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

Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

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

  • #16
    Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

    I'd like Augustin, he's more of a true point guard who can also score the ball if need be.

    Also with Acie Law I'd like to add I think he'll get better with time. Playing behind Mike Bibby doesn't guarantee you much time. I wonder if the Hawks are willing to trade him?

    "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

      Jack's very solid - knows how to run a team, good defender, etc.

      But you were a lottery team last year - you need to take a shot at the guy with the bigger upside. Augustin could be a bust. He could also find his way into an all-star game in about 3 years.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

        I prefer Jack. 1) He's a known commodity where Augustin isn't. 2) I don't want a small PG, and Augustin is. 3) I want a PG that can play D, and Jack can.

        If I had my druthers, it would be Jack in a trade that brought Channing Frye as well. Someone back, possibly in another thread, mentioned a Dun for Jack, Frye, and Webster trade. I'd be willing to throw in the 11th pick for their 33 and 36 picks to sweeten the deal for Portland.

        Reasoning is: you get an experienced PG in Jack, a BIG in Frye, and with 3 second round picks you have a chance of picking up Walker(SG), Hudson(PG), George Hill(PG), Plaisted(PF), Weaver(SG), etc. Even a Euro for Bird!
        Last edited by Justin Tyme; 06-01-2008, 08:22 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          It's your lucky day then. I Guaransheed that we'll either draft Augustin or, if not him, another player.

          And...we just traded the pick for cash considerations.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

            I'm really warming up to DJ...so much so that I don't think he'll be there by 11.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

              Originally posted by rexnom View Post
              I'm really warming up to DJ...so much so that I don't think he'll be there by 11.

              That's the best news I've heard all day, but then the day has just begun. I'm afraid Bird will take him if he's available, so I'm hoping another team picks him before Bird has the chanz.

              I want Westbrook, but the chanz of him being available is slim n next to none. D folks, the Pacers "need perimeter D!" I tired of having no one in the bc that can stop penetration. I don't want to suffer another season w/o it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

                I might shade towards a fourth option: I'm fine with either. I think Augustin has the potential to be a truer PG, but Jack has already shown that he can at least be a solid player in the NBA.

                If forced to make a choice, I think I might lean slightly towards Augustin.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

                  Someone's gonna have to explain how Augistin's more of a pure PG than Jack. Jack's about as much of a pure PG as you can get. In fact, Augustin MIGHT be able to be an off-guard scorer in the NBA, something Jack can't do.

                  Jack's always played PG. He's never been a SG, or even played one on TV.
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

                    I haven't seen JJ play since his Ga Tech days, but as I recall, he
                    doesn't shoot it all that consistently. The Pacers will surround
                    him with enough perimeter shooters to make up for that to a
                    degree. But how are his playmaking instincts/skills these days ?

                    If they're more than adequate, the combo of his obvious physicality
                    and defensive prowess and the possibility of getting a draft pick in
                    a deal with PORT would push me in his direction.

                    Do the Pacers have anyone other than DG that PORT would have
                    more than a feeble, passing interest in ?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

                      I'll take Jack, easily.

                      He is still young and I would love to have him on this team. I think he can be a solid starter in this league. Not an all star but still a good player.

                      I think Augistin can be about the same but what I like about Jack, besides he can come and play right now, is his size and defense. That would be a big plus for us. We already have Travis and we don't need another small point guard.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

                        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                        Someone's gonna have to explain how Augistin's more of a pure PG than Jack. Jack's about as much of a pure PG as you can get. In fact, Augustin MIGHT be able to be an off-guard scorer in the NBA, something Jack can't do.

                        Jack's always played PG. He's never been a SG, or even played one on TV.
                        Well, to be fair, when I say "pure" PG, I tend to think pass-first PG's. In that particular instance, I may be succumbing to a combination of the relatively little I've seen of Augustin and the standard scouting report for Augustin. His college numbers do not actually support this position, though I've always had difficulty translating college assist numbers to the pros. Pro stat teams have been more generous with what they define as an assist, at least since the Magic Johnson era.

                        In any case, I tend to use an Assist to Shot Attempt Ratio as a thumbnail measure of a PG's tendencies. It's not perfect, but I think it's a decent indicator.

                        Under this metric, Jack's numbers are better than what Augustin shows, at least for last year. Jack, throughout his career, has recorded .54 Assists for every FGA, while Augustin's numbers last year were around 0.4 Ast/FGA.

                        However, both of these are well below ratios that get posted by guys I would think of as closest to traditional point guards. Steve Nash has had 0.74 Ast/FGA over his career, while Chris Paul (0.68) and Deron Williams (0.65) were each over 20% higher than Jack's ratio. Jamaal Tinsley, who we all consider to be devoid of a conscience, has posted a career ratio of 0.70. If you look at the players I consider to be the "prototypical pass-first point guard", John Stockton and Mark Jackson, you would see career numbers of 1.16 and 0.96 Assists per Shot Attempt, respectively.

                        Jack's numbers (limited view, I admit) are actually pretty similar to Vern Fleming's career numbers of 0.54. However, even Vern had 4 seasons in a row over 0.6, three of which were over 0.65. Jack, other hand, peaked at 0.59 the season before last, dropping to a career low 0.50 this past season. The fact that Jack has never played any position other than point has little or no relevance on whether he is actually a "pure" PG.

                        As I think about it, Vern's not a bad comparison for Jack. Solid, but unspectacular ballhandlers who get the ball up the court and start the offense, but lack the skills to create a lot of opportunities for their teammates. Both have great size and are (were) good, solid defenders.

                        Based on this information, it's difficult to definitively say that either would be a pure point guard. Also, I think had I looked at this a little more closely, and considered the way Jack's size and defense fits better with Obie's desires, I would've probably picked Jarrett Jack.

                        However, I would be fine with either, as I consider both to be upgrades over the oft-injured Tinsley. I seriously doubt whether either would ever be an All Star, but I do think each could be paired with Diener as a backup, and we'd be in much better shape than we've been at the point since the Jackson-Best combo of the late '90's.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

                          Originally posted by count55 View Post

                          However, both of these are well below ratios that get posted by guys I would think of as closest to traditional point guards. Steve Nash has had 0.74 Ast/FGA over his career, while Chris Paul (0.68) and Deron Williams (0.65) were each over 20% higher than Jack's ratio. Jamaal Tinsley, who we all consider to be devoid of a conscience, has posted a career ratio of 0.70. If you look at the players I consider to be the "prototypical pass-first point guard", John Stockton and Mark Jackson, you would see career numbers of 1.16 and 0.96 Assists per Shot Attempt, respectively.
                          So your basis for comparison for what a PG is is by comparing them to MVP candidates and the top assist men of all time?

                          By that basis there have probably been only about 15 pure PG's in the history of the NBA.

                          Jarrett Jack is as much of a pure PG as Eric Snow, Avery Johnson or anyone. He's not a superstar and won't average 10 assists per game but there's only one NBA position he'll ever be able to play.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

                            to me it is like keeping a dollar or buying a lottery ticket. At this point Jack is just a dollar. With Augustine I can dream that he is more.
                            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

                              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                              So your basis for comparison for what a PG is is by comparing them to MVP candidates and the top assist men of all time?

                              By that basis there have probably been only about 15 pure PG's in the history of the NBA.

                              Jarrett Jack is as much of a pure PG as Eric Snow, Avery Johnson or anyone. He's not a superstar and won't average 10 assists per game but there's only one NBA position he'll ever be able to play.
                              I should've made it clearer in my first response that I consider the primary function of the point guard to position to be running the offense, as demonstrated through controlling the ball, starting the offense, and creating opportunities.

                              I used as an admittedly limited, and perhaps somewhat flawed benchmark the idea of the Assist to Shot Attempt Ratio, then I compared the numbers to the players that immediately came to mind as "pass first" point guards. Not surprisingly, these happened to be extremely good players. I used Stockton and Jackson for exactly the reason I stated: they are who I consider to be the prototypical "pass first" point guards. Someone or something that serves to illustrate the typical qualities of a class.

                              In no way did I mean that, in order to qualify as a "pure" point guard, you had to reach this level of excellence.

                              For the sake of normalizing results:

                              Brevin Knight 0.91
                              Eric Snow 0.84
                              Avery Johnson 0.77
                              Earl Watson 0.66
                              Scott Skiles 0.74

                              BTW...there are exceptions to this particular benchmark. Oscar Robertson had a ratio of 0.50, and Bob Cousy had only 0.42. (Note: While stat crews were stingier with assists in the Pre-Magic days, it's difficult to factor how big of an impact this would have, and it's unlikely that it would catapult these guys up to the 0.7 to 0.8 ratios associated with many of the players I've researched.)

                              In any case, my initial belief was that Augustin was more likely to be a creator (assist man) than Jack has demonstrated to be. As I noted in my initial post, I recognize that I really don't have anything particular to support it, so I could be wrong on that. Therefore, its possible that Jack might be more effective fulfilling what I described above as the primary role of the point guard, that would more likely mean that neither was especially effective at that role.

                              By that basis there have probably been only about 15 pure PG's in the history of the NBA.
                              Getting back to this, I do believe that "pure" point guards are rare (or, at least, relatively uncommon) throughout the history of the NBA. This position, much like the Center position, can be co-opted by "combo" players. Given the predilection for talent in the NBA, the tendency is to get as much of it on the floor as possible. This gives the opportunity for an undersized two with good-to-great scoring ability and acceptible playmaking skills to man the point guard position over the more traditional floor general. (Or the somewhat undersized, more athletic player to fill the 5 spot over the big, plodding post player or shot blocker.) My guess is that this is due to the fact that many players in the lower levels (college & pros) who trade on the traditional point guard or center skills are lacking in either talent or the necessary physical and athletic attributes to make the leap to the NBA.

                              Jarrett Jack is as much of a pure PG as Eric Snow, Avery Johnson or anyone. He's not a superstar and won't average 10 assists per game but there's only one NBA position he'll ever be able to play.
                              I don't really know what to do with this, other than to say that I don't find it compelling. Playing the position and filling the role are two different things in my mind. Back to the top, where I'm looking for a point guard who will be an initiator, a creator for the team. Someone who will make the offense work. This, to me, defines the "pure" point guard.

                              While Jarrett Jack has some wonderful qualities, and, I admit, will very likely end up being a better pro than DJ Augustin, the ones I just listed above do not appear to be chief among them.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Which PG would you rather have: J.Jack or DJ Augustin?

                                Being as how I'd rather look at how they play when they're on the floor rather than rely on numbers we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
                                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X