in the corner, that figure needs to improve.

      Comment

      Working...
      X