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

Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

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

  • Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination?


    Monday, Oct. 2, 2006


    QUESTION OF THE DAY
    Conrad Brunner


    Q. Early reports have us starting Jamaal Tinsley, Stephen Jackson, Jermaine O'Neal, Al Harrington and Danny Granger. It's easy to argue that those are our best five players, but starting your best five doesn't always create the best rotation. In a playoff situation where the rotations are shortened, this lineup works. However, look what happens when you try to construct a 10-man rotation.

    The second unit-backcourt is easy. Saras Jasikevicius and Marquis Daniels are a nice combination. Saras is the shooter. Daniels is the slasher and the defender and is enough of a ballhandler to save Saras from backcourt pressure. However, unless you go with a rookie small forward, your remaining frontcourt options are all bigs. Surely, you can't play Jeff Foster, David Harrison, and Maceo Baston together. You have no perimeter threat and no one to guard wing players. Compare that second unit to the one you get if Foster starts in place of Granger. Now Granger is the second unit small forward and Baston is the power forward. We even eliminate the first-unit question about Harrington's ability to be a center.

    Do you think we can afford to start the reported lineup? (From Frank in Indianapolis)

    A. As usual, you make an excellent point. It's not unusual at all for a team's best five players to not necessarily comprise the most effective starting unit. The 76ers of the early 1980s had Marc Iavaroni, who would start but quickly give way to Bobby Jones. The Showtime Lakers had Kurt Rambis. More recently, the Spurs kept Manu Ginobili on the bench for a time with role-players like Malik Rose, Hedo Turkoglu – or Jackson – in the lineup.

    It's a formula, depending on a team's construction, that can work quite well.
    If I'm reading you right, you're suggesting using Foster in a form of Iavaroni/Rambis role, starting and playing the first rotation. Though Granger would come off the bench in that scenario, he would play starter's minutes and in all likelihood be on the finishing unit.

    There is merit in this suggestion and it's possible that's how things will play out. That's going to be one of the many intriguing subplots to the preseason as we all learn about not only the skill sets and personalities of so many new players, but how these various parts weave into the fabric of the team.

    The implied concern about the projected starting lineup is the possibility of too many scorers and not enough role-players, as well as the necessary balance between first and second units. Though I understand that concern, I tend to think there's a pretty good chance the projected lineup could work.

    Essentially, the only major personality change would be Granger for Foster. Harrington replaces Peja Stojakovic, so that's a scorer-for-scorer trade, with a little more defense and rebounding thrown in for good measure.

    Granger is a much bigger offensive threat than Foster but isn't a player that needs to be fed a steady diet of touches to be effective. His presence strengthens the perimeter defense, which relieves pressure from the big men to provide help defense. His mid-to-long-range shooting ability won't necessarily stretch a defense, but does give the Pacers the ability to keep the floor well spaced. It also gives defenses one less player it can leave in order to double-team elsewhere.

    The second unit could take shape nicely at the wing positions because there are a number of players that can interchange at shooting guard and small forward depending on matchups and hot hands: Jackson, Daniels and James White are all legitimate options at either spot.

    The frontcourt presumably will always feature either O'Neal or Harrington in order to keep a low-post threat on the floor, with Harrison a third possibility in that department. Foster and Baston would fill the other spot with the second unit, providing the necessary energy and rebounding.

    Using the San Antonio analogy, the Spurs won a title with Ginobili as the sixth man, and they won a title with him in the starting lineup. Either approach can work, provided all involved accept and fulfill their roles.

    Pacers.com

    Why Not Us ?


  • #2
    Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

    I'd rather swap Daniels for SJax and keep the Danny-Al-JO frontcourt.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

      I wish Daniels could shoot.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

        Yeah.... and I wish SJax could shoot. Or knew that he can't, either.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          I wish Daniels could shoot.

          I just took a quick glance, so don't go crazy on me statisticians, but Marquis has a better career FG percentage than Baby Al, Stephen Jackson, Granger and Tinsley. Interesting, huh?
          Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

            But look at his 3pt FG%. Yuck. However, look also at his 3pt FGAs. He knows he can't shoot them so he generally doesn't, thus his overall FG% is respectable.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

              There is this goofy fallacy that you need an entire second unit of five guys that fits together great.

              Few teams have a 10 man rotation and it's certainly unnecessary. Coaches also never substitute all 5 guys. The backups will always be with a few starters.

              When "the bench" of Saras/Marquis/Jeff and/or Hulk is on the floor they can be complemented by Al or Danny still being on the court at SF.

              You don't need a 1st five and a second 5. You need 8-9 dependable players with 2 or more having some positional flexibility.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

                I disagree with the overall assumption that JO, Al, DG, Jax, and Tinsley are our 5 best players. I'm certainly expecting Marquis to be better than Jackson.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

                  I think it's a pretty silly idea to not start either one of your two best perimeter defenders.

                  Why would you want SJax or Al Harrington to start the game guarding the Kobes, Lebrons, Wades, Pierces, Arenas and TMacs of the world when you have Quisy and The Gift riding pine?
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

                    My biggest reason to support putting Granger in the starting lineup would be stronger perimeter defense, which in all likelihood would assist in keeping JO and Harrington out of early foul trouble.
                    Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

                      I think I agree with everything in the poster's question.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

                        S-Jaxx Will have a Big Year In 06-07 Season.

                        i wish They Traded Tinsley

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

                          Personally If I was coach I would run a starting five of
                          PG-Tinsley
                          Sg-Granger
                          SF-Al
                          PF-JO
                          C-Harrison
                          I would go big.I want to have a physical team, this unit has some weaknesses obviously lack of long range shooting is a big one but again if this unit is used right it could cause a ton of mismatches on the other end.

                          Of the bench we then come out with
                          G-Saras
                          G-Daniels
                          Sf-Jackson
                          PF-Al, JO,Granger(depending if we want to go small, or big)
                          C-Foster

                          Rick Carlisle has many options in terms of mixing and matching and I hope Rick uses it to his advantage.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

                            I'm going to try to look at it a little differently.

                            We know that Tinsley & Jackson will start in the backcourt.

                            I would hope that Granger & O'Neal are the starting forwards. So that leaves Foster, Harrison or Harrington as the final starter.

                            If you start Foster then you have a "2nd unit" of .....
                            Harrison, Harrington, Daniels & Sarunas

                            If you start Harrison then you habe a "2nd unit" of .....
                            Foster, Harrington, Daniels & Sarunas

                            If you start Harrington then you have a "2nd unit" of .....
                            Foster, Harrison, Daniels & Sarunas

                            Looking at those 3 choices, option 3 is by far the worse. I think comes down to who you want to pair with Harrington. Not that he would be out there only when Harrington is on the floor but I think Harrison makes the most sence.

                            That would mean, Foster gets the start. He shouldn't play anymore than he did last season but with the other 4 guys on the floor & the players assigned as "the bench", Foster makes the most sence to me.

                            Maybe I shouldn't have done this, I want Harrison to start!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Is Projected Lineup Really The Best Combination? {Pacers.com 10.2.06}

                              Originally posted by Diesel_81 View Post
                              Personally If I was coach I would run a starting five of
                              PG-Tinsley
                              Sg-Granger
                              SF-Al
                              PF-JO
                              C-Harrison
                              I would go big.I want to have a physical team, this unit has some weaknesses obviously lack of long range shooting is a big one but again if this unit is used right it could cause a ton of mismatches on the other end.

                              Of the bench we then come out with
                              G-Saras
                              G-Daniels
                              Sf-Jackson
                              PF-Al, JO,Granger(depending if we want to go small, or big)
                              C-Foster

                              Rick Carlisle has many options in terms of mixing and matching and I hope Rick uses it to his advantage.

                              Im not sure I would start Harrison....as a matter of fact Ive covered that in my own thread about him. I can tell you though that I agree with this "jumbo" lineup as one Im excited about seeing together on the floor. I love Granger on the perimeter ( I know Im in the minority), I love the idea of being the biggest, meannest, most physical team we can be, and I even love (except for Foster) how your projected second unit looks together. I like the idea of playing Jackson off the bench as a primary scorer against weaker defenders....I think that fits his game and uses his strengths better.

                              Good job diesel, in my opinion.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X