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

Foster's shooting

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

  • #61
    Re: Foster's shooting

    Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
    Two questions:

    Did you take your "Just Like You" doll?

    Did you rate the $20 chicken finger dinner ?...........
    No, I was flying solo. (Edit, I'm trying to imagine the "Just Like Me" doll... I fear the photoshops you are now contemplating...)

    I've had the $20 chicken finger dinner, its the best $20 chicken finger dinner I've ever had.
    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


    • #62
      Re: Foster's shooting

      Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
      Neither.

      I think a Foster tip-in is such a low percentage play that I'd rather he tip the ball back to the perimeter where our guards can control it.

      But Carlisle will never go for that, since he's so concerned with sending everybody back on defense in the first place, ignoring the opportunity for ORs.

      He makes half of his put backs. What would the pct. be of our team retaining possession on a tip-out? I'd say a 50-50 chance or break even.

      Although Jeff does tip out the ball on numerous occasions that leads to another brick by Tins or Jax. But, the net in his tip-outs are probably positive.
      .

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Foster's shooting

        Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
        Is it not sad that when I saw this topic I thought "great, another player invoved in a shooting incident"


        Well at least we can laugh about it a little, as long as it doesn't happen again that is.



        Last night reminded me of another layup problem - Jackson, but mostly on fastbreaks. Just like to start the Philly game where he missed his first shot on a decent break look right at the rim. Of course he missed that open HC layup vs Utah the other day too. But when I started the "don't run..." thread he was a big part of what I see wrong with the first unit breaking. Not just him by any stretch, but his style of play (close to the floor) makes him problematic on breaks it seems.

        Funny thing is he went out and dropped a bunch of much harder and more clutch shots later in the game.


        Anyway it turned into about 4 other players in the Philly game instead of Jeff. It seemed like everyone was leaving 1 or 2 short. It's so frustrating when they make things harder on themselves.
        Jeff shot great tonight, he made every shot he took, he didn't miss one
        As I just noted, and this is all I'm asking. You are at the rim and big, score the ball. I don't need 16 points, I just need 4-5 from dunk range if that's all you take. If every night Jeff made his 3 one foot shots, missed 1 tip-back, and then missed 1-2 short jumpers that came up in the flow his PCT would be on track and this wouldn't be a thread.

        How important is it? You tell me...
        The Pacers didn't get their first lead until Jeff Foster completed a three-point play to make it 60-59

        All this rhetoric over a player who takes the NINTH most FGA's on the team! I don't care how many offensive boards he's accredited with, the guy only shoots 4 times a game!
        First of all, nice spin. Let's go by most MISSED FGs instead. Who in December has missed the most shots. Daniels and Williams haven't been playing as much.

        His 31 misses (of 50) in DEC make him 7th on the team for that. And to put some perspective on it, Cabbages has only missed 37 (of 70), Granger has only missed 44 (of 100).

        Second of all he only shoots when he has the ball AT THE RIM. 25 of those misses were at the rim. 28 were in the paint. I don't mind a layup instead of a dunk, but you have to make it from 1 foot away.

        He should be over 70%, not 35%. He gets the 4-5 great looks that would be dunked if it was Dampier or David Lee (both over 65% with enough FGAs to qualify even). Guys like Hunter (68%) and Turiaf (60%) take similar shots and shoot about as much as he does. And BTW David Lee has 10.1 rpg himself to go with that inside boosted FG%.

        Jeff in December is 50th in FG% out of ESPN listed Centers with at least 40 FGs (so being fair and not including guys that are 4-8 as better than him).



        If it's a problem when Tinsley misses that type of shot, it's a problem when Jeff does. There is a reason they are backing off using him in the low post PnR situations and this is it.

        You think Dale Davis would let an open 1 foot attempt go short? Jeff in the last few seasons has shot 55%. This last month he's been WAY off that pace.

        Why does it upset SOME people to hear that FACT stated? Clearly I'm not the only fan noticing the problem.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Foster's shooting

          He makes half of his put backs.
          No he doesn't. Not in December at least. Where did you get that stat?

          Seth, why do you take two of the worst performances by Foster and dissect them so thoroughly? Because it fits your agenda? I could do the same for a few of his good performances and make him look like an all-star.
          Trying to lay any blame on losses for Foster's 46% instead of 55% is merely grabbing at straws and absolutely absurd!!!
          Beat that straw man till he's dead. Kick 'em, he's getting back up I think.


          Originally posted by Naptown Seth
          I think the team is playing much better ball with Jeff in the starting lineup. I just think he's been terrible with putbacks the last month or so, something he's had problems with in the past.
          Hmmm, seems to be lacking in "loss blame" if you ask me.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Foster's shooting

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post


            Well at least we can laugh about it a little, as long as it doesn't happen again that is.



            Last night reminded me of another layup problem - Jackson, but mostly on fastbreaks. Just like to start the Philly game where he missed his first shot on a decent break look right at the rim. Of course he missed that open HC layup vs Utah the other day too. But when I started the "don't run..." thread he was a big part of what I see wrong with the first unit breaking. Not just him by any stretch, but his style of play (close to the floor) makes him problematic on breaks it seems.

            Funny thing is he went out and dropped a bunch of much harder and more clutch shots later in the game.


            Anyway it turned into about 4 other players in the Philly game instead of Jeff. It seemed like everyone was leaving 1 or 2 short. It's so frustrating when they make things harder on themselves.

            As I just noted, and this is all I'm asking. You are at the rim and big, score the ball. I don't need 16 points, I just need 4-5 from dunk range if that's all you take. If every night Jeff made his 3 one foot shots, missed 1 tip-back, and then missed 1-2 short jumpers that came up in the flow his PCT would be on track and this wouldn't be a thread.

            How important is it? You tell me...




            First of all, nice spin. Let's go by most MISSED FGs instead. Who in December has missed the most shots. Daniels and Williams haven't been playing as much.

            His 31 misses (of 50) in DEC make him 7th on the team for that. And to put some perspective on it, Cabbages has only missed 37 (of 70), Granger has only missed 44 (of 100).

            Second of all he only shoots when he has the ball AT THE RIM. 25 of those misses were at the rim. 28 were in the paint. I don't mind a layup instead of a dunk, but you have to make it from 1 foot away.

            He should be over 70%, not 35%. He gets the 4-5 great looks that would be dunked if it was Dampier or David Lee (both over 65% with enough FGAs to qualify even). Guys like Hunter (68%) and Turiaf (60%) take similar shots and shoot about as much as he does. And BTW David Lee has 10.1 rpg himself to go with that inside boosted FG%.

            Jeff in December is 50th in FG% out of ESPN listed Centers with at least 40 FGs (so being fair and not including guys that are 4-8 as better than him).



            If it's a problem when Tinsley misses that type of shot, it's a problem when Jeff does. There is a reason they are backing off using him in the low post PnR situations and this is it.

            You think Dale Davis would let an open 1 foot attempt go short? Jeff in the last few seasons has shot 55%. This last month he's been WAY off that pace.

            Why does it upset SOME people to hear that FACT stated? Clearly I'm not the only fan noticing the problem.

            Oh, it's a problem, alright, a very minuscule one. I get pissed when he misses the cribs, also. However, I tend to look at his overall game and the many other great things that he does that offsets two missed tips a game (shots that we wouldn't have had anyway, if he rebounded as the rest of the team).

            I would venture to say him shooting 55% would have not resulted in any more wins.

            JO is shooting the same pct......take away his dunks and he's probably hitting 35%.

            I could cite you probably a dozen of shooting pct. scenarios, that would have a much greater impact on our team than Foster's measly 4 attempts per game.
            .

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Foster's shooting

              Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
              Yeah, I had the pleasure of spending the evening on the Magnificent Mile, shopping. Good times. Not. Seriously, how many of you Dads have ever had to go to the American Girl Store? Ugh.

              I'll catch the game soon.
              It is frightening.

              That's not exageration of metaphor, its literally frightening. Its not frightening while you are there, while you are there its just vaguely repulsive. However, when you leave and start walking down the Mile again to go to wherever is next on your list, you start to think about where you just were and what you just witnessed. Its the very thing that punk rockers, goths, hippies, and all the other counter culture groups fear.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Foster's shooting

                Why did Jeff make all of his shots last night? I'm curious what you all think about why he didn't mis one last night

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Foster's shooting

                  Law of averages? Either that or because he reads PD.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Foster's shooting

                    Really Jeff is shooting .463 currently and if you take away his 3 for 12 performance against the Nuggets he'd be at .490. Also if Jackson made 45% of his shots the Pacers would score approx 1 more point a game. In fact, if Jackson had shot 45% last year he would have made 45 more shots in 81 games or about 1 every other game. See what little difference is between a 40% shooter and a 45% shooter. The Pacers as a team are shooting .438 and are ranked 26th in the league if they were shooting 45% it would put them in the middle of the pack...and the difference 25 shots so far this season or approx less than 1 basket a game.
                    I'm in these bands
                    The Humans
                    Dr. Goldfoot
                    The Bar Brawlers
                    ME

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Foster's shooting

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Why did Jeff make all of his shots last night? I'm curious what you all think about why he didn't mis one last night
                      Originally posted by Fool View Post
                      Law of averages? Either that or because he reads PD.
                      Could be a combination of both, but I'd like to think Jeff and RC and Co. also recognize that Jeff has been missing alot of those gimme's lately, and since they had a few days to work with him on it, they found ways to address the problem.

                      I think we all can agree on this:

                      "If the gimme's get got, then there's no reason to debate this topic at all."

                      Whether the Pacers win or lose, as long as Foster does what's expected of him - which is to get rebounds and score the ball on those easy putbacks - he's doing his part, and that's all anybody could ask of him.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Foster's shooting

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Why did Jeff make all of his shots last night? I'm curious what you all think about why he didn't mis one last night

                        Patience. All patience. I think he proved my point last night.

                        Jeff didn't rush any of his shots last night. He took his time on the putbacks and didn't rush the wide open dunk. I'd actually say his putback attempts last night were more difficult than normal but he still put them in.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Foster's shooting

                          Here's a stat.


                          25 misses at the rim. That would be near 2 extra points/game if he'd made all of them. Even if half of them were eventually "makes" then it'd still be 1 extra point/game. It's not the worst of the Pacers' problems but that doesn't make it any less significant.



                          46% is not a good shooting percentage for anyone who takes most of their shots within 3 feet of the basket.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Foster's shooting

                            The reason Jeff made all of his shots last night is because they were easy shots - none of them were in traffic, none of them were with two guys on him, and none of them were outside of 8 feet. Of course my point being - some of the shots Jeff takes and misses - you know the ones many call "layups" are actually difficult shots in traffic. But when he gets easier shots he makes them - like last night.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Foster's shooting

                              Two of his makes last night were contested in traffic, and were just as difficult (or moreso) than his uncontested putbacks in traffic. If I had video capture on my home computer I'd show you (either way I'll make notes during Friday's game).

                              The reason he misses those putbacks has a lot more to do with rushing them than defense. A lot more.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Foster's shooting

                                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                                Here's a stat.


                                25 misses at the rim. That would be near 2 extra points/game if he'd made all of them. Even if half of them were eventually "makes" then it'd still be 1 extra point/game. It's not the worst of the Pacers' problems but that doesn't make it any less significant.



                                46% is not a good shooting percentage for anyone who takes most of their shots within 3 feet of the basket.

                                It only makes it less significant than about 50 other cases that I can come up with.

                                I still say anyone who complains about Foster's shooting pct. has an agenda and is missing the big picture. What do we do next? Speculate on how many points we lost out on by different players to's? Or how about pts. lost on poor shot selection? How about pts lost on players not blocking out, setting picks, lazy defense, etc? We could go on and on and Jeff's missing two shots a game will still be very insignificant.
                                .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X