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

Gerald Green Wants Out of Minnesota

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

  • #31
    Re: Gerald Green Wants Out of Minnesota

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    He's made a whopping 13 threes this season. Nice sample size.
    37% in his career. That's over a sample size of 310 career attempts. Taking that into account, as well as the fact that shooting is something that almost always improves in time, it's only logical to assume the 41% is the norm rather than a statistical anomaly due to a small sample size.

    Bottomline - he can hit the long ball. If there's anything that's undebatable about Green's game, it's that.


    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    I'd focus more on his %33 field goal shooting, which has gotten worse every season but I guess the fact he makes a three once a week or so overshadows that...
    He's not getting minutes. You can't make shots if you're not playing. Minnesota's giving the majority of their SG/SF minutes to McCants and Brewer. McCants is understandable, he looks very promising. The fact that Brewer's been one of the worst player in the league this year yet is still getting P.T. over Green is the reason Gerald wants out of Minny in the first place, and rightfully so. When you're outplaying someone, and are still riding the bench, you have a right to be frustrated. It has nothing to do with how they're playing and everything to do with Minnesota having plans for Brewer and none for Green, despite the fact that Green has proven to be the more skilled player. That's Kevin McHale for you.

    As for his FG%, sure it's bad, but questionable shot selection and the low FG% that comes with it is common amongst young perimeter players. Look no further than the aforementioned Corey Brewer and your very own rookie, Rodney Stuckey (29.7) for example. His career 42% isn't horrible, and he shot a very impressive 48% as a rookie. If you're gonna say his 3% this year is a result of a small sample size, it's only fair that you also use the same logic when taking into account his fg%.

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    1.2 assist average, making him 1/5th of an assist better than last year.
    In half the minutes. That changes things just a little bit, eh?

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    It is when you can only dunk in an empty gym.
    I've seen him throw down some nasty in-game dunks last year when he was getting good playing time. In fact, he had one of the best dunks of the season vs the Raptors. You can't throw down in-game dunks if you're not actually getting in the game.

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    ...worth the risk because you say he is? Nobody in the league wants any part of this guy. At least gerald isn't a potential chemistry-killer.p
    Worth the risk because I say he is? In my opinion, yes.

    And you're making extreme exaggerations with the whole "chemistry killer" claim. First of all, no backup is gonna have enough importance on a team to be considered a "chemistry killer". Secondly, he hasn't been a "chemistry killer" here. He's certainly had his rough moments, and isn't exactly Mr. Maturity, but at no point would I say he's been a "chemistry killer". I think this is a blatant exaggeration of the truth in order to help support your opinion.

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    I'd point out the fact that %50 of this forum has a better off-hand than Gerald Green, but that would be piling on...

    Ah heck, who am I kidding, I'll mention it anyway.
    It's a flaw, yes. No one said he's some flawless prospect. But it's not a career killer, in fact it's a flaw lots of players have. It can be corrected in time. And even if it's not, he can still be a useful player. We're talking about giving up Harrison and maybe a future 2nd, not a 1st, Granger, or anything of great value.
    Last edited by Kofi; 01-26-2008, 10:55 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Gerald Green Wants Out of Minnesota

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      I think he's implying that pretty much everything else in the NBA is significantly better than David Harrison.
      I can't agree at all. And you'll see at the end of the season when some team offers Harrison a decent contract. GM's will always take chances with young big men. It's a proven fact. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Harrison gets a bigger contract this offseason than Green.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Gerald Green Wants Out of Minnesota

        Originally posted by Kofi View Post
        You're implying Green's some horrid basketball player that deserves to be playing in some 8th rate league in Turkmenistan, yet at the same time you're implying Green has decent trade value? What's the deali-o with that?
        I, though maybe not as much as Kstat, think he's pretty bad at basketball.

        Others, such as yourself and certainly some NBA personnel folk, still think his physical tools warrant a deeper look. He's an uber-athlete, after all...even by NBA standards.

        But I watch a lot of Celtics ball and have never seen much. Just don't think he's good.

        Could the Wolves get better than Harrison for Green? Maybe. Significantly better? I doubt it. Like someone else mentioned, if a team wants him (Green) that badly, they can just wait until the offseason and sign him for 1/3 of the MLE ($2M~). It beats giving up something "significantly better than" David Harrison.
        Significantly better isn't that hard. Harrison has no value, like Bulldog said.

        Dallas could give up Fakezas. Phoenix could offer Alando Tucker. Seattle has multiple big man "projects" they could offer. Hornets have Hitlon Armstrong. Houston has Steve Novak. Hell, Portland might give up Sergio Rodriguez.

        I'm not saying any of these guys are great. But plenty of teams could and would offer players at least this good and most likely better for a guy with this much potential...even if his deal is set to expire this summer (which I find hard to believe by the way. Did they really not pick up his option? Why?)

        But personally, I think he's gonna be dogshi*. So I wouldn't offer anything but dogshi*. And if we called up Minnesota with an offer of Harrison, that's exactly what McHale would think we were offering and hang-up.
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Gerald Green Wants Out of Minnesota

          I think it would be a good move if they are willing to go for Harrison. It's not like Harrison will probably be returning next season. If we can pull that off it could be a second coup like signing Rush.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Gerald Green Wants Out of Minnesota

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            Would Minny, though?

            I think we'd all agree that we'd move Harrison for loose change if we could, despite the fact that the one thing this team doesn't need is another raw swingman.
            They might if they don't get better offers. You have zero interest in Green and will let him walk this summer, Harrison can also be let go this summer, so WTF does it hurt to swap them for either team?

            But again that means that no one thinks enough of Green to give Minny a better offer. And if that's the case then we can't count on much ourselves.

            edit - all of this has already been said in much more detail by others which makes this post more of a QFT
            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-26-2008, 11:51 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Gerald Green Wants Out of Minnesota

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              I'm not sure which question to ask first: why the pacers would want Gerald Green, or the TWolves would want David Harrison...
              The first post in this thread that makes sense. Let's see.....we are so chalk-full of SG/SF that one of the reasons ( but not the main reason ) why we are now playing Small Ball is cuz most of our halfway decent shooter/scorers happen to be SG/SFs. It totally makes sense to me to add yet another SG/SF to our rotation that we are going to have ZERO minutes to play that will likely bolt after this offseason.

              If we were a team that was stacked in the Frontcourt and were in need of a Guard, then I could see making a run for Green as a sensible plan. But since we are not.....I don't see Green as an option.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Gerald Green Wants Out of Minnesota

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                The first post in this thread that makes sense. Let's see.....we are so chalk-full of SG/SF that one of the reasons ( but not the main reason ) why we are now playing Small Ball is cuz most of our halfway decent shooter/scorers happen to be SG/SFs. It totally makes sense to me to add yet another SG/SF to our rotation that we are going to have ZERO minutes to play that will likely bolt after this offseason.

                If we were a team that was stacked in the Frontcourt and were in need of a Guard, then I could see making a run for Green as a sensible plan. But since we are not.....I don't see Green as an option.
                I will respectfully disagree. We have backcourt quantity but I do not believe we have backcourt quality. What you see is what you get with Rush, Daniels, and Owens - serviceable players, but nothing more. Daniels can't shoot and is injury prone. Owens is a 6'3" SG. Rush has been the best of the three, but even he's nothing special and will likely bolt for greener pa$ture$ at seasons end. Gerald is serviceable right now (despite what some people would like to believe), yet he also has the physical tools and untapped potential to be much more than that in the future. He's a very comparable prospect to Shawne Williams in my opinion, the difference being Green is more of a SG to Shawne's SF. If he can be had, we'd be fools to pass him up. Just because he hasn't lived up to the pre-draft hype of being the next Tracy McGrady doesn't mean he's not still a good prospect.
                Last edited by Kofi; 01-27-2008, 12:46 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Gerald Green Wants Out of Minnesota

                  Originally posted by Kofi View Post
                  Owens is a 6'3" SG.
                  Although you think that Owens is a 6'4" ( according to his NBA profile ) SG ( which is pretty much true ), he doesn't play minutes at the SG/SF rotation....he only backs up Diener or Tinsley. He wouldn't eat up any minutes at any position that Green would likely play.

                  Originally posted by Kofi View Post
                  Rush has been the best of the three, but even he's nothing special and will likely bolt for greener pa$ture$ at seasons end.
                  Green is a Unresticted Free Agent as well.....why wouldn't Green do the same?

                  Originally posted by Kofi View Post
                  Gerald is serviceable right now (despite what some people would like to believe), yet he also has the physical tools and untapped potential to be much more than that in the future. He's a very comparable prospect to Shawne Williams in my opinion, the difference being Green is more of a SG to Shawne's SF. If he can be had, we'd be fools to pass him up. Just because he hasn't lived up to the pre-draft hype of being the next Tracy McGrady doesn't mean he's not still a good prospect.
                  I didn't say that he wasn't a good prospect....I just said that we have ZERO minutes for him in our rotation now.

                  I don't see him playing ahead of Granger, Dunleavy or Rush. That means that at best...he can probably get the share the remaining minutes of the SG/SF/PF rotation with Marquis and Shawne. We barely have enough minutes for them now.....where are we going to get minutes to add Green? Unless we trade Marquis or Shawne ( something that I doubt will happen ), the Pacers FO really thinks that Green is something special and is worth giving him a "trial run"....then I just don't that we can get him any meaningful minutes.

                  And if we aren't able to give him any meaningful minutes now.......how are we going to play him to see if he's worth signing in the offseason?

                  If he was a Restricted FA...then I can see taking a risk on him....but since he's an Unresticted FA, then I don't see the point of trying him out.
                  Last edited by CableKC; 01-27-2008, 02:26 AM.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Gerald Green Wants Out of Minnesota

                    I'm reading Kstat's scouting report on Green and trying to decide how much weight to give it.... as I remember Kstat's glowing and gushing scouting report on Darko when he learned he would be a Piston....



                    I heard everyone's favorite commentator, Tommy Heinson, talking about Green just the other day. He said (paraphrased) that Green's dunking performance had caused him to forget that there were other parts to the offense than dunks and it doomed him in Boston. Tommy was surprised to see that he'd developed a midrange game since leaving the Celtics.

                    FWIW...


                    -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


                    • #40
                      Re: Gerald Green Wants Out of Minnesota

                      they should take a shot at this.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X