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

The grading scale of NBA players

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

  • The grading scale of NBA players

    The other day, while driving back home to Bloomington from Indianapolis, as usual I was listening to various sportstalk radio to help pass the time. One of the hosts (I dont remember which one) stated this idea of a grading scale of how truly good a current NBA player might be, along with his contention that most players in the league were overrated. This was about the time Iverson was being dealt I think, and the overall discussion that day was about AI and how good he really was. That prompted the host to come up with this grading scale of rating players, of which Ive thought about and embellished just a little bit.

    A players: These are your truly elite superstars, players who are clearly the best in the league, and can lead a team to a championship as their franchises best player. They have few if any flaws to their game, and have proven they can almost single handedly lead their team to a championship, or at least deep in the playoffs. Their talent is truly overwhelming and they have an elite level all around game. Very rare to have a guy like this on your team.

    Members of this exclusive club: Dwayne Wade, Lebron James, Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash.

    B players: Really great players who dont quite make it to that next level above them. Most are all stars, but who have some sort of flaw in their game that puts them at this level. These are players who are probably the best player on their teams, but by themselves can't propel them to a champoinship or near championship level. Maybe they are fading due to age, have poorer attitudes, have conditioning or injury issues, or just arent quite good enough to be a premier level player who singlehandedly wins games:

    Some members of this club: Allan Iverson, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Shaquille ONeal, Carmelo Anthony, Ray Allen, Jermaine Oneal, Gilbert Arenas, Joe Johnson, Yao Ming, Elton Brand, Amare Stoudamire.

    C. These are average NBA starters or rotation guys. Most of the league falls in this category. They have clear strengths and weaknesses. They are inconsistent from game to game. They are usually your 3rd -10th best players. Winning and losing often depends on them from game to game. Teams are always looking to replace them with guys in the above 2 categories, but they cannot. Sometimes, young guys on this list grow into a "B" player, but most often if they dont do it quickly, they dont do it at all. Sometimes, when paired with players who rate above themselves, they may appear to be better than they actually are.

    Members of this club on the Pacers: Danny Granger, Al Harrington, Jamal Tinsley, Marquis Daniels, Jeff Foster, Stephen Jackson, Sarunas.

    D. Journeymen/projects: These are guys who are filling the end of the bench. Mostly, these are guys who if they changed teams no one would notice. These are guys either too young or old to contribute much, and many of these guys are in danger of being replaced.

    F players: These are players who have attitudes or games that are so bad they have their own special category. Regardless of their talent or who they are surrounded by, they kill your team by their sheer presence on it. In reality, their are few players in the league who fit this category, but they do exist:

    Example: Ron Artest

    The broadcaster stated his opinion that where teams get into trouble, is when their "B", "C", and "D" players either dont compliment each other's games, or if they begin to each think they are better than they are. He also said that was fans/ general managers biggest faults, because they overrate their talent.

    So let me throw this theory out there to the public: Have we overrated in our own minds our own talent, and is that why we all get so frustrated with this teams inconsistency? Are we not as talented a roster as it might appear? And if thats true, what can we do about it?

    Do we as pacer nation even agree that this rating system makes sense? Do we agree with where the announcer listed the players at?

  • #2
    Re: The grading scale of NBA players

    It makes sense but it wouldn't be long till the JO superfans would start throwing fits when people said he wasn't in group A.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The grading scale of NBA players

      I think its an interesting scale ....

      the first 2 are fairly agreeable however i think that Grade c is far to broard ... personally i think you have several sub bands ... for example... deffinite starters e.g. Josh Howard for the Mavs, 5th/6th men ... people who add a spark of the bench, then 7th - 10th .. players just contributing any way they can .....

      personally i love the grade 8


      and D4G
      I think you would struggle to justify putting J.O in that Grade A especially above players like Garnett and Pierce ... J.O Hater or J.O lover regardless i think thats undeniably his group!
      'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
      Animal Farm, by George Orwell

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The grading scale of NBA players

        Please people refer to him as God, and I am fairly sure they believe it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The grading scale of NBA players

          Originally posted by Destined4Greatness View Post
          Please people refer to him as God, and I am fairly sure they believe it.
          I wouldnt be suprised if you described him as satans spawn .... but lets not ruin this topic ... its clearly created for other reasons, not to discuss J.O. sacrilegiously!
          'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
          Animal Farm, by George Orwell

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The grading scale of NBA players

            True, and no I don't refer to him as Satans spawn. But my point is the whole grading scale would just simplify the already ongoing debates on the board.

            Insteand of player X can't play D so he is better than player Y, we would have player X is a C, but player Y is a B.

            Its just another source of Debate and friction. Any grading scale with this much ambiguity(sp) is going to be more trouble than its worth.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The grading scale of NBA players

              I would definitely put KG in that first group. He's had the misfortune of being the best player on a team with historically inept management. Everyone complains about Isiah, but at least he didn't destroy the career of one of the best players ever like McHale.

              Garnett is the ultimate team player, which means he needs a team to play with. He's at his best when he can set screens, rebound and play defense and not have the scoring load only on him.

              Besides that, most of the rest makes sense. The last 3 years Nash has played at the elite level and I think LeBron is right on the precipice of something huge.

              Also, I think Yao Ming is right there next to that elite level. Gilbert maybe too if he can put on some insane scoring displays in the playoffs and make a run at the finals.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                KG didnt make the "A" list due to his really poor record in the playoffs, and his lack of "clutchness" as an offensive player in the last 2 minutes. I love KG and his competitive desire and overall great skills, but that was the reasoning.

                JO doesnt make the "A" list due to his tendency to get banged up, and his lack of a true "go to" move in crucial situations. I think he's knocking on the door of the "A" team, but he isnt there yet, and may never get there.

                Just my opinion as always.

                Tbird

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                  I'd argue that there is a definetely a level in between your "B" and "C" categories.

                  These are guys that are definetely not on the Paul Pierce, Gilbert, Melo level but are way above the Al Harringtons of the world.

                  Not sure exactly what to call them aside from "Amazing to Have Around, But Not Getting You Anywhere By Themself Guys".

                  To me, this would include Rahard Lewis, Antawn Jamison, Richard Jefferson, Lamar Odom, Manu Ginobli, and maybe 5 to 10 others.


                  Also...Gilbert and Yao (assuming he'll be back at full strength) are quickly moving towards being "A"-Elite players. And I agree that KG is already there. AI as well.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post

                    A players: These are your truly elite superstars, players who are clearly the best in the league, and can lead a team to a championship as their franchises best player. They have few if any flaws to their game, and have proven they can almost single handedly lead their team to a championship, or at least deep in the playoffs. Their talent is truly overwhelming and they have an elite level all around game. Very rare to have a guy like this on your team.

                    Members of this exclusive club: Dwayne Wade, Lebron James, Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash.
                    How can Lebron be an A player? While the talent is there, he has yet to be successful enough in the playoffs to be placed at this level. The other guys on the list have had much more playoff success than he has. Will he be there eventually? Yes. But I wouldn't put him there yet.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                      Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                      So let me throw this theory out there to the public: Have we overrated in our own minds our own talent, and is that why we all get so frustrated with this teams inconsistency? Are we not as talented a roster as it might appear? And if thats true, what can we do about it?

                      Do we as pacer nation even agree that this rating system makes sense? Do we agree with where the announcer listed the players at?
                      Yes, home town talent is always overrated. Let's be honest, most fans barely have time to watch all of their own team's games, let alone a good portion of other teams. I watch other games regularly and I'll still only see Seattle or the Clippers really play 4-5 times a season.

                      I find that as you become familiar with your own player you know what is normal or not for him, but don't realize that to other fans some of this stuff comes as a surprise. The same thing happens to Pacer fans when players from another team come into town and makes plays that they "never make".

                      It also makes fans think of it in terms of "the Pacers do or don't do what they want to or can do". If a guy misses a shot, it's because he's not a good shooter. If a guy goes for 40 it's just because he's that good and not because it was a weaker defender that night.


                      Having said all that, I actually think the sum total of Pacers talent right now is definitely above average, mostly because of how strong Danny's offense has come along combined with things like Jack backing off a bit on the wild shooting and even Al's impressive 3 point shooting.

                      But then again that's what I thought to start the season. Funny thing is I recall a lot of other fans feeling that way too, or worse actually. What happened to all the fans that were promising us this team was headed for the lottery? Seemed to be more of those than fans talking title.

                      Maybe the issue is that some fans have been surprised to see the team so competitive and have switched gears on their expectations mid-season because of this.



                      Also, I would put KG in the elite group as well. He impacts the court as much as Dirk or Nash IMO.

                      Of course I don't think AI is elite because he is terrible ball dominate without the efficiency or assists to go with it. Get back to me when he shows the court vision of Nash, or even half it. Seriously. He's never been a "how'd he see that guy open" type of PG. Nash just did this about 10 times vs CLE, passing to guys that he literally appeared unable to see.

                      If AI had a 3 point touch or could just keep his scoring to around 48%, then we could talk about elite. 9-22 is not a healthy team approach, not when its the norm (and with AI it is, that's how his FG% ends up looking like that).


                      Yao is getting there. Let's see how he finished out this year when he gets back from injury.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                        Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                        How can Lebron be an A player? While the talent is there, he has yet to be successful enough in the playoffs to be placed at this level. The other guys on the list have had much more playoff success than he has. Will he be there eventually? Yes. But I wouldn't put him there yet.
                        Obviously you didn't see LeBron in last year's playoffs. He nearly singlehandedly defeated a 64 win team.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                          Originally posted by shags View Post
                          Obviously you didn't see LeBron in last year's playoffs. He nearly singlehandedly defeated a 64 win team.
                          How does a guy getting the refs help do it singlehandedly

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                            Originally posted by shags View Post
                            Obviously you didn't see LeBron in last year's playoffs. He nearly singlehandedly defeated a 64 win team.
                            Still, that is one playoff series, the first trip of his career. If KG is going to be held to the fire by some because he has never finished, then I'm going to do the same with LJ until he has more playoff success. Obviously he is one of the top players in the game, but I'm not ready to put him int the best of the best if playoff success is one of the qualifications. Nit picking, yes, but I feel comfortable with my stand.

                            I could even argue that Duncan shouldn't be there based on how he choked at the end of the Dallas series when he did his Charles Smith invitation and didn't dunk those short shots to win the series. Not to mention that his free throw shooting hurts his team come crunch time as well.

                            We all know supporting cast makes all the difference come playoff time. Every superstar looks better when the team around him is better. Dirk, KG, and Kobi are all good examples.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The grading scale of NBA players

                              Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                              KG didnt make the "A" list due to his really poor record in the playoffs, and his lack of "clutchness" as an offensive player in the last 2 minutes. I love KG and his competitive desire and overall great skills, but that was the reasoning.
                              I still disagree. First, Steve Nash qualifies for the list but Kevin Garnett doesn't, yet they've achieved the same level of playoff success (conference finals)? KG's playoff woes are solely the fault of his GM. If Tim Duncan had the collection of stiffs, he would struggle too.

                              Second, basketball greatness is completely derived from offensive prowess in the finals two minutes? Since when? Give me KG who goes all out for 48. Jump shooters are unfairly awarded for being "clutch" because they always take the last shot, but big men who carry the load on their shoulders are penalized.

                              In the post-Jordan era, Shaq and Tim Duncan have been the two best players in the NBA. Right after them is KG.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X