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

  • #76
    Re: Foster's shooting

    Originally posted by Roferr View Post
    I still say anyone who complains about Foster's shooting pct. has an agenda and is missing the big picture.

    That's ignorant. It's a legitimate point. And even if you think it isn't, I don't see what I could gain for my "agenda" by making the case that Foster misses easy putbacks. WTF?


    Originally posted by Roferr View Post
    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.
    I'm sure you'd fit right in on Isiah's staff.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Foster's shooting

      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
      That's ignorant. It's a legitimate point. And even if you think it isn't, I don't see what I could gain for my "agenda" by making the case that Foster misses easy putbacks. WTF?




      I'm sure you'd fit right in on Isiah's staff.

      Sure, it's a legitimate point but considerably less than JO, Al, Tins and Granger shooting less than 80% from the ft line. Or JO missing 8 shots a game, Al missing 7, Jax missing 7, Granger 4.5 or Tinsley 6.5.

      It sure in the hell doesn't merit an entire thread when a guy only misses 2 shots a game.

      All I'm saying if you're going to bring up some shortcomings, well then do it with some major ones, which the team has plenty of.

      Yell, like Isiah is my favorite basketball personality. He's screwed up everything he's touched.

      Complaining about Foster's two misses a game is about like Isiah blaming Ronaldo Balkman for all the Knicks losses.
      .

      Comment


      • #78
        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.
        Your logic is flawed, as this could be applied to every player on the team. You could do the same math if you took into account TO's for players like Tins and Jack. I don't understand why people are ragging on the heart and soul of this team.

        Comment


        • #79
          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
          I have it on good authority that after reading this thread he made one quick call to his local Recreation Unlimited and had a hoop immediately re-installed in his driveway. Practice makes perfect.

          http://www.recreationunltd.com/resid...ballgoals.shtm

          (I didn't want Fool's disappointment to continue any longer)
          PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Foster's shooting

            Shooting percentages of other guys who only shoot at the rim and score primarily on putbacks:

            Erick Dampier .671
            Tyson Chandler .654
            David Lee .642
            Andris Biedrins .613
            Etan Thomas .602
            Samuel Dalembert .599

            I could go on. Foster was 34% in the last month, right? And he is at 46% on the season. Someone commented that one extra make per game would bump it up to 55%. But the truth is, even 55% is bad for that type of player, let alone 46% or 34%.
            The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
            http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
            RSS Feed
            Subscribe via iTunes

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Foster's shooting

              Originally posted by ALF68 View Post
              Your logic is flawed, as this could be applied to every player on the team. You could do the same math if you took into account TO's for players like Tins and Jack. I don't understand why people are ragging on the heart and soul of this team.

              Uh, that doesn't make my logic flawed. Every aspect of the game is relevant, including every missed shot. And I'm sorry that you can't recognize the fact that Jeff should be making shots that he regularly misses rather than spend your time questioning someone's intent.

              Apparently being a diehard Foster fan is like staring directly into the sun.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Foster's shooting

                Thank you MR.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Foster's shooting

                  Originally posted by Roferr View Post
                  Sure, it's a legitimate point but considerably less than JO, Al, Tins and Granger shooting less than 80% from the ft line. Or JO missing 8 shots a game, Al missing 7, Jax missing 7, Granger 4.5 or Tinsley 6.5.

                  It sure in the hell doesn't merit an entire thread when a guy only misses 2 shots a game.

                  All I'm saying if you're going to bring up some shortcomings, well then do it with some major ones, which the team has plenty of.

                  I do bring up the team's shortcomings in the appropriate thread.

                  Look, I know that Foster's misses aren't the biggest issue on the team but, most importantly, I think it's one of the most correctable issues. I seriously believe that Foster would lead the NBA in FG% if he was more patient. He has the hands and he has the quickness to make every putback, or at least get to the line like he did last night.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Foster's shooting

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    I do bring up the team's shortcomings in the appropriate thread.

                    Look, I know that Foster's misses aren't the biggest issue on the team but, most importantly, I think it's one of the most correctable issues. I seriously believe that Foster would lead the NBA in FG% if he was more patient. He has the hands and he has the quickness to make every putback, or at least get to the line like he did last night.

                    As long as you put it as a "correctable issue", I can buy that. That is what's so maddening. He's missing them point blank. There's times he seems hurried and other times that he just tries to muscle it up. With his jumping ability, there should be no reason that he couldn't control the ball on some occasions and go right back up for a dunk.

                    However, a lot of his tips aren't controlled tips....they are a wild stab to hit the backboard to keep the ball alive for another rebound for him or his teammate, but they count as fga's.

                    If he only shot the ones that he could actually control and get off a decent shot instead of wildly tipping it, his FG pct would be much higher.
                    .

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Foster's shooting

                      Originally posted by Roferr View Post
                      However, a lot of his tips aren't controlled tips....they are a wild stab to hit the backboard to keep the ball alive for another rebound for him or his teammate, but they count as fga's.
                      And his quantity of ORs would be a lot lower.

                      Maybe I'm alone here, but that is what drives me nuts more than his FG% - the times where he unsuccessfully has multiple tip-attempts that all miss. That does not deserve a standing ovation, in my opinion.

                      He'll finish a game like that with 10+ ORs and some bozo will call into Kevin Lee and say, "Foster dominated the offensive glass tonight, he had ten offensive rebounds." He may get credit for 10 ORs, but he did not dominate. And in fact, he would've been more dominant if he only had six ORs and converted a few more of them into points on the first effort.

                      Basketball is about outscoring your opponent, not out rebounding your opponent. If you don't convert the rebounds into points, they aren't particuarly valuable.

                      (Along the same line of thinking, if you don't get the defensive rebound after you make a "stop" or force a bad shot, then the defensive stops aren't particuarly valuable 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


                      • #86
                        Re: Foster's shooting

                        Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                        Shooting percentages of other guys who only shoot at the rim and score primarily on putbacks:

                        Erick Dampier .671
                        Tyson Chandler .654
                        David Lee .642
                        Andris Biedrins .613
                        Etan Thomas .602
                        Samuel Dalembert .599

                        I could go on. Foster was 34% in the last month, right? And he is at 46% on the season. Someone commented that one extra make per game would bump it up to 55%. But the truth is, even 55% is bad for that type of player, let alone 46% or 34%.

                        OK, lets take 60% as a starting figure for Jeff. If he shot 60%, he would have connected on 18 more baskets, or 36 pts divided by the 27 games he's played and that would put the Pacers with an additional 1.3 ppg. We haven't played any games decided by 1 pt, so him shooting 60% would not have helped one iota.

                        This is taking into consideration that he only received one shot attempt per possession. We know this is not true because there are times, he tips it up 2 or 3 times which all count as shot attempts. So, if he has 3 tips on the same play and makes 1, it looks as if the Pacers have lost out on 2 baskets. This is very mis-leading as the Pacers would have not lost out on a single point, yet Jeff is charged with 3 shot attempts.
                        .

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Foster's shooting

                          Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                          And his quantity of ORs would be a lot lower.

                          Maybe I'm alone here, but that is what drives me nuts more than his FG% - the times where he unsuccessfully has multiple tip-attempts that all miss. That does not deserve a standing ovation, in my opinion.

                          He'll finish a game like that with 10+ ORs and some bozo will call into Kevin Lee and say, "Foster dominated the offensive glass tonight, he had ten offensive rebounds." He may get credit for 10 ORs, but he did not dominate. And in fact, he would've been more dominant if he only had six ORs and converted a few more of them into points on the first effort.

                          Basketball is about outscoring your opponent, not out rebounding your opponent. If you don't convert the rebounds into points, they aren't particuarly valuable.

                          (Along the same line of thinking, if you don't get the defensive rebound after you make a "stop" or force a bad shot, then the defensive stops aren't particuarly valuable either.)

                          I understand the point that you are trying to make. Perhaps his offensive stats are somewhat tainted because of this reason. However, what makes up for it, is his numerous tip-outs that keeps the ball alive for another offensive possession, which he receives nothing for as far as stats.

                          He only averages 3.7 offensive boards and a total of 8.1. So, I think the 10 offensive boards you are talking about is grossly over-exaggerated. He's probably not been credited for 10 offensive boards but maybe less than 10 times in his career. That's just a guess on my part....I may be wrong.
                          .

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Foster's shooting

                            The classic example is the Houston game last year.

                            Jeff had 10 ORs, but was 0-7 from the floor.

                            Does this happen often? No, but it seems to me that his "biggest" games on the offensive glass are the byproduct of him rebounding his own misses, not his teammates' misses.

                            I looked at the last two seasons quickly on basketballreference.com (got to leave for a train in a couple minutes) and he has six games of 8 ORs or more and several more with seven ORs. Yes, ten is an overexaggeration, but not a gross overexaggeration, IMO.

                            You get my point (whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant right now), so I'm satisified.
                            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


                            • #89
                              Re: Foster's shooting

                              Originally posted by imawhat
                              Uh, that doesn't make my logic flawed. Every aspect of the game is relevant, including every missed shot. And I'm sorry that you can't recognize the fact that Jeff should be making shots that he regularly misses rather than spend your time questioning someone's intent.

                              Apparently being a diehard Foster fan is like staring directly into the sun.
                              I'm not a diehard of anything! Using YOUR FLAWED LOGIC, every aspect of the game is relevant should also apply to Jack or JO should make shots that they regularly miss. You seem to want to make it sound like Foster is costing the Pacers games by missing a few bunnies. He is taking on average 4 shots a game not enough to make a difference either way. I resent that you attack me for questioning someone's intent when you don't have a clue on what is going on. Posters like you, who are trying to equate a pimple on someones posterier as cause of death when in fact they were hit by a train.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Foster's shooting

                                I guess I should post this here:

                                We are 2-8 in games Foster played LESS than 20 minutes.
                                We are 12-5 in games Foster has played MORE than 20 minutes.

                                It has been consistent, even in those games early in the season when Foster got big minutes.

                                The ONLY teams we have lost to when Foster played more than 20 minutes are: Orlando, NJ, Denver, Chicago, Cleveland

                                Foster's value is certainly not tied to his ability to shoot.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X