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

Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

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

  • #16
    Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

    Not to mention that most of his shots come within the flow of the offense unlike Jack, who often takes contested 3s with :16 on the shot clock.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

      Originally posted by Roferr View Post
      I don't think you can count his stint with the Warriors. He didn't fit in with the team and the home town crowd was booing him even after having a good game.

      I think he is playing much more relaxed now, waiting for the game to come to him instead of being a king-pin. He can play under the radar and do the things that he does well. We don't expect him to be a go-to guy, so the pressure is off him.

      I think that he is willing to do whatever it takes to win even if it meant that he shot very little. I don't think he will be nearly as streaky here and that the past week's performance will become more of the norm.

      Two years from now we will be talking about the "great trade" and he will be the biggest reason.
      First, if we aren't counting GS then WTF are we judging him by? College? Please. Let me know about Walton having a greater NBA career than Smits.

      Second, give Dun a break because the home fans booed him? What exactly was that sound I heard LAST YEAR (ie, before Rio) when Jack got the ball in Conseco?

      Third, he had 10 games of generally poor shooting with the Pacers first. This is 2 games. And you are asking me to buy into the 2 games?

      Replace the name Dunleavy with Jackson when you read the box score and then evalute his stat lines, simply to be fair and balanced on the issue.

      It frustrates me to no end that 40% is "good" for one guy and "terrible" for another. Geez, you were defending Foster shooting below 40% too as if I was just personally attacking the guy. 40% FG is not good for anyone, which is why I said Jack was shooting horribly in November.

      The FG% isn't a trick stat. You take shots and then you make or miss them. It's the most fundamental part of the game. And Dunleavy has shown a real up and down knack with it.

      It's so silly that people are rushing to defend Dun as if somehow him being no better than Jack threatens them with the return of Jack. Jack is gone, you can breathe. All I'm saying is that so far the streaky shooter part isn't gone.

      It's as simple as 37% then 67%. It doesn't get streakier than that. He also had a 2 week hot streak in GS just before the trade. He also had a red hot November before about 6-7 weeks of terrible shooting.

      I don't have it in for Dun or anything, these are just the cold facts of his game at this point.


      Originally posted by PacersFan83
      2 months? ??? The trade wasn't even quite a month ago.
      Did you miss the part where he played NBA ball before he joined the Pacers?

      I didn't say worse FG%, I said JUST AS STREAKY. 37 to 67, repeat it. That's how you got to 43. It's not like this guy comes out with 5-11, 5-9, 6-13 over and over.

      6-17 (really, Jay, 17 FGA doesn't count as needing touches?)
      5-13
      1-7
      3-11
      4-15

      Those are Jackson lines right there.


      Originally posted by Jay
      Dunleavy requires far fewer touches (measured by missed shots and turnovers)
      Untrue statement. Not sure why you chose to say this. I see Jack and Dun equal this year on assist (3.1 each with Indy) and nearly on TOs (2.2 to 2.0). Jackson took 11.6 FGA per game this year. Dunleavy has taken 11.2 with the Pacers.

      These aren't hidden numbers or anything, basic ESPN Pacers stats, so I don't understand why someone would misrepresent them. He takes the same # of shots, he turns it over the same, he doesn't make any more assists, his shot is just as inconsistant.

      How did you read his equal missed shots and turnovers and equate that to "far fewer touches"? Sincerely, I think that question deserves an answer. It's easy to discredit a player's game with false numbers. I hated Reggie Miller because he shot 25% from 3 and took 12 3PA per game at that rate. If it were true then I'd have a point, but it isn't so why would I say it?

      When presented with a neutral situation you can tell a lot about the baggage fans bring to the table. You sure as heck don't see me saying Jackson was better than Dun. Why? Because he wasn't. If I loved Jack in some biased way then I'd be promoting him as better than Dun, but I don't feel that way at all. I just think so far the Dun/Jack thing is much ado about nothing. Same old problem still exists in a new uniform.


      And for what Dun makes vs Jackson, Dun owes the team more than a couple of extra boards per game. Jackson has 20.6m more over 3 years left. Dun will be on the Pacers payroll (barring a trade) for 4 more years and a total of 37.5m. Jack's final year is 7.6m, Dun's salary even next year is already at 8.2m. So salary-wise Dun should be held to a HIGHER standard anyway. He costs more to have on the team.


      Finally, Roferr's pet point - MPG. Jack "always" got 36 like clockwork, a point that was beaten to death the last 2 years...expect he only averaged 32 mpg with the Pacers this year. DunDun OTOH is out there 35 on average despite producing nearly the same down the line till the last 2 games.


      Originally posted by PacersFan83
      these numbers are the norm for Jackson whereas they're actually slightly sub-par for Dunleavy
      Enough of this misiformation already. Look at the 3pt% and FG% for both players from LAST YEAR.

      Dun in 05-06, 82 games played, 32 mpg, 10 FGA/game
      40.6%, 28.5% (let me guess, a mini-slump of 82 games straight...why isn't it possible that these numbers are as much his norm as the numbers for 2 years ago?)

      Now Jack, just in case you forgot
      41.1, 34.5 (is it just me, or are those numbers higher?)

      You don't excuse Jackson's first month of shooting this year (when removed he is outshooting Dun on the season), but you DO EXCUSE Dun's DEC/JAN with GS and his first 10 games in Indy?

      Does that really seem on the up and up to you? Would you mind paying my taxes this year and I'll pay none. That sounds just about as fair. Why hold everyone to the same standards after all.

      I'm not anti-Dun or pro-Jack. I am however disgusted by the desire to give Dun a break on the same things that allegedly proved that Jack was a bad player. I don't consider that an outrageous or unreasonable request.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

        More proof about his streaky shooting, right back with 5-14 tonight after those 2 scorching games.

        But yeah, it's just me lying and hating on the guy. I don't hate Dun anymore than I hated Jack (zero). I found Jack's game frustrating and I find Dun's game frustrating. I also find it frustrating that he gets a free pass from fans when Jack didn't.

        It's as simple as that.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          And for what Dun makes vs Jackson, Dun owes the team more than a couple of extra boards per game. Jackson has 20.6m more over 3 years left. Dun will be on the Pacers payroll (barring a trade) for 4 more years and a total of 37.5m. Jack's final year is 7.6m, Dun's salary even next year is already at 8.2m. So salary-wise Dun should be held to a HIGHER standard anyway. He costs more to have on the team.
          The salary differential will be made up by the fact that....

          (A) Dunleavy's a more productive overall player
          (B) Dunleavy won't get in trouble with the law
          (C) Dunleavy won't punch and/or flip off other teams fans
          (D) Dunleavy wont consistently make bad decisions in the closing seconds of close games


          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          I dare you to post the 3pt% for both players from LAST YEAR. Please, I'm begging to see you put them up. I would, but I want to hear your defense of them and the discussion of "normal" with Dunleavy.
          You're very carefully picking and choosing your spots in order to skew the discussion in your favor....

          Let's compare Dunleavy's 3 point shooting in 2004-2005 (38.8%) with Jackson's 3 point shooting in 00-01 (25.0%) - WOW! Dunleavy is a much, much better 3 point shooter than Jackson. Just look at the stats!

          See how easy that was? That's pretty much what you're doing.

          Dunleavy's 3 Point Shooting Last Season: 74-260, 28.5% - Fairly Lousy
          Dunleavy's 3 Point Shooting The Rest of His Career: 306-831, 36.8% - Very Good
          Dunleavy's 3 Point Shooting for His Career: 380-1091, 34.8% - SolidJackson's 3 Point Shooting for His Career: 577-1722, 33.5% - Mediocre

          As you can clearly see, the 28.5% shooting last season was clearly a fluke bad season. The 3 previous seasons and so far this season has proven that, as he's been a very respectable 37% 3 point shooter in that time frame. Jackson, on the other hand. is perennially a very mediocre 3 point shooter, which is only worsened by the fact that he shoots so many of them.


          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          Dun in 05-06, 82 games played, 32 mpg, 10 FGA/game
          40.6%, 28.5% (let me guess, a mini-slump of 82 games straight)

          Now Jack, just in case you forgot
          41.1, 34.5 (is it just me, or are those numbers higher?)
          And this is why people can't take your posts seriously and consider you a Jackson fanboy. Instead of looking at the big picture, you're once again very carefully picking and choosing relatively brief periods where the stats support your opinion.

          Jackson shot a whopping .5% better than Dunleavy last season. Bravo! Let's give him an olympic gold metal. What you fail to mention is, counting this season, in 3 of the past 4 seasons, Dunleavy has shot a significantly higher field goal percentage than Jackson has ever shot in his career.

          Dunleavy's Past 4 Seasons
          03-04: 45.1
          04-05: 40.3
          05-06: 44.9
          06-07: 44.4

          Jackon's Best 3 Seasons
          02-03: 43.5
          00-01: 42.5
          03-04: 42.5

          Wacko Jacko's 3 best seasons shooting are 43.5% and a couple of 42.5% seasons. Simply appalling. and why Dunleavy has had 2 Jackson-esque shooting seasons (one of them his rookie season), the other 3 seasons have been perfectly acceptable. Overall, as career field goal percentage will show you, Dunleavy has been the more reliable shooter.


          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          You don't excuse Jackson's first month of shooting this year (when removed he is outshooting Dun on the season), but you DO EXCUSE Dun's DEC/JAN with GS and his first 10 games in Indy?

          Does that really seem on the up and up to you? Do me a favor, pay my taxes too this year and I'll pay none. That sounds just about as fair. Why hold everyone to the same standards after all.
          I listed their field goal percentage with the Pacers, their FG% overall this season, and their career field goal percentage. I don't try and pick and choose certain months/weeks to make my case. I don't have to. Other people do have to because it's all they've got.


          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          I'm not anti-Dun or pro-Jack. I am however disgusted by the desire to give Dun a break on the same things that allegedly proved that Jack was a bad player.
          Jackson was a bad player. And while Dunleavy's no real prize himself, he has fewer negatives, which results in him being the player with the more positive impact on the Pacer's win/loss record.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

            Originally posted by PacersFan83 View Post
            The salary differential will be made up by the fact that....

            (A) Dunleavy's a more productive overall player
            (B) Dunleavy won't get in trouble with the law
            (C) Dunleavy won't punch and/or flip off other teams fans
            (D) Dunleavy wont consistently make bad decisions in the closing seconds of close games




            You're very carefully picking and choosing your spots in order to skew the discussion in your favor....

            Let's compare Dunleavy's 3 point shooting in 2004-2005 (38.8%) with Jackson's 3 point shooting in 00-01 (25.0%) - WOW! Dunleavy is a much, much better 3 point shooter than Jackson. Just look at the stats!

            See how easy that was? That's pretty much what you're doing.

            Dunleavy's 3 Point Shooting Last Season: 74-260, 28.5% - Fairly Lousy
            Dunleavy's 3 Point Shooting The Rest of His Career: 306-831, 36.8% - Very Good
            Dunleavy's 3 Point Shooting for His Career: 380-1091, 34.8% - SolidJackson's 3 Point Shooting for His Career: 577-1722, 33.5% - Mediocre

            As you can clearly see, the 28.5% shooting last season was clearly a fluke bad season. The 3 previous seasons and so far this season has proven that, as he's been a very respectable 37% 3 point shooter in that time frame. Jackson, on the other hand. is perennially a very mediocre 3 point shooter, which is only worsened by the fact that he shoots so many of them.




            And this is why people can't take your posts seriously and consider you a Jackson fanboy. Instead of looking at the big picture, you're once again very carefully picking and choosing relatively brief periods where the stats support your opinion.

            Jackson shot a whopping .5% better than Dunleavy last season. Bravo! Let's give him an olympic gold metal. What you fail to mention is, counting this season, in 3 of the past 4 seasons, Dunleavy has shot a significantly higher field goal percentage than Jackson has ever shot in his career.

            Dunleavy's Past 4 Seasons
            03-04: 45.1
            04-05: 40.3
            05-06: 44.9
            06-07: 44.4

            Jackon's Best 3 Seasons
            02-03: 43.5
            00-01: 42.5
            03-04: 42.5

            Wacko Jacko's 3 best seasons shooting are 43.5% and a couple of 42.5% seasons. Simply appalling. and why Dunleavy has had 2 Jackson-esque shooting seasons (one of them his rookie season), the other 3 seasons have been perfectly acceptable. Overall, as career field goal percentage will show you, Dunleavy has been the more reliable shooter.




            I listed their field goal percentage with the Pacers, their FG% overall this season, and their career field goal percentage. I don't try and pick and choose certain months/weeks to make my case. I don't have to. Other people do have to because it's all they've got.




            Jackson was a bad player. And while Dunleavy's no real prize himself, he has fewer negatives, which results in him being the player with the more positive impact on the Pacer's win/loss record.
            CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP!!!

            well Done!!!
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

              Naptown Seth is getting schooled here ....
              Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

                www.basketball-reference.com has some pretty advanced formulas for every season but this current one. Dunleavy comes out ahead in virtually every single statistic with the exception of PER.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

                  Originally posted by Alpolloloco View Post
                  Naptown Seth is getting schooled here ....

                  I wish that I could take some joy in Seth getting schooled, but I don't. Outside of his Jack fixation, he makes some great posts.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    First, if we aren't counting GS then WTF are we judging him by? College? Please. Let me know about Walton having a greater NBA career than Smits.

                    Second, he had 10 games of generally poor shooting with the Pacers first. This is 2 games. And you are asking me to buy into the 2 games?

                    Do me a favor, replace the name Dunleavy with Jackson when you read the box score and then evalute his stat lines.

                    It makes me sick that 40% is "good" for one guy and "terrible" for another. Geez, you were defending Foster shooting below 40% too as if I was just personally attacking the guy.

                    The FG% isn't a trick stat. You take shots and then you make or miss them. It's the most fundamental part of the game. And Dunleavy has shown a real up and down knack with it.

                    It's so silly that people are rushing to defend Dun as if somehow him being no better than Jack threatens them with the return of Jack. Jack is gone, you can breathe. All I'm saying is that so far the streaky shooter part isn't gone.

                    It's as simple as 37% then 67%. It doesn't get streakier than that. He also had a 2 week hot streak in GS just before the trade. He also had a red hot November before about 6-7 weeks of terrible shooting.

                    I don't have it in for Dun or anything, these are just the cold facts of his game at this point.



                    Did you miss the part where he played NBA ball before he joined the Pacers?

                    I didn't say worse FG%, I said JUST AS STREAKY. 37 to 67, repeat it. That's how you got to 43. It's not like this guy comes out with 5-11, 5-9, 6-13 over and over.

                    6-17 (really, Jay, 17 FGA doesn't count as needing touches?)
                    5-13
                    1-7
                    3-11
                    4-15

                    Those are Jackson lines right there.



                    Untrue statement. Not sure why you chose to say this. I see Jack and Dun equal this year on assist (3.1 each with Indy) and nearly on TOs (2.2 to 2.0). Jackson took 11.6 FGA per game this year. Dunleavy has taken 11.2 with the Pacers.

                    Are you just resorting to lying about the numbers to make a point, these aren't hidden numbers or anything, basic ESPN Pacers stats. He takes the same # of shots, he turns it over the same, he doesn't make any more assists, his shot is just as inconsistant.

                    When presented with a neutral situation you can tell a lot about the baggage fans bring to the table. You sure as heck don't see me saying Jackson was better than Dun. Why? Because he wasn't.

                    And for what Dun makes vs Jackson, Dun owes the team more than a couple of extra boards per game. Jackson has 20.6m more over 3 years left. Dun will be on the Pacers payroll (barring a trade) for 4 more years and a total of 37.5m. Jack's final year is 7.6m, Dun's salary even next year is already at 8.2m. So salary-wise Dun should be held to a HIGHER standard anyway. He costs more to have on the team.


                    Finally, Roferr's pet point - MPG. Jack "always" got 36 like clockwork...expect he only averaged 32 mpg with the Pacers this year. DunDun OTOH is out there 35 on average despite producing nearly the same down the line till the last 2 games.



                    I dare you to post the 3pt% for both players from LAST YEAR. Please, I'm begging to see you put them up. I would, but I want to hear your defense of them and the discussion of "normal" with Dunleavy.

                    Wait, don't stop there. Let's see the regular FG% from last year too.

                    Nevermind, you won't man up enough to do it.

                    Dun in 05-06, 82 games played, 32 mpg, 10 FGA/game
                    40.6%, 28.5% (let me guess, a mini-slump of 82 games straight)

                    Now Jack, just in case you forgot
                    41.1, 34.5 (is it just me, or are those numbers higher?)

                    You don't excuse Jackson's first month of shooting this year (when removed he is outshooting Dun on the season), but you DO EXCUSE Dun's DEC/JAN with GS and his first 10 games in Indy?

                    Does that really seem on the up and up to you? Do me a favor, pay my taxes too this year and I'll pay none. That sounds just about as fair. Why hold everyone to the same standards after all.


                    I'm not anti-Dun or pro-Jack. I am however disgusted by the desire to give Dun a break on the same things that allegedly proved that Jack was a bad player.
                    I don't quite know how to answer your post. First of all, you show my post and answer it and then you insert two more posts not made by me and not attributed to anyone and they answer them. So I'm confused.

                    I think that since Jax is gone, everybody will be better off if he isn't discussed anymore....just my opinion. He plays for the Warriors now so let them worry about his shortcomings. I wasn't pleased that AJ and AC got traded but I got over it and started to root for their replacements.
                    .

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

                      Same with me, I'm over my manlove for Jasikevicius and won't discuss him anymore on this forum. I'll stil following him in GS though.
                      Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

                        I don't quite know how to answer your post. First of all, you show my post and answer it and then you insert two more posts not made by me and not attributed to anyone and they answer them. So I'm confused.
                        Answering the thread down the line, using copy and paste after initially using the quote function to start my reply off of your post.

                        If it looks like I'm talking to someone else then I am, no mystery to it. There are just several different points being made by different people.

                        As for Jack, my discussion of him here is simply to say that we complained about his streaky shooting (and play), and IMO that wasn't solved by DunDun coming in. Yet somehow by a miracle his similar version of hot/cold is just fine with fans.

                        I call BS on it. Simple as that. Red is red all the time, not green because you like the guy more.

                        I gave Dun credit for his week, I have NO ARGUMENT against him as PotW as it was pretty obvious I think. All I said was streaky and then I caught a ton of grief for it. What's Dun do to support my view? Goes 5-14 the next game out. So I stand firmly by my point.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          Answering the thread down the line, using copy and paste after initially using the quote function to start my reply off of your post.

                          If it looks like I'm talking to someone else then I am, no mystery to it. There are just several different points being made by different people.

                          As for Jack, my discussion of him here is simply to say that we complained about his streaky shooting (and play), and IMO that wasn't solved by DunDun coming in. Yet somehow by a miracle his similar version of hot/cold is just fine with fans.

                          I call BS on it. Simple as that. Red is red all the time, not green because you like the guy more.

                          I gave Dun credit for his week, I have NO ARGUMENT against him as PotW as it was pretty obvious I think. All I said was streaky and then I caught a ton of grief for it. What's Dun do to support my view? Goes 5-14 the next game out. So I stand firmly by my point.
                          I was just confused why I was the only one you identified.

                          Anyway, the less said about Jax, the better, IMO. If Dun is still streaky after the amount of games Jax played for us, I'll probably be jumping on his case also.
                          .

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Answering the thread down the line, using copy and paste after initially using the quote function to start my reply off of your post.

                            If it looks like I'm talking to someone else then I am, no mystery to it. There are just several different points being made by different people.

                            As for Jack, my discussion of him here is simply to say that we complained about his streaky shooting (and play), and IMO that wasn't solved by DunDun coming in. Yet somehow by a miracle his similar version of hot/cold is just fine with fans.

                            I call BS on it. Simple as that. Red is red all the time, not green because you like the guy more.

                            I gave Dun credit for his week, I have NO ARGUMENT against him as PotW as it was pretty obvious I think. All I said was streaky and then I caught a ton of grief for it. What's Dun do to support my view? Goes 5-14 the next game out. So I stand firmly by my point.

                            Quote All I said was streaky and then I caught a ton of grief for it.

                            NO! You caught grief for your unrelenting support of Jack at the expense of supporting Dun. Leave Jack out of the equation and you will catch no grief for saying Dun is streaky.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

                              Originally posted by Roferr
                              I was just confused why I was the only one you identified.
                              Again, my apologies. My only response to you was after your quote, and then bring up the 36 mpg issue that you're fond of bringing up. Other than that it had little to nothing to do with your comments. I edited the post to tone down the attitude some and to clarify the quotes as well.


                              Originally posted by PacersFan83 View Post
                              You're very carefully picking and choosing your spots in order to skew the discussion in your favor....

                              Let's compare Dunleavy's 3 point shooting in 2004-2005 (38.8%) with Jackson's 3 point shooting in 00-01 (25.0%) - WOW! Dunleavy is a much, much better 3 point shooter than Jackson. Just look at the stats!

                              See how easy that was? That's pretty much what you're doing.
                              No, you aren't doing what I'm doing. I saying LAST YEAR, the most recent effort by both players and closest to where they are current at.

                              I didn't pick a worst and best year to make it look good. I just said "normal huh, what about just last year, was that normal?" That's more than fair.

                              Do we hold Granger accountable now for his November rookie year numbers? Of course not, time has passed and his game has changed, improved, or otherwise altered.

                              Harrington's 3pt numbers match LAST YEAR better than 4 years ago.


                              Players in all sports sometimes just lose their touch. Maybe an injury unreported has gotten to Dun, maybe pressure to prove something is hurting his game, but whatever the issue he hasn't really improved from where he started, and in fact had a terrible year last year (thus the EARNED boos from fans, just like Jack got last year).

                              He also dropped like a rock this year after November. This has continued in Indiana. But I'm supposed to brush that off because 3 years ago he was better? Who cares, this is now.

                              No one is giving Tinsley the benefit of his 3pt shooting when it peaked out. We look at it more recently.

                              And when you look at Jack and Dun last year, Jack wins. Then when you look at Jack and Dun the last 2 months, Jack wins. Dun in the last year and a half has only outshot Jack basically in November of this season.


                              You think I'm skewing and being a jerk, but here you run out these numbers (and get applause for it no less)
                              Originally posted by PacersFan83
                              Dunleavy's Past 4 Seasons
                              03-04: 45.1
                              04-05: 40.3
                              05-06: 44.9
                              06-07: 44.4
                              Nice. One problem. INCORRECT Clap clap for a point made with false numbers. This is why I'm upset on the issue. All these points being made with the wrong numbers.

                              02-03 40.3 (not even listed)
                              03-04 44.9 (not 45.1)
                              04-05 45.1 (not 40.3) - the only one where the mistake hurt Dun's numbers, brushed off as "rookie year" curiously enough
                              05-06 40.6 (not 44.9)
                              06-07 43.2 (not 44.4)

                              Why is it I don't see that 40.6 listed AT ALL in your list of his numbers? I'M SKEWING!?! You left out his worst shooting year, which just happened to be last season. But I'm pulling the fast one. You just rearranged all his numbers using his first 3 seasons, dropped last year, and then pulled out a made up one for this season to boot.

                              Frankly, that's just insulting IMO. I might make a mistake from time to time, but I bust my butt to fact check and go out of my way to try and be fair. Then someone putting up fake numbers accuses me of skewing.

                              Puts a new look on this quote
                              Originally posted by Alpolloloco View Post
                              Naptown Seth is getting schooled here ....


                              On top of that my point was that in 4 seasons TWO OF THEM feature him shooting 40% from the field. That's right, up till this year he was 50/50 on shooting 40% vs 45% (even 45 is no treasure). I would totally buy the "the first was his rookie year" angle...except that the other one was a full season with good minutes just last year.


                              BTW, with the Pacers Dun's only at 42.6 right now, despite the 18-27 over 2 games.

                              Here are the post NOV numbers for both Dun and Jack, in order to point out where each guy is at more recently this season in terms of shooting.

                              Dunleavy
                              42.2, 33.6

                              Jack
                              45.3, 35.5

                              Where's my applause for taking the time and effort to research my stats before presenting them, and for supporting the case that since Dec 1 Jack has been shooting better. It's not a twist or lie, it's the cold hard facts.

                              You pair that with Jack outshooting Dunleavy LAST YEAR (unlike the false numbers that PF83 tried to present) and you have legitimate questions on Dunleavy's shooting.

                              Even on the season Dun doesn't have a huge advantage despite a vastly better November. Since then Jack's numbers keep rising and Dun's keep falling. We aren't getting the benefit of the full season numbers, we are getting what he is doing now. And right now he's shooting worse than Jack is or even was the last month with the Pacers (when he was being booed still).

                              Dun 44.2, 35.3
                              Jack 42.7, 31.6

                              BTW, that 18-27 that got Dunleavy Pacers player of hte week. Jackson nearly matched it on WED alone (16-26), along with 8 assists just in case you thought it was all him chucking. They both do the same thing, bring a huge game then a 4-15 night.



                              It's bad enough when someone ignores the facts and just goes with the truthiness as they see it, but flat out changing the numbers is just wrong.

                              If someone wants to make the case that NOV is more important than the rest of the year, or that 2 years ago is more important than last year, then by all means do so. But please at least present some (correct) facts and logic behind it so that I can be properly convinced.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Dunleavy Pacers Player of the Week

                                BTW, relatively brief periods????

                                Dude played FOUR years before this season. TWO OF THEM have him at 40% shooting. Even if you brush off his rookie year, 1 out of 3 is 33%. That's not brief at all. That's a large chunk of his career.

                                And I included this year too, so 3 out of 5 have him struggling with his shot, and the 2 counter ones are only at 45%, hardly so high that you ignore the bad years.


                                Originally posted by PF83
                                Dunleavy's 3 Point Shooting Last Season: 74-260, 28.5% - Fairly Lousy
                                Dunleavy's 3 Point Shooting The Rest of His Career: 306-831, 36.8% - Very Good
                                Dunleavy's 3 Point Shooting for His Career: 380-1091, 34.8% - SolidJackson's 3 Point Shooting for His Career: 577-1722, 33.5% - Mediocre
                                28.5 "fairly lousy"
                                More like WORST IN THE NBA among players with 200 or more attempts. But by all means, when shooting sub-30% keep putting them up.

                                Guys in the ballpark, Payton 29% on 230, Artest 31% on 253, TMac 31% on 234, Paul 28% on 177. Of the 138 players that took 100 or more 3PA last season, only Daniels (WSH) 23%, Murray (CLE/SEA) 26%, and Melo 24% shot the 3 worse than Dunleavy did.

                                Now what is it when you call "worst" = "fairly lousy". Spin or skew, that's what. As bad as Jackson has shot the 3, he's never been the worst in the NBA among regular shooters and he's never dipped south of 32% outside of his 9 of 36 stint for all of the 01-02 season.

                                Okay, so then what is it when 34.8 = "solid" and 33.5 = "mediocre"? Spin or skew. They rate virtually in the same grouping of players, middle of the road guys that you wish would limit their attempts to 2 per game rather than 4.

                                What is it when 36.8 = "Very good" for a 3pt shooter? Spin or skew. 36.8 on a given year rates a player around 60th or so in the league, even limiting the list to qualified shooters (guys who took enough attempts). That's not "very good". That's average for guys that put up 200+.

                                Cripes, Jason Kidd dropped 35% last year even. Names like Smush Parker and Jayson Williams fall into the 36% range. Very good is more like 40%, where you find the top 20 and guys like Ray Allen, Mike Miller or Kyle Korver (or Dunleavy 2 years ago). Elite or excellent is closer to 45%.



                                Simply by the adjectives you judge the numbers with you give away some crazy bias to not only trash Jack (his shooting warrants some complaints of course) but to support Dunleavy as this "very good" shooter, when in fact he was booed and traded because he's only mediocre and was coming off a year of missing 186 of 260 attempts.


                                I wish people would keep in mind that my main point is that Dunleavy is a streaky, unreliable shooter. He is according the the results in his career so far (ie, stats). He certainly is according to his run with Indy up to this point. Streaky doesn't discount good nights, in fact it requires them by definition.

                                If he didn't have good nights he would go from streaky to plain old bad.


                                Also again, please note that I have repeatedly EQUATED Jack and Dunleavy. So if I'm a Jackson supporter then be definition you are calling me a Dunleavy supporter too. Of if you think I'm trashing Dun then I must also be trashing Jack. My opinion of both players is equivilent. You can't ask for a clearer statement than that, and it contradicts any opinion that I'm for Jack over Dun. I'm not. Repeat, I'm not.

                                If proving that I am is your angle in this you are severely misguided.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X