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

Brunos caught in the web:Jack, Ford give Pacers thunder, lightning at point

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Brunos caught in the web:Jack, Ford give Pacers thunder, lightning at point

    Gotta love the Thunder and Lightning nicknames!!


    http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5700023658

    The season is just around the corner, so I'm naturally pumped. This will be my 24th consecutive season covering the NBA but you never really lose that sense of excitement, anticipation and mystery that comes with the season's dawn.

    So maybe I'm getting a little carried away, but it feels like just the right time for a bold prediction: T.J. Ford and Jarrett Jack will be the most productive point guard tandem in Pacers history.

    OK, maybe not that bold.

    Granted, there isn't a lot of competition for that particular honor. Mark Jackson and Travis Best? Micheal Williams and Vern Fleming? Johnny Davis and Don Buse? Nice combos all, but not exactly Tracy and Hepburn. I'd throw in a reference for the Facebook generation but, as it turns out, nobody stays together long enough to become legendary these days.


    Ford and Jack combined for 25.1 points, 9.0 assists, 7.8 rebounds and 2.5 steals in the preseason and there's little reason to doubt those numbers will decline much, if at all, during the regular season. This is not just wild speculation in reaction to unreliable preseason stats. Their combined NBA career averages are, after all, 21.1 points, 10.9 assists, 5.8 rebounds and 2.03 steals.

    Let's be honest here: if you ranked the five starting positions in terms of overall talent in franchise history, point guard might hold a slight edge on center for fifth. But that could start to change this season because of Ford and Jack.

    "They're both going to play an enormous amount of minutes," said Jim O'Brien. "We have to have them both on the court. They bring us good leadership, good toughness from the defensive standpoint. T.J. certainly has the capabilities of up-tempo-ing an offense at a level that's one of the best in the league, which is attractive to us. Jarrett Jack is one of the hardest-nosed guys you ever want to be around. They bring different dimensions to what we're doing. It's just good to have those options."

    One of the fastest guards in the league with the ball in his hands – he ranked third in that category in the NBA's survey of GMs, behind only Chris Paul and Tony Parker – Ford could well enjoy the best season of his career in O'Brien's offense. He flirted with a triple-double in the final preseason game (19 points, nine assists, seven rebounds) as the Pacers routed the Mavs in Dallas.

    "I'm feeling good," Ford said. "I trained real hard this summer to try to train my body for what's expected out of me. I'll have the opportunity to play a lot more minutes than I have throughout my career, so I'm looking forward to it.

    "I think this is the first time in the NBA where it's going to be an up-paced tempo. It's something I haven't been a part of since I've been in the league. It just opens the floor up to give me a lot of opportunities to create for myself and also for others. It just gives me the opportunity to come out, be a floor general, know when to attack and when not to attack."

    The particularly nice thing about these two is they are fully complementary. Ford is lightning. Jack is thunder.

    They're also used to managing their egos in a tandem situation. Ford paired with Mo Williams in Milwaukee and Jose Calderon in Toronto. Jack started 79 games in 2006-07 but played a support role to Steve Blake last year in Portland.

    "Whether I'm coming in for him or we're in there together, we just do a great job of feeding off each other," Jack said. "If I have it, he runs the lane. If he has it, I do the same. We go in there trying to make great decisions for the team and just run the ballclub."

    I've barely touched on defense, which just might be the most significant upgrade. The Pacers have been tortured by bad matchups at point for years. In Ford and Jack, that should no longer be the case.

    "We had a difficult time containing the basketball last year at our point guard spot and we suffered as a result of it," said O'Brien. "It's not the only place we were weak defensively. But T.J. Ford is a tough-minded guy that does a good job of containing the basketball. It all starts with the ability to keep your man in front of you. We couldn't do that last year. T.J. is pretty good at doing that. Jarrett Jack is just a tough-minded guy who keeps the ball in front (of him), will hit people, take charges, get on the ground for loose balls, is the type of individual that will help our team own our defense. …

    "We're just significantly better just if you start at the point of attack."

    Or, as Ford put it: "They put up a lot of points last year but they also gave up a lot. It's important that we get stops."

    There are adjustments still to be made. Both Ford and Jack are used to having the ball in their hands and O'Brien's system calls for the point guard to use an early pass to initiate the movement in the offense. They must fight the tendency to over-dribble. They'll also need to do a better job protecting the ball. They combined for 46 turnovers in the preseason, nearly six per game and fully 31 percent of the team's miscues.

    Those are tendencies that should fade with time and experience with their new teammates and the system. Both are veterans, yet still relatively young (Ford is 25, while Jack turns 25 Tuesday).

    All of which means this could be the start of something very special at the point, and the franchise's years of wanting at that position should finally be over.

    PRESEASON NUMBERS ENCOURAGING

    As previously mentioned, I've been around awhile so I know better than to get too excited about preseason statistics. But they just happen to be the only numbers we have to go on at the moment. For what they're worth, the stats do offer some encouraging signs.

    From a team perspective, the Pacers needed to improve their free-throw disparity (they were outscored by 3.5 per game from the line last season) and their rebounding (minus 2.5 last year). In the preseason, they outscored opponents by 23 from the line and outrebounded them by nearly five per game.

    Despite the loss of their primary post presence, they actually increased their points in the paint, outscoring opponents by 60 – perhaps because they have more freedom to attack the basket from the perimeter. They also racked up a 99-49 advantage in fast-break points in the final four games, averaging an impressive 24.8.

    One thing hasn't really changed. The magic number is still 100. The Pacers were 4-0 when they did and 0-4 when they did not. Last season, they were 32-21 when scoring 100-plus, 4-25 when they did not.

    Inidividually, there were mostly solid numbers but one troubling stat: Danny Granger's shooting. He hit just .281 from the field and .235 from the 3-point line. But he did show improvement in two important areas, getting to the line 52 times (7.4 per game) while averaging 3.1 assists (4.3 in the last four).

    The rookies also were solid while cementing their spots in the rotation. Brandon Rush showed an excellent 3-point stroke (.429) and averaged 28.6 minutes, 10.1 points and 3.6 rebounds. Roy Hibbert appears to be coming along a little more quickly than expected and averaged 18.9 minutes, 9.3 points, 6.0 rebounds and 1.88 blocked shots.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Brunos caught in the web:Jack, Ford give Pacers thunder, lightning at point

    I don't expect it to hold, but any team that gets 20 points and ten rebounds from its rookies did well in the draft.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Brunos caught in the web:Jack, Ford give Pacers thunder, lightning at point

      Imagine Hibbert playing 30-35 minutes per game a year or 2 from now.... I think he's going to be a beast. Oh and that Rush guy is pretty good too
      Granger's shooting numbers only scare me a little bit because of the fact that he saw his shot wasn't falling, so he found other ways to score by getting to the line, and he also got his team mates involved a lot more in the last 4 preseason games. Granger's passing game and his ball handling are the two things that leave him behind on the whole Scottie Pippen comparison thing (not that I myself compare the two). I will be amazed if Granger can manage to average 3-4 assists a game with 2 good point guards, vs. only averaging 2 in years where we were pretty much crap at the point guard spot. If he can get 3-4 assists a game and get to the line like he did in the preseason, while maintaining his defensive presence, then I'd want to make sure we lock him up under contract for as long as possible by any means necessary. Yes, 2's and 3's are nearly a dime a dozen in the NBA, but 2's and 3's that can completely fill up a stat sheet are priceless.
      Last edited by Evan_The_Dude; 10-24-2008, 06:03 PM.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Brunos caught in the web:Jack, Ford give Pacers thunder, lightning at point

        Granger averaged over 4 assists a game over the course of the last 4 preseason games... then there is the fact that he is getting to the line a lot. When his shot starts falling (which I think it will), look out. We need to lock him up now.
        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

        - ilive4sports

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Brunos caught in the web:Jack, Ford give Pacers thunder, lightning at point

          Covering the NBA? How about works for the NBA, well at least the Pacers anyway.

          Does Conrad still view himself as a journalist or as a p.r. person? I'm not trying to be smart here, I honestly would like to know.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Brunos caught in the web:Jack, Ford give Pacers thunder, lightning at point

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            Covering the NBA? How about works for the NBA, well at least the Pacers anyway.

            Does Conrad still view himself as a journalist or as a p.r. person? I'm not trying to be smart here, I honestly would like to know.


            Well, since you asked...
            My brother recently attended c-rad's daughter's wedding as a guest of the groom and spoke to the man in question for 10 or so minutes about all things bball. He would say that Conrad is definitely drinking the blue and gold flavor-aid, but has quite a good grasp on the whole of the NBA.

            So, to answer your question... I really have no idea.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Brunos caught in the web:Jack, Ford give Pacers thunder, lightning at point

              Ford and Jack are really going to be good for us. Add Rush and granger into that, and our perimeter D is looking stellar. You got Rush getting .42 percent from three, and our PGs looking like a tandem that is going to become a force in this league.

              Thank you Larry. I think the doubters will disappear when they realize the impact of the JO trade and our draft this year, which coincides with the departure of Walsh. Now if we can just dump Tinsley before the deadline we are set regardless of what we get in return.

              When is the last time you could thrown names around like Ford Jack Granger Dunleavy and Rush when talking about the pacers perimeter game? I really don’t know if we've ever been this deep up front.

              Where do Daniels, Baston, and Diener fit in? I don't know. I think we'd be better off to not find out except for trash minutes. But they all three have looked promising at times, but those top 5 seem to be the real deal, so I think they might get left behind this year.

              Ford and Jack FTW.

              Maybe we can package 'Quis with Tinsley.
              Last edited by Midcoasted; 10-25-2008, 03:32 AM.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Brunos caught in the web:Jack, Ford give Pacers thunder, lightning at point

                The pic of the two PGs next 2 each other really is demonstrative of their differences in PG style.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Brunos caught in the web:Jack, Ford give Pacers thunder, lightning at point

                  Doesn't the NBA already have the name "thunder" somewhere???

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Brunos caught in the web:Jack, Ford give Pacers thunder, lightning at point

                    Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
                    Where do Daniels, Baston, and Diener fit in? I don't know. I think we'd be better off to not find out except for trash minutes. But they all three have looked promising at times, but those top 5 seem to be the real deal, so I think they might get left behind this year.

                    Maybe we can package 'Quis with Tinsley.
                    Why?

                    Comment

                    Previous template Next
                    Working...
                    X