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

Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

    I was thinking back on the fact that a lot of NBA draftees get compared to a current or former NBA star, to describe that player's potential (NBAdraft.net is maybe the biggest recent culprit of this).

    Going off memory, I'm going to do some hindsight analysis of the more memorable draft comparisons. Here's a sample:

    1991: Billy Owens/Magic Johnson

    This might be one of the most impactful draft comparisons of all time. Owens was a good all-around player at Syracuse. Notice I said good, not great. He could do a little of everything. Of course, his size and ability to handle the ball led people to compare him to Magic Johnson. Well, unfortunately scouts neglected to mention that Magic could pass the ball.

    Of course, that all didn't matter, because most NBA GMs were so naive that the mere mention of Magic turned Owens from a mid-1st rounder into a blue chip prospect. The Sacramento Kings took Owens with the 3rd pick in the draft, ahead of guys like Dikembe Mutombo....Steve Smith....Terrell Brandon....Dale Davis.... you get the idea. Never one to be outdone in the realm of draft-day stupidity, the Golden State Warriors traded Mitch Richmond, the 9th leading scorer in the league for him.

    Owens went on to have an injury-riddled career, and never proved anything close to either a #3 pick or Mitch Richmond. He also went down as a glaring example of what happens when you buy too much into pre-draft comparisons.

    1992:Shaquille O'Neal/Wilt Chamberlain

    The irony of this one is: this is both one of the loftiest comparisions ever made, and it may very well be on of the most accurate.

    Coming out of LSU, Shaq was a beast and everybody knew it. He was the most physically dominant college player to come out in over 30 years. He dunked on most everybody, he had quickness to match his size. The obvious comparison was Wilt, and it went a long way towards making him the big name of the 1992 draft.

    In hindsight, it was one of the few #1 picks in the last 20 years where the best player actually was taken first. Shaq's proven to be every bit as dominant by NBA standards as Wilt was, despite lesser stats. His impact on the game is similiar. Wilt has 2 more MVPs and 5 fewer scoring titles, but Shaq more imprtantly has one more ring and 3 finals MVPs in 5 tries, while Wilt was 1-4 in this area.

    The bottom line, Shaq panned out. I think we can all agree Wilt and Shaq are similiar players.

    Alonzo Mourning/Bill Russell

    Just as Shaq is unquestionably the best player from the 1992 draft class, Mourning is just as surely the 2nd-best player. However, the comparison is far less accurate.

    At first glance, it doesn't look so bad. Both Mourning and Russell were defensive-minded big men who were both a little short for the position, but made up for it with moxie and intimidation. Both are among the best shot-blockers of all time.

    However, this is where the comparison ends. Russell was, above all, a winner: 11 rings in 13 seasons. As for Mourning? He has yet to even make a finals appearance in the same amount of time. One could argue that this has more to do with Russell's teamates than Mourning's lack of leadership, but Mourning has repeatedly allowed himself to disappear in the biggest games, against both Chicago and NY. You can't tell me that Russell wouldnt have found a way to get to ONE finals, even on Mourning's mediocre teams.

    That, and I've never seen a picture or video of Russell flexing for the crowd after tying his shoelaces correctly. That alone is enough to kill this comparison.

    Tom Guggliotta/Larry Bird

    Maybe the most overused cliche in draft day history is the tall white guy with a nice shot that is compared to Larry Bird.

    What is it, anyway? We don't have enough average white scrubs to look back on for comprarisons? Larry suddenly becomes the one white guy in NBA history when people try to drum up comparisons?

    In fairness to Googs, he was actually a good player at NC St, and was probably worth the 6th pick in the 1992 draft. In his prime, Googs was a 20/9 guy, a fringe all-star, before injuries killed his brief stardom.

    The problem here isnt with Googs, but with people that insist on saddling a kid with expectations he can't hope to meet, just because Larry Bird is a nice name to throw out there. Larry Bird was not just a shooter or a rebounder. He was as extremely gifted passer, he was one of the greatest clutch players of all time. He was a 3-time MVP, and he has 3 rings to back it up.

    The next time a white guy with some skill comes into the NBA, the draft should ban any and all uses of the word "Bird." It's embarrassing, and its unfair. Instead, names like Kerr, Ferry, Dudley and Ehlo should be substituted. They're not flashy names, but they're actually guys who can be passed up...

    Clarence Weatherspoon/Charles Barkley

    Ah, "Little Barkley." One of my favorite comparisons. Clarence was a 6'7" 250 lb PF coming out of Southern miss. He could rebound and score in bunches, and shared Charles's short, stocky build. He was already being compared to Sir CHarles coming out of college, and when he was drafted by the Sixers, the name "little Barkley" stuck.

    My problem with this? Well, the same problem I had when Dallas drafted Randy White, Karlm Malone's protoge, in part because they had passed up Malone himself 4 years earlier. If Philly wanted Charles Barkley, they should have kept Charles Barkley. I don't get it, they just traded the guy, and now all of a sudden they try to vicariously re-aquire him?

    The sad thing is, Waetherspoon was a terror in the paint, averaging about 17 and 9 over his first four season. But when word got out that, unlike Barkley, Spoon's range didn't extend outside the paint, and he had zero passing skills, it suddenly became very easy to take him out of a offensively, and like Charles, Spoon wasn't going to dominate defensively as a 6'7" fat guy.

    The sad irony is, like Charles, Spoon was run out of Philly as well. However, while Barkley won an MVP post-philly, Spoon pretty much dropped out of the league.

    Harold Miner/Michael Jordan

    The only nickname more laughable than "Little Barkley?" "Baby Jordan." Of course, in retrospect, this might not be as bad a nickname as it seems, since Miner in his prime was probably about as gifted as Jordan was in 7th grade...

    Like Bird, Jordan got the same comparison stigma. For a good 5-6 year period, any rookie that came into the NBA and flashed some cool dunking skills was almost immidiately compared to Jordan. At USC, Miner was a mini-highlight reel. Unfortunately, Miner became a poster-boy for why NBA GMs should never, ever judge a draftee based on a 30-second clip of his highlights. An NBA game is 48-minutes long. Highlight plays last a few seconds. You do the math. That's 47+ minutes left in the game that you have to do fundamental things. Miner didn't get that, nor did the Miami Heat when they took Miner 12th overall.

    In Miner's defense, he delivered in the NBA exactly what he delivered in college. I wouldnt even call him a disappointment. He supplied multiple spectatular plays, won two dunk contests, and generally was an effective scoring punch off the bench, which was probably what his talent level afforded.

    Unfortunately, the name "Baby Jordan" turned him into a punchline. Because people were shocked and disappointed that a 6'4" 2-guard with poor handles and no shot whatsoever couldnt suddenly step in and dominate like Jordan, Miner was almost blacklisted by GMs who didnt want to have the name "Harold Miner" on their rosters.

    I contend that in the right situation, Miner could have been an excellent 6th man. Unfortunately, "Baby Jordan" killed his career before he was ever given the chance.

    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
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

    George McCloud... Magic Johnson was one that stuck in my head for years... What a waste of everything. The man who sprained his ankle by talking on the phone.

    Harold Minor as Baby Jordan... yikes.
    "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

      Originally posted by Kaufman
      Harold Minor as Baby Jordan... yikes.
      Miner added.

      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

      • #4
        Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

        Originally posted by Kstat
        pens when you buy too much into pre-draft comparisons.

        [b]1992:Shaquille O'Neal

        Coming out of LSU, Shaq was a beast and everybody knew it. He was the most physically dominant college player to come out in over 30 years. He dunked on most everybody, he had quickness to match his size.
        Yet in their one and only meeting, Matt Nover bested Shaq. Obviously Nover should've been up there with Wilt too!













        -Bball
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

          Are we talking sweet sixteen here, or Blue Chips??
          "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

            Originally posted by Kaufman
            Are we talking sweet sixteen here, or Blue Chips??
            DOH!... They had two meetings didn't they? I forgot about Blue Chips. ...and I wish I could've kept Blue Chips forgotten!

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

              Kevin Arnold had a great line in the Wonder Years - "the people and things you want to forget the most are often the things you remember the longest..."
              "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

                Originally posted by Bball
                Yet in their one and only meeting, Matt Nover bested Shaq.



                -Bball
                You mean when Shaq had 36 pts, 12 rebounds and 5 blocks against him?

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

                  I can't recall Alonzo Mourning ever playing on a team of future Hall of Famers like Bill Russell.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

                    My favorite is another Magic Johnson comparison..and that was for employee #8, Antoine Walker. Big man..can handle the ball, pass the ball, post up, drive....basically it was a legitmate comparison looking on the outside.

                    He was just missing the part the really counts, the heart. That and work ethic are what separates the greats from the "pretty-damn-good-but-didn't-do-everything-they-could"s

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

                      Originally posted by Mr._Basketball
                      You mean when Shaq had 36 pts, 12 rebounds and 5 blocks against him?
                      Sort of... I mean when IU continued playing in the tourney and Shaq went home.

                      -Bball
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

                        Originally posted by Bball
                        Sort of... I mean when IU continued playing in the tourney and Shaq went home.

                        -Bball
                        Yes, that was definitely because Matt Nover outplayed Shaq.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

                          Originally posted by Mr._Basketball
                          Yes, that was definitely because Matt Nover outplayed Shaq.
                          I never looked at it that way... good point.

                          -Bball
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

                            Jonathon Bender/ Kevin Garnett

                            That is when we got the famous line, "All the comparison's to KG are nice and all, but I'm my own player, I'm Jonathon Bender..."

                            Oh how right he was.
                            House Name: Pacers

                            House Sigil:


                            House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Looking back on the accuracy of draft-day comparisons, good and bad

                              Originally posted by Diamond Dave
                              Jonathon Bender/ Kevin Garnett

                              That is when we got the famous line, "All the comparison's to KG are nice and all, but I'm my own player, I'm Jonathon Bender..."

                              Oh how right he was.
                              Indeed..thats the best of them all. I can't remember how many times through the years posters tried convincing me that he'd be just as good as KG because he was just as athletic.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X