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

When did Reggie become a great closer?

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

  • #16
    Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    I've gotten some thoughts on Reggie: always has been an end of the game great player--others say he grew into it around 93-94.

    But I still haven't gotten much of an opinion on the more relevant question: is it possible one of the guys currently on our roster could grow into this type of player, or is this something more innate than learned?
    Granger could definitely be that type of player, he just needs the opportunities to show it. We won't know for sure until we get into the playoffs. TJ isn't scared of taking that last shot either.

    Neither of them have shown any lack of toughness or drive. They're the least of my worries about the Pacers.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      1993
      That's the right answer. Chuck was gone. And Detlef was given the chance and didn't really seize it.
      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


      • #18
        Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
        I've gotten some thoughts on Reggie: always has been an end of the game great player--others say he grew into it around 93-94.

        But I still haven't gotten much of an opinion on the more relevant question: is it possible one of the guys currently on our roster could grow into this type of player, or is this something more innate than learned?
        I think Brandon Rush could be very good in 3-4 years. He has size, athletic ability to go to the basket and a good outside shot.

        All he needs is experience and time takes care of that.

        I would rather be the hammer than the nail

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
          I've gotten some thoughts on Reggie: always has been an end of the game great player--others say he grew into it around 93-94.

          But I still haven't gotten much of an opinion on the more relevant question: is it possible one of the guys currently on our roster could grow into this type of player, or is this something more innate than learned?

          I think Granger could. Remember how he was playing after he got his teeth knocked out? He was all over the place. He had to much adrenalin though because he couldn't hit anything.

          I've wondered why we don't run him or someone else off screens like we did Reggie, that at least gives us a shot at the end.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
            I've wondered why we don't run him or someone else off screens like we did Reggie, that at least gives us a shot at the end.
            Well, first you have to decide to USE the screen rather than bounce off of it or pass it too far away to brush off your man.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

              Right after he hired Brenda Lee Johnson.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

                As the biggest Det fan around I will easily concede that he just didn't take to the role of closer for whatever reason.

                HOWEVER, it's not like Reggie took it over right away himself. How clutch could a guy be when the team was getting destroyed in first round playoff series?

                They had ONE good playoff series with Reggie and that was when PERSON went off vs Bird. Reggie had a great 4 along with Chuck, but that was Chuck's team to close out if he could.

                More importantly when they finally did get over the hump who did they beat and who hit that shot....

                that's right BYRON SCOTT beat the Magic. And they brought Scott in for a reason. You don't hire a guy like that if you've got Reggie going 8 in 8.9 every other day.

                It probably wasn't till that Knicks series that he really took over as the "get me the ball to win this thing" guy.

                And sure his rep lived on past his ability to make good on those moments, especially that final year, but for about 8-10 years I'd bet his made to missed ratio for CLOSER shots was pretty damn high.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  Well, first you have to decide to USE the screen rather than bounce off of it or pass it too far away to brush off your man.
                  Unfortunately too true. But you've got to admit that Danny's off-dribble game and going to the rim in traffic game is ridiculously better than it was last year even.

                  Danny blew the Miami game with 2 horrible TO's that led directly to Miami dunks. But the time is getting closer when he won't fumble the ball there and instead he's going to finish going to the rim instead. That will probably be his final big step forward and won't happen till later this year or even into next season.


                  BTW, I agree that Rush has similar capabilities. He's a kid who's shot just looks really close, his form isn't off and he can go hard or get the shot up quick. A little repetition and off-season work will have him just a bit behind Danny for that kind of scoring. He looks to be filling the void left by Shawne (well, Shawne's attitude is more like it).

                  I disagree more on Ford. He tends to take really difficult shots and I think at the end of games you just can't count on those.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

                    Reggie became much better at creating his own shots in isolation plays his later years.

                    I love what he did to Lindsey Hunter in the 04 or 05 playoffs (I forget).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

                      Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                      Reggie Miller putting a ball in the air with the clock running down made EVERYONE hold their breath.

                      I remember several pictures of Reggie taking a last shot against other teams in their building and the crowd is ALWAYS standing, and people are holding their head and doing all sorts of things showing that they did not want him shooting. I think he was feared more than Jordan if there was just a second left on the clock.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                        Danny blew the Miami game with 2 horrible TO's that led directly to Miami dunks.
                        Have to remember he had just twisted his ankle and it had to be bothering him.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

                          Is there a vet out there we could bring in for the last few minutes?

                          Someone mentioned a Byron Scott kind of solution for us.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

                            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                            I remember several pictures of Reggie taking a last shot against other teams in their building and the crowd is ALWAYS standing, and people are holding their head and doing all sorts of things showing that they did not want him shooting. I think he was feared more than Jordan if there was just a second left on the clock.
                            Of course the classic was during the 2000 NYK series that became a t-shirt, CPU wallpaper, etc. If a photo ever summed up Reggie's career that was the one.


                            MFan - I mentioned Scott because he was the one that first came in as the clutch vet and helped Reggie and Co turn talent into finishes. Later Reggie became that but Scott was such a huge factor early on.

                            Scott had been with those great Lakers teams, was far enough along to be down to 2-3 years left yet still capable, and fit a rotation role too.

                            You have Detroit and SA but Rip and Manu are too young. Billups is also just a few years too soon, you'd never get him at this point. But Billups in a few years is exactly that Scott type, dead ringer.

                            Kobe is too good, way beyond being this role. Miami won with Wade all by himself really. Boston isn't a group of guys that won for years together, otherwise you'd think of Ray Allen. But he's out of reach and honestly wasn't part of a much winning till last year.

                            Bruce Bowen maybe? Could be getting close enough to the end of his career.

                            Horry to me is NOT the right type. It's not about clutch shots, it's much more about leadership. That rules him out.

                            Is there a team that has been strong for 10 years and is now winding down a dynasty? Again that's basically the Spurs, but other than Bowen the main 3 guys are unobtainable right now.

                            I'm stumped.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

                              Seth, that was 1998, not 2000 re: Reggie's shot in NY

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                I'm stumped.
                                Not necessarily a clutch shooter per se, but James Posey certainly has the "been there, done that" coolness in the fourth quarter of big games. At times he carried the Celtics last playoffs when Garnett was doing his usual "OMG, the pressure is ON!" choking.

                                I'm less worried about "who takes the shot in the last minute" than "who is on the court during the last six minutes so that you are still in position to win". That's what guys like Austin Croshere and Derrick McKey could do that never showed up in the box score - make plays under pressure. And I think that Rush, Granger, and Hibbert can all be those guys in the future. You can often decide this based primarily on which players can hit FTs in the closing minutes of a game.

                                In other words, I think too much emphasis is placed on the very last shot.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X