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

OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

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

  • #16
    Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

    JO didn't slow down the offense at all last night. They still got good shots and slashed to the basket but they couldn't hit their layups.

    JO had his best game of the season if you ask me. He hit the boards hard and his defense was solid after the first quarter.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

      Hmmm i didnt know that JO would actually cause the team to shoot horribly. Isnt that really why the offense was bogged down? Because no one could hit a basket, right? Jermaine shot better than most the team, rebounded well too and played D. I just dont think this post is too effective after a game we lost because of bad shooting from the entire team, not something Jermaine did.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

        Originally posted by JO4MVP2006 View Post
        Hmmm i didnt know that JO would actually cause the team to shoot horribly. Isnt that really why the offense was bogged down? Because no one could hit a basket, right? Jermaine shot better than most the team, rebounded well too and played D. I just dont think this post is too effective after a game we lost because of bad shooting from the entire team, not something Jermaine did.
        I hear this argument constantly. It may, or may not be Jermaine's fault, however when he gets the ball, movement halts. When movement stops the quality of shots is going to drop. Why else would ball movement, and player movement be important?

        Jermaine's presence seems to be impeding both. I'm not shocked that shooting is down when he plays. Those guys are just too used to handing him the ball and watching, and he's too used to doing it. Maybe that's it or not, I dunno. We may never know.

        But don't act like his presence cannot and will never effect the shots other players take.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

          Wait, so its his fault that players dont move? Shouldnt they be moving no matter who has the ball or how long that individual has it(and i know JO needs to be quicker with his decisions but that will come in time.) Im just saying that you cant fault him for the actions of others taught under the previous coach. The other guys need to listen to JOB even when JO has the ball. Its not JOs fault that they are used to handing the ball to him and watching him. JO does need to elevate his game and get adjusted to the new offense, and i think last night was a positive step towards that. Jermaine did not cause those layups to be missed or those 3s.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

            Where do you want them to "move without the ball"?

            If JO gets the ball on the block, the matter at hand for the other 4 guys is now SPACING. They need to keep AWAY from each-other so that if JO is doubled they can swing it to the open guy. If they dont do this - they can double JO with practically no reprecussions. That's why ball movement and player movement stops, and the offense stagnates.

            Now JO has 2 options - go iso 1on1, or wait for the defense to make a move to double him. He's got to READ the situation and REACT.

            IMO he's not that good in either. Not anywhere near the great ones - Duncan, Garnett, even Shaq is decent. He once used to be very good at iso1on1, but he's not that good at that anymore, when his explosiveness and athleticism are hampered by injuries.

            That's why he's a liability to an uptempo-moving offense.
            That's why the offense halts.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

              Originally posted by JO4MVP2006 View Post
              Wait, so its his fault that players dont move? Shouldnt they be moving no matter who has the ball or how long that individual has it(and i know JO needs to be quicker with his decisions but that will come in time.) Im just saying that you cant fault him for the actions of others taught under the previous coach. The other guys need to listen to JOB even when JO has the ball. Its not JOs fault that they are used to handing the ball to him and watching him. JO does need to elevate his game and get adjusted to the new offense, and i think last night was a positive step towards that. Jermaine did not cause those layups to be missed or those 3s.

              PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS

              W/O JO: 5-1
              (Pacers: 108.0 ppg - Opp: 103.3 ppg)

              With JO: 3-8
              (Pacers: 99.2 ppg - Opp: 104.5 ppg)
              Bambam

              Follow me on Twitter @http://twitter.com/brockhubble

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

                Originally posted by Mal
                Isn't is just a wonderful, useful stat?
                Originally posted by Speed
                It's really hard to get behind any stat that shows Granger as the guy who is bringing them down and Harrison/Rush as dominant.

                I think it may have to do with sampling size for one relative to how good your team is in outscoring the opponent.
                Originally posted by bambam
                the plus minus dont really mean a whole lot
                Originally posted by Shade
                Can we please stop with the plus/minus garbage being used to try to prove a point? The only point it proves is how pointless the plus/minus stat is.

                The +/- is a perfect measure of what is purports to measure. The Pacers have scored 70 fewer points than their opponents while Granger was on the floor. It's true. And they have scored 30 more points than their opponents while Kareem rush was on the floor. That also is true. That doesn't mean that Rush is better than Granger, but it is nevertheless true.

                Speed, sampling size has nothing to do with it. The +/- is based on the universe -- all 240 minutes of every game played so far -- not a sample. But you are right in the rest of your post: the +/- is about how the team does relative to the opponent while you are on the floor.

                Now, we can all just get along here if we recognize that the +/- is not a tool for identifying the best player. Is Granger our worst player? Nah. Does the +/- say he is? Nope. It only says he's been out there on the floor when we were getting outscored.

                We have been outscored by our opponents, so there is going to be an overall negative to the +/- values. The team's +/- is is -30. So Jermaine's -33 isn't all that bad.

                The utility of the +/- is to lead us to situations and match-ups that work and that don't work.

                TheDon points out above that Kevin Durant's +/- is -159. That bad rating doesn't mean Durant is a bad player. It means that he's been on the floor a lot of minutes when the Sonics were overmatched -- which ought to be a surprise to nobody.
                Last edited by Putnam; 12-02-2007, 09:45 AM.
                And I won't be here to see the day
                It all dries up and blows away
                I'd hang around just to see
                But they never had much use for me
                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

                  I agree with Shade that we ought to stop trotting out the +/- as if it proves anything by itself.

                  It points out facts that require explanation. That's all.

                  Granger's poor rating demands explanation, since we all know he's a great asset.

                  Granger is +19 when he is on the floor with Tinsley, Dunleavy, Williams and Foster. But he's played in that combination only 21 minutes.


                  Granger is -41 when he plays with Tinsley, Dunleavy Murphy and O'Neal, and he has played 63 minutes there.

                  Most of Granger's minutes (100 of them) have been with Tinsley, Dunleavy, Foster and O'Neal. With that group, He has a +1. Which is positive considering that the team is -30 overall.

                  So, the eye is drawn to that troublesome lineup with the -41.

                  Anybody who wishes to explain why this lineup doesn't work and propose alternatives and fixes. The +/- can't explain it, and doesn't claim to.

                  But the poor, little old +/- statistic has served us faithfully and well just by drawing our atention to that troublesome combination.

                  N.B. all the values cited here are from www.82games.com.
                  Last edited by Putnam; 12-02-2007, 10:01 AM.
                  And I won't be here to see the day
                  It all dries up and blows away
                  I'd hang around just to see
                  But they never had much use for me
                  In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

                    And since this thread is supposed to be about O'Neal, let's consider this.

                    When O'Neal plays with Tinsley, Dunleavy, Williams and Foster, the Pacers are +27. And that is a combination that has been on the floor only 11 minutes so far this season.

                    Can you dig it, Cyrus?

                    The Pacers outscored their opponent by 27 points in less than a quarter while Jermaine O'Neal was on the floor! (So much for the Jermaine-slows-us-down rule. It is true sometimes, but not always.)

                    If I were getting paid to do this, I think I'd be looking back over the game film, finding those minutes, assessing what we did right and whether we can use that combination more often once O"Neal get healthy. Wouldn't you?
                    Last edited by Putnam; 12-02-2007, 10:15 AM.
                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

                      J.O. is not a Up-Tempo Type Of Player...They Should Trade Him...And Get A Center Who Is Quick...And A Good Rebounder...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

                        About the +/-:
                        When you are looking with a microscope at which lineups got which scores, you're entering a new realm of local statistics, where you need to take into account MORE factors (in this case - who is the opposition, how tired are the guys, injuries, momentum flows, fould trouble, etc), although you have LESS data.

                        It would be a bad idea to draw conclusions based on those kinds of statistics.

                        The major idea behind the accumulative +/- stat is that after a while you have SUFFICIENT data in order to neglect the affects of those local aspects.

                        IMO there are 2 major missing aspects in the +/- stat, which can't be neglected even after a very large amount of data:
                        1. OPPOSITION. Sure DG has the worst +/-, but he's always guarding the opponent's best player. ANY OTHER GUY WOULD PROBABLY DO WORSE!
                        2. Minutes played. The data's got to be NORMALIZED somehow - by mpg, games played, or total minutes (my preference). You just cant compare the +/- of a guy who plays 5 mpg to that of a guy who plays 35.

                        Bottom line: the +/- stat is interesting, BUT ... drawing any sort of conclusions from it is ... let's say "risky".

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

                          It seems to me the +/- stat is a tool to help confirm what you think you are seeing. IOW... if you notice someone doesn't appear to be helping the team, you take a look at the +/- and see if that bears it out as well.

                          Or you use it the other way around... Look at the +/- and then keep your eye on players and lineups to see if you notice why their +/- is so good.... or so bad.

                          -Bball
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

                            Look who gets the last word on the +/- debate. Or should.


                            http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/ask_the_pacers_v2.html


                            Question for Jim O'Brien | Dec. 12, 2007
                            Q. How much faith do you put in the plus-minus stat? (From Tom in Columbus, Ind.)
                            A. Just in the pure stat, it’s not as important as combining it with two-man, three-man, four-man, five-man rotations. We are looking always at why it is a plus, why it is a minus. By itself it’s not that important. A combination of players is important. If Player A has a minus 35 we want to find out if a lot of that minus 35 is a result of him playing with a particular other player.
                            And I won't be here to see the day
                            It all dries up and blows away
                            I'd hang around just to see
                            But they never had much use for me
                            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

                              JO is not the problem....
                              Go Pacers!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: OMG, he brings the offense to a screaming stop...

                                And look who gets the last word on the "JO slows us down" debate. Or should.

                                (same link as above)

                                Question for Jermaine O'Neal | Dec. 10, 2007
                                Q. Why do you think the team did so well in your absence and what are you doing to avoid disturbing team chemistry? (From Bruce in San Francisco)
                                A. I have to piggyback off what the guys have been doing. My return doesn’t change anything; I think it just adds to what we already have. We have a lot of perimeter players that can be played, guys like David Harrison who has really been playing well. And it’s not to disrupt the chemistry of it, it’s more to just add to it and increase the defensive intensity on that end of the floor and score when given the opportunity.
                                And I won't be here to see the day
                                It all dries up and blows away
                                I'd hang around just to see
                                But they never had much use for me
                                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X