Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

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

  • Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

    eak:


    I was just reading the post about Jeff Foster's defense getting dissed, and thought that Foster is kind of a poor man's Wallace - a defender/rebounder who is not prolific offensively.

    So anyway I took a look at their respective stats per 48 minutes (for 2003-2004) to see how far apart the really are.

    Offensively they are a wash. Both average 12.2 points per game (over 48 minutes). Foster shoots 54% while Wallace shoots 42%. Foster shoots 67% from the line and Wallace shoots 49%.

    Defensive prowess is harder to guage statistically. Foster averages 1.74 steals to Ben's 2.25, and blocks are Ben's big advantage 3.9 to 0.7.

    Rebounding suprised me a little. Wallace averages 15.8 per/48 and Foster averages 14.9. Not really a big difference. Furthermore, Jeff has the edge in offensive boards 6.1 - 5.1.

    Obviously the intangibles are important, you can't really overstate BW's intimidating status. He seems larger than life and can really alter entire game plans. Foster hustles well and sets a pretty nice pick, but doesn't have the same presence.

    Most Pacer fans would trade Foster for Wallace in a heartbeat (me included), but it doesn't seem like the difference between the two is as great as the media makes it out to be.

  • #2
    Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

    Ben Wallace can CONTROL a game with defense - totally change the way a team attacks offensively. Jeff Foster can't do that - not even close (though he can be disruptive).
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

      I think the difference is Ben brings it every night. Not that Foster doesnt but like yoiu said he does not play the same amount of minutes either as Ben. Ben is a much better shot blocker and intimidator. He is also much stronger than Foster.

      I agree Foster is not as far off as some think, but there is definitely a difference between the 2. In fosters defense though, he amazes me how well he finsihes around the basket. His jumpshot is nto great, but if he gets it down low, he usually puts it in.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

        Yes is better probably 10 times better than Foster. Big Ben can do it all on defense. Block, alter shots, steal, and control gameplay.


        2006 WORLD CHAMPION INDIANAPOLIS COLTS

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

          Jeff stays low, feet on the ground. Getting up in the air can get ya in trouble, whether you get beat or you foul... but getting up in the air provides opportunities for blocks. I think the main times I see Jeff leave his feet is when he leaps to get a hand in a shooter's face out on the perimeter. Otherwise he stays low and boxes out and sets screens (he's very good at that).

          Foster is a glue player. He glues the team together without seeking glory or standing out. But don't mistake "visibility" for "impact". The media sees the Game 1 win based on Reggie's 3, but they don't mention much about Foster's game-tying layup and hardly mention anything at all regarding his defense on the last plays and the awesome pick he set on Rip to set Reggie free. It's those plays *we* Pacer fans see.

          It really depends on how that player fits into their respective system. Ben didn't fit into quite a few systems before he landed in Detroit, where he has known success as a defender. The blocks statistic can be a bit misleading. I regard the blocks statistic like I do the "steals" statistic. Getting a bunch of steals doesn't necessary indicate that the player plays great defense. Allen Iverson gets a lot of steals and so does Jamal Tinsley, but they are hardly what I consider defensive stalwarts. Steals a lot of times means that a player gambles on defense and part of the time gambles in a losing way, allowing a player to get by and penetrate the lane or shoot a wide-open jumper.

          A block usually indicates help-defense... meaning the player didn't actually D up someone, they just wait in the lane and in the event a player beats his man on D and he cleans up with a block. I don't base defensive prowess strictly on blocks and steals. I think Ben is a very good defender, but there's just different types of defense. A block is flashy and glamorous, but if you play defense in a way that prevents a player from even getting the ball or prevents that player from shooting and forcing another pass, well that is unglamorous yet very effective defense.
          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

            Yes. Ben is much better than Foster.
            You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
            All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

            - Jimmy Buffett

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

              Yes he is much better , Big Ben is the kinda guy that could pull down 20+ rebounds a game , not to mention blocks and still put in 10 points in scoring , oh and steals..
              Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

                We missed SEVERAL bunnies early Sat as guys were looking for Wallace when they were close in.
                Funny you mention that. Its in vogue for teams to say "We got the shots we were looking for, they just weren't falling"

                I've wondered how many times people are rushing shots, or have it in their mind that they are playing against a good defensive team, or that "the shot blocker" is lurking as they go up for a turn-around jumphot. Anyway, I never expected a player to comment on that until I read this from Jermaine O'Neal:

                “I got them (great shots). I broke down my shot (on tape) and I’m going home to look at it because I was short-arming a lot of them and they were really wide-open shots. I was surprised I had so many wide-open shots in the 8-to-10-foot range.”

                So there you go. That's the kind of problem you get with a great shoblocker that you don't get when playing a good position defender.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

                  I think the short answer to the question asked in the title of this thread is "YES"

                  but...

                  The extent to which Ben Wallace is better than Jeff Foster is less than the extent to which Artest is better than Prince and about equal to the extent that Jermaine is better than Rasheed.

                  mathmatically,

                  Ron/Tayshaun > Ben/Jeff = Jermaine/Rasheed
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

                    Yes he is much better , Big Ben is the kinda guy that could pull down 20+ rebounds a game , not to mention blocks and still put in 10 points in scoring , oh and steals..
                    I guess my point is this: Statistically(per/48), Wallace does not really rebound better, does not score more points (and certainly not as efficiently), and only has slight edge in steals (0.5 more per/48).

                    I will concede that:

                    1) Wallace is better defensively
                    2) Wallace has a great presence and intimidates/alters games
                    3) Wallace is a much better shot blocker

                    So, in the offseason Jeff needs to grow a 'fro, look intimidating, and start blocking shots.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

                      I would say Jeff is Just fine he plays his roll well and that's what earned him a starting position. I don't want to see Jeff get too agressive because when he does that he get's silly fouls and gets in foul trouble and that was my biggest complaint prior to this year about Jeff.
                      Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

                        Wallace is a Great Defender and Deteriant to inside shot's.But I would take a Jeff Foster over him in the long run...Period!Foster bring's so Many more thing's to the court.....Hustle/Heart/Desire/-(Earn my $$$$)!If you have( 2) of these type of player's on your team @ 1 time.//Your going to Win.......and Win alot!I'm sure Wallace want's to earn his $$$$ (?).But he has a name in the NBA to Make lot's of $$$........Jeff Foster (Has) to earn his $$$$$$!If your a GM of a NBA team and the Name's come up-----Wallace or Foster.......Your going to go on Auto and say Wallace.......-----Who's this Foster!
                        So I guess with all of the above said-------I'd take Jeff Foster......No Matter what!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

                          No contest. Of course he is.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

                            Yes - no question.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Is Ben Wallace really that much better than Jeff Foster?

                              Yeah, he is.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X