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

Low post scoring

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

  • #16
    Re: Low post scoring

    Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    Why are expectations so low for Hibbert in this category? Sure, he won't be any kind of dominant low post scorer, but I would be pretty satisfied with "effective".
    Agreed

    While I haven't seen it personally, have read that Hibbert has quite a nice
    hook-shot in close to the hoop.

    Will be very interesting to see if he uses it effectively against NBA defenders.

    If he can hit it consistantly with good FG%, then go to it when needed and
    allow him to develop his skill and confidence.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Low post scoring

      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
      it wouldn't surprise me if we start posting up danny, especially when he's playing the 4 spot.
      ? It seems like that would make more sense if he was playing the three, thus possibly being taller than his defender.

      Anyway, Danny hasn't shown much ability to score in the post. I do pray he has the heart of a champion and develops some moves down there. Lord knows he surprised the heck out of me with the development of his three point shot, so I do think it's possible.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Low post scoring

        Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
        Hibbert cannot shoot jumpers, hes not very mobile, as is getting up and down the court quickly. I dont see him fitting well into JOBs system. Hibbert is more made for a half-court defensive minded team, like the Spurs or Pistons
        Coupla things:

        1. O'Brien IS a defensive-minded coach.

        There wasn't much evidence of it last year because some of the players didn't get the scheme. But O'Brien wants a strong defense. He just doesn't think slowing down your offense to keep possession is the same as good defense, even if it does lower the opponent's final score.


        2. Hibbert's speed is not going to be a problem.

        He's not Usain Bolt, but Hibbert can run the length of a basketball court in less than 24 seconds. Last season, the Pacers were one of the quickest-shooting teams in the NBA, but even they shot only 43% of their field goal attemopts in the first 10 seconds of a possession. No center is vital to a fast break. You expect to go 2 on 1 or 3 on 2. But 5 on 5 fast breaks are not very common.


        Originally posted by McKeyFan
        Who do we go to in the post?
        The answer has got to be: "Whoever is open." We aren't going to have a go-to guy, and we aren't going to run isolation plays for anybody the way we did for O'Neal. But the guys we have can score if you get them the ball 5 feet from the basket and a step on their defender. that's what our inside game is going to be until and unless Hibbert becomes what we hope.


        Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes.


        .
        Last edited by Putnam; 09-04-2008, 09:26 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


        • #19
          Re: Low post scoring

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          Minor thing....but the Bulls had the opportunity to draft a Low-Post threat...they just ( for some reason ) chose to go with Tyrus Thomas instead of LaMarcus Aldridge.
          Aldridge isn't really all that much of a low-post player. He plays mostly facing the basket.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Low post scoring

            Low post scoring is less important than it used to be in the NBA. With the zone rules as they are -it is much easier to defend a really good low post player.

            If you have a player like Kobe, Lebron, Pierce, Wade - you really don't need a low post player. of course we don't have a player like that

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Low post scoring

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Low post scoring is less important than it used to be in the NBA. With the zone rules as they are -it is much easier to defend a really good low post player.
              That's right, I'm glad that we agree that you can take an un-physical, unimpressive defender (Jeff Foster, for instance) and have him front (zone) the post, and your team might have some success with it in short spurts. Next thing you know, everyone will be praising his "post defense".

              Good offense beats good defense, and will eventually beat a gimmick defense. That's where we disagree. Give me a capable low-post scorer. Let's force our opponents into a gimmick defense (triple-teaming JO, like Stan Van Gundy and Lawrence Frank do all the time) and let the rest of the team benefit. The game hasn't changed as much as you say it has. That is still the higher percentage play (assuming that the rest of the team keeps moving so that the post player can pass them the ball.)

              Headline: Other Four Pacers stop moving; fans mistakenly blame JO.

              Rick never figured how to draw up an offense where he isolated his best player but kept the other four players involved. Hell, even The Quick did that, and we all agree that was a terrible offensive scheme.

              PS - Why did the nickname "The Slow" never catch on for Rick's offensive schemes?

              = = = = = = = =

              2nd edit: Or "The Dead?"

              We could refer to the 2000s-era Pacers as the years of "The Quick and The Dead"!
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Low post scoring

                Although having an elite post scorer maybe as necessary as Quoting JayRedd on serious matters. But I would have to say that it should not be completely devalued. Having a low-post score can open up your shooters.

                Having better big men who can screen maybe of greater importance in this system. But don't forget that LA and SA utilize post scoring.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Low post scoring

                  Where Jay and I disagree is that I don't think Rick asked the players to stop moving away from the ball. He had guys do nothing but move off the low post when Jackson, Smits, Dale and Tony hit the low post. Suddenly he hates off the ball movement? Doubtful.

                  I blame the players on that one. I remember the Philly home opener where the only guys that would come to the rim without the ball were Harrison and Bender. It was making me nuts all night so it stood out when it happened.

                  Those 2 did okay but nothing that stands out in the box. However that's the point when the Pacers rallied.

                  If Jay wants to blame Rick for not being able to get guys to move off the ball, that's different. I just disagree that it was ever the intended scheme.

                  I disagree that Rick and Jack didn't get along. But they did argue and I think his stopping of ball movement and tendancy to iso himself for 6 seconds was part of that. Just like I also think Tinsley often went rogue on the team and just did his own crap (see, JOB/PHX).

                  At some point your job ends up balancing nutbars and attitudes and you're thankful just to be able to field a team. Getting them to run your schemes doesn't even come up as an option. See Larry Brown and the Knicks.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 09-04-2008, 01:25 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Low post scoring

                    Other than Mark Jackson, when did any of those guys become "post" options? Maybe Tony. Nobody wanted to pass the ball to Dave oven-mitts Davis on offense, he was just there to rebound and set picks. Rik was a 7'4" SF.

                    Off the ball movement was Jackson standing at the top, dribbling, while Reggie came off a triple screen.

                    There wasn't much off-the-ball movement when either Jalen or Travis had the ball.

                    What's the famous "run out the clock play?" Oh yeah, let Travis dribble the ball until the clock is about to expire, then drive off a screen that Dale has been in postion to set for about 12 seconds, get to the rim and have your shot blocked. No movement.

                    Jalen gets the ball on the left wing and has a thousand high-percentage one-on-one moves. (You can ***** about the rest of Jalen's game but that part is undeniable.) But there was no movement then, either.

                    I understand the players were uncoachable and had bad habits. But you are discounting gamplan.

                    Somebody probably should get this back on topic. Next thing you know, I'll be preaching that they should be playing the young guys.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Low post scoring

                      The 61 win 2004 team had tons of low post options.
                      JO
                      Artest
                      Harrington
                      Tinsley
                      - but of course that teams was horrible - so it really doesn't count

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Low post scoring

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        The 61 win 2004 team had tons of low post options.
                        JO
                        Artest
                        Harrington
                        Tinsley
                        - but of course that teams was horrible - so it really doesn't count
                        Didn't they have a big ceromony to unveil the "61 Wins!" banner?
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Low post scoring

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          Didn't they have a big ceromony to unveil the "61 Wins!" banner?
                          Yes they did - it was a very fun and classy ceremony and everytime I walk into Conseco and see the 61 win banner - it warms my heart. The good old days
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 09-04-2008, 03:23 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Low post scoring

                            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                            1. O'Brien IS a defensive-minded coach.
                            i hope so 'cause he sure as **** isn't an offensive coach.

                            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                            Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes.
                            putty, do you like movies about gladiators?

                            Originally posted by JGray View Post
                            I wish Zach Randolph wasn't such a problem off the court, he would be perfect for this team.. he can hit the long range shot, post up, and rebound. Plus he would fit in since he plays terrible defense.
                            long range shot & mad ball-handling skillz

                            [yt]7lvYf08X6tc[/yt]
                            This is the darkest timeline.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X