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

Year in review: Jeff Foster

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

  • Year in review: Jeff Foster





    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/foster_page_0304.html



    2003-04 in Review:
    Jeff Foster

    Height: 6-11 Weight: 242 Age: 27 (1/16/77)

    Regular Season: Was the only Pacers' player to see action in every game this season and he did so for the second time in the last three seasons ...

    Logged a career-high 1,961 minutes (23.9 mpg) and saw 30+ minutes 15 times ...

    Among the top offensive rebounders in the NBA this season, he collected a career-high and team-leading 248 offensive boards ...

    Ranked tied for eighth in total offensive boards and in offensive rebounds per game ... Averaged 6.1 offensive rebounds per 48 minutes, best in the NBA ... Overall, averaged a career-high 7.4 rpg and tied for 28th in the NBA, second on the team ...

    Registered eight double-doubles ... Had a career-high 19 points with 12 rebounds vs. the Sonics at Conseco Fieldhouse, 11/14 ...

    For the first time in his career, led the team in scoring in a game ... In the last 15 games, averaged 9.0 rpg and had 10+ rebounds eight times, including a run of three in a row from 3/30 to 4/2. ...

    On offense, had best season ever, scoring 6.1 ppg on 54.4 percent FGS and 66.9 percent FTS. ...

    Scored in double figures in seven of the last 15 games, including a career-high five games in a row from 3/19 to 3/26. In those five games, he averaged 13.2 ppg and shot 23-44 FGS (.523) ...

    Over the last 23 games of the season, he shot 39-54 FTS (.722) and ended the season having hit nine straight free throws ...

    With enough field goals made to qualify for the league leaders, he would have ranked third best in the NBA with a team-high 54.4 percent. ...

    One of only two Pacers' players with more steals than turnovers in 2003-04, he was fourth on the team with a career-high 71 steals. ...

    Came off the bench in the first two games of the season, but then started all but one game from then on ...

    In his 79 starts, the team was 60-19 (.759). ... His 79 starts was second most on the team to Reggie Miller, who started all 80 of his appearances.

    Playoffs: Started 13 of 16 postseason games, averaging 19.2 minutes, 3.6 points and 6.6 rebounds ...

    Struggled against Detroit in the conference finals, averaging 0.7 points and 4.2 rebounds in six games ... Did not start the final three games ...

    Had the best game of his career (regular season or playoffs) in Game 5 against Miami in the second round, registering career-bests of 20 points and 16 rebounds, shooting 9-10 FGS and 2-2 FTS. ... That was the first double-double of his postseason career. ... Totaled 13 points in the other five games of the series ...

    Against Boston in the first round, averaged 5.3 ppg and 7.5 rpg, while shooting 10-15 FGS for a team-best 66.7 percent

    Plus-Minus: Ranked fifth during the regular season at +5.7 per game, but dropped to 10th during the playoffs at -0.5, including a -2.8 mark during the conference finals

    Contract Status: Signed through the 2008-09 season

    Analysis: The best season of his career didn't end as he would've liked, as Foster was replaced in the starting lineup for the final three games of the conference finals, but that did little to tarnish the year. With the departure of All-Star Brad Miller, the Pacers needed someone to fill the void in the middle and Foster beat out veteran Scot Pollard for the starting job early and held onto it with his usual combination of hustle and aggression.

    The rare combination of a big man who also is an energy player, Foster is a tenacious rebounder and potentially an excellent defender. Needs to develop one reliable offensive move to take his overall game up a notch.



  • #2
    Re: Year in review: Jeff Foster

    This was a resurrection year for Jeff though I agree - he should be able to stick the jump shot.
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Year in review: Jeff Foster

      Jeff is not yet a scorer, and he certainly doesn't come close to resembling an adequate mid-range shooter, but the things that Jeff brings to the court he does very well.

      As Buck says, he is a hustler and a rebounder. Jeff and Austin do a great job of keeping rebounds "alive" as well as anyone on the team, and as well as most in the league.

      In the last few weeks, I've been a little hard on Jeff and his FT shooting ability. Someone should have thrown a rock my direction. 2-out-of-every-3 isn't too bad.... much better than the 1-for-2 he used to shoot. I figure he'll push it to 70%+ next season.

      I think that even Jeff's strongest supporters would state that he is NOT the ideal starter for our team. But against most opponents, he adequately fills the role at both ends of the floor... at least until someone better is acquired to share the minutes with him.

      For Jeff, I think he MUST develop a decent 12-14 foot shot, even if it's a set shot. He has to get his FT% over 70%. And for this season, I'd give him a special challenge.... teach his fundamentals regarding rebounding to Jermaine, who rarely blocks out to help teammates and goes after rebounds with his athleticism alone.

      Many have spoken out against getting a player like Dampier. To slow. Has only produced in contract years. Jeff blends with JO, Dampier would not, etc.

      I think Dampier might be decent for our team for the simple reason that he is different than Jeff. They both certainly rebound, but Jeff is the faster and quicker player, especially in getting from end-to-end and filling the lane. But Dampier is a far stronger, more imposing defensive player on the interior. Dampier brings a few different things to the court and would allow a few extra wrinkles to be thrown into the offense and the defense.

      But in regards to Jeff, he's the type of player that serves his role very well. Every team needs and would love to have a player like him. He'll never ***** about not seeing the ball enough or getting enough minutes. He'll just step on the court and give you full effort every single minute he's on the court. He will NEVER lead by words; but he will lead by ACTION.

      I'd hate to see him sacrificed to acquire another player. He'd be missed by both his teammates and the fans.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Year in review: Jeff Foster

        I love Jeff. I thought he did a great job this year and like him in the starting lineup. If we can get a 2 to score 15-20 ppg, then we can win the Championship.
        Play Mafia!
        Twitter

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Year in review: Jeff Foster

          Good post Beast. I have no problem bringing Dampier in, if he is willing to take the mnidlevel exception type money, and willing to come off the bench, yes come off the bench. We know that won't happen, so that is why I say no thanks.


          It bugs me to no end that J.O does not block out. He is the only player on the whole team that does not block out. Pacers are extremely well coached in blocking out, but J.O does not do it. Even Ron who is a type of a player who you might think would not block out does it very well. Jeff and Cro are superb at blocking out.

          I think Jeff is the ideal starter for the Pacers. He fits in perfectly with J.O and Ron. I am only looking for a better backup center, because I did not like the smaller lineup with AL at PF.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Year in review: Jeff Foster

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            Good post Beast. I have no problem bringing Dampier in, if he is willing to take the mnidlevel exception type money, and willing to come off the bench, yes come off the bench. We know that won't happen, so that is why I say no thanks.


            It bugs me to no end that J.O does not block out. He is the only player on the whole team that does not block out. Pacers are extremely well coached in blocking out, but J.O does not do it. Even Ron who is a type of a player who you might think would not block out does it very well. Jeff and Cro are superb at blocking out.

            I think Jeff is the ideal starter for the Pacers. He fits in perfectly with J.O and Ron. I am only looking for a better backup center, because I did not like the smaller lineup with AL at PF.
            I LOVE the smaller lineup with Jermaine at centerr, though I love Jeff too.
            Jermaine/Al/Bender/Ron/Jamaall is STILL our best team next year.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Year in review: Jeff Foster

              Foster is a perfect fit for this team because he does not have the pressure of scoring. He can purely focus on rebounding and defense.

              About his shooting, his form is actually really good. FT and FG. But for some reason they just don't go in. If he can practice a bit this summer, I think they will go in with frequency.
              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Year in review: Jeff Foster

                I've always thought of Jeff as a decent shooter [judging by warmups, college, and stories of him and Reggie's pre-game three-point contests], but it seems like he's almost tried to avoid shooting jumpers the last couple seasons.

                Hopefully he'll add a respectable mid-range game this year; it would really make him into a fantastic all-around player.
                Official Member of the Anti-Alliteration Association

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Year in review: Jeff Foster

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck
                  Good post Beast. I have no problem bringing Dampier in, if he is willing to take the mnidlevel exception type money, and willing to come off the bench, yes come off the bench. We know that won't happen, so that is why I say no thanks.


                  It bugs me to no end that J.O does not block out. He is the only player on the whole team that does not block out. Pacers are extremely well coached in blocking out, but J.O does not do it. Even Ron who is a type of a player who you might think would not block out does it very well. Jeff and Cro are superb at blocking out.

                  I think Jeff is the ideal starter for the Pacers. He fits in perfectly with J.O and Ron. I am only looking for a better backup center, because I did not like the smaller lineup with AL at PF.
                  Wait a min.

                  Whenever we talk about Al you always kept saying that it didn't matter who started, but who finished.

                  Yet whenever I see you talk about almost any other player you say that they should either start or come off of the bench.

                  Which is it? Is it important who starts or isn't it?

                  Jeff is as affective coming off of the bench as he is starting, so what differance does it make?

                  Look, don't get me wrong, I'm with you. Dampier is not what we need per say. Although I would be interested to see if the team really is interested in him.

                  But if he was to be brought here then why in the hell would we want the guy to come off of the bench?


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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Year in review: Jeff Foster

                    Peck, I only have a few seconds.

                    Two points.

                    I don't like the lineup of J.O, Al, and Ron at the three front court positions. Defense is OK. But offensively I don't think it works.

                    I don't think Damp and J.O. as a combo will work


                    I've got to go

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X