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

How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

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

  • #61
    Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

    Neither player has played well enough nor consistently enough to warrant as much discussion as they have so far.

    So if you're claiming either to be a future HoF or AS, it's just funny looking.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      Neither player has played well enough nor consistently enough to warrant as much discussion as they have so far.

      So if you're claiming either to be a future HoF or AS, it's just funny looking.
      No one is claiming Bayless is HoF but he was rated with higher upside than Rush. So they traded Bayless to also get Jack but then decided not to keep Jack so the net is Bayless for Rush. Add to that Rush's so called confidence problem (usually not seen in shooters) and it is no wonder that fans are upset.
      No the final determination won't be known for some time so the arguments over a few excellent games by either of these guys is definitely nonsense.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        Neither player has played well enough nor consistently enough to warrant as much discussion as they have so far.

        So if you're claiming either to be a future HoF or AS, it's just funny looking.
        Yes, I did refer to future All-Star Jerryd Bayless as a future All-Star. I will happily stand by that statement. I did not refer to future All-Star Jerryd Bayless as a HOF player, but then there's a lot of time remaining in his career. He'd have to be in the right situation, with the right coach and the right teammates for something like that to happen.

        Brandon Rush will be lucky to be still playing in the NBA in three years.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

          Originally posted by btm View Post

          Brandon Rush will be lucky to be still playing in the NBA in three years.
          I don't know how much Rush's offense will improve, and since that is what most people pay the most attention to, that is what he will ultimately be judged on by fans.

          But a guy that can come in and defend SG/SF at a high level is a guy who will find a spot on a team for years to come. It might be off the bench or whatever but I think it is very likely Rush will be in the NBA 3 years from now unless he suddenly stops playing D or suffers major injuries. Most GMs and coaches (particularly those running playoff bound teams) are going to attach some value to a player who has the tools to be a significantly above average to lock-down level defender.
          Last edited by gummy; 12-24-2009, 11:30 PM.
          "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

          "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

          "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

            Originally posted by gummy View Post
            Most GMs and coaches (particularly those running playoff bound teams) are going to attach some value to a player who has the tools to be a significantly above average to lock-down level defender.
            Dime a Dozen.

            Even though Rush has been labeled as a good defender, look at reality. If he was REALLY a lock-down defender, the Pacers wouldn't be in last place because their lock-down defender would be shutting down key players of the opposition. Maybe he's the best defenders for the Pacers, but all that makes him is the best defender on a team of crappy defenders.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

              Originally posted by btm View Post
              Dime a Dozen.

              Even though Rush has been labeled as a good defender, look at reality. If he was REALLY a lock-down defender, the Pacers wouldn't be in last place because their lock-down defender would be shutting down key players of the opposition. Maybe he's the best defenders for the Pacers, but all that makes him is the best defender on a team of crappy defenders.
              That is, in my opinion, a vast oversimplification of the situation. If that's really your assessment of Rush's defense (and the team, for that matter because there are other quality defenders on the this team)...well, I guess we are seeing or looking for different things on defense. I suspect we are too far apart philosophically for it to be worth continuing this discussion. Goodnight!
              "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

              "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

              "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

                I wish people would learn that one game, or five games, or even an entire season is not controlling when comparing the value of two players. Quite frankly you all look ridiculous.

                And Rush annoys the **** out of me.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

                  You can only have so many players that make 8-10million a year. Then there are guys like DJones, Brandon Rush... the tough defensive players. What do you guys expect with a non top ten pick?

                  I am quite happy with Rush being on the team for the next few years when we reach... the promised land of good basketball. Or whatever Larry gives us.

                  When Brandon is on the court, he really does play good D.. One thing I don't think people realize is how big Brandon is, he has a freakin barrel chest. He can really be a phsycial defender. He is much bigger than DJones or even Danny it seems.

                  The previous post by btm was way off base with flawed logic.. you can't say that since the Pacers have a poor record therefore Brandon must be a bad defender. There are so many different variables involved beyond personal defensive prowess. There is coaching schemes, other bad defenders on the court...like our famous Matador, not to mention playing time or being on the court during crucial times. I hope Brandon is a Pacer when we get some good basketball players on the team and finally get rid of Murph and TJ and have a new coach. I am looking forward to it.
                  Last edited by PaceBalls; 12-25-2009, 03:38 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

                    All right, Hicks PM'd me the message and I'm just going to cut and paste what I said, I'm not going to re-quote everything I was responding to though.

                    ======

                    THIS ... right here is why I don't debate anything with you, it's exactly why I generally just ignore what you say. You went on some tangent that had nothing to do with what was said. Yes, I love me some Troy Murphy

                    If the only thing you're getting from a player is defense, yes it's a specialty role. Bruce Bowen is far superior to Rush and he is even a role player. Either way Dale is completely different than Rush in many ways. Dale was intimidating, he changed shots, and people didn't want to go in the paint when he was there. Nobody is scared of Rush or cares that he's there. He stays in front of his man fairly well and on that end does some things well, but he's not even close to sniffing the impact that Dale had on the game on that end of the floor.

                    I would much rather have Dale reborn than Troy. Quit trying to be clever and putting words in people's mouth and just debate what's said. Is it that hard?

                    Either way a better comparison is Derrick McKey. Are you going to tell me McKey wasn't a role player? Also, how is Rush a "balanced player"? I guess being a ghost on half of the court is "balanced", he's as unbalanced as Troy is. A starting shooting guard averaging 7 points per game with 36% shooting while in a system known to inflate numbers even. Even Dale Davis was able to average 10 points per game on a team that played with a very slow pace.

                    =====

                    Pretty difficult to have "outstanding games" when you're not getting the minutes to put up those kinds of numbers. Also you acknowledge he's basically playing the SG spot, but then you want to nag about his lack of assists? Hello, you're contradicting yourself there. Unless you're going to tell me you expect big assist numbers from your backup SG playing 13 minutes per game .....

                    Bayless can do two HUGE things that would help here that Ford cannot do. He can finish around the rim, meaning he won't get stuck in the paint looking foolish because he has only one option when he gets there. Two, he can actually make a shot from more than 15 feet.

                    Also, no I wouldn't want Ford and Bayless on the court together. Why does this trade have to matter right this minute for this team? Ford should be gone soon, and Bayless would still be here after. There is something called a future, and that's what we should be concerned about. Let me break this down for you .... this .... team .... isn't ... going .... anywhere .... right .... now. Which was the point I was making in the post I made before. Trading for what we need right now is USELESS.

                    By the time this team actually matters .... we will have a whole different set of needs. It's like you're incapable of seeing past what we have on the team at this moment. A narrow view like this will keep us in the position we are in right now. One of not being relevant.

                    =====

                    Was Andre Miller their first choice? No, he wasn't. Hedo was. Originally they were going to spend money elsewhere, but when that fell through they probably just jumped at the best player their money could get, regardless of position. Why would they do that you ask?

                    This last offseason is the only chance the Blazers had in the foreseeable future to have cap space. With the extensions of contracts for players currently on the roster ... this was the ONE shot at adding a player in free agency. I'm sure they figured they'd add more talent and rearrange it to fit their needs at a later time. Which is the same logic I have for saying why the Pacers should have kept Bayless.

                    Also, yes Blake was starting over Bayless. Imagine that ... a team trying to contend for a title wanted their quality veteran PG starting over a 20 year old rookie. *gasp!* What a shock.

                    =====

                    You're really going to take just a few games and compare the percentages and think that's relevant? How about the body of work as a whole this season? This is a silly angle to take when Bayless is shooting better from 3 point range than Rush is from the field. Bayless is also scoring more points per game in nearly HALF of the floor time. Not to mention Bayless is on a much more talented team while doing so, so there should be less opportunities to score. Yet Rush is too busy pretending he is Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh. That's what I'm going to call Rush from now on, Eeyore.

                    You go ahead and use 5 good games from Rush and compare them to one "bad game" of Bayless. Except that bad game was one in which Bayless took an undermanned and injury riddled roster and helped them go out and beat a very good San Antonio team. What a bad game ... indeed.

                    -- Steve --
                    Last edited by Pacersfan46; 12-25-2009, 05:08 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

                      What I think is funny (kinda) is that some people want Bayless and some people want Blair. A real short 2 guard and a real short 4. Maybe we should pick up Boykins as well. Then we can (referring to another thread) change the name of our team to the Indiana Lollypop Guild.....lol. Seriously, why do you guys deal with "could have beens" and "should have beens"? We could have had Michael Jordan as well. Should I start a thread about that? He did pretty well and could have helped us a bit.....

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

                        To me Bayless comes in as your PG all the way. He has the handles for the PG position. He's not a horrible passer, just not some ace. I think he's a more natural PG than Westbrook, for comparison, though I loved Westbrook's intangibles and knack for being involved in every single play at UCLA. I always saw Westbrook as a strong SG prospect that played in the vein of Fred Jones (athletic gifts, strong hops, knack for rebounds/loose balls, quick) but far more talented and aware than Fred.

                        Bayless is like a much better version of Maynor to me. Maynor has a couple of things he does like an NBA player, Bayless has more moves than that.


                        I like Blair quite a bit, but that's because I saw him destroy taller players on a regular basis by using technique inside to get to the spaces he needed, plus his impressive reach.



                        Why do we discuss "could have been" all of 1-2 years or less from a decision? Oh, I don't know. Why do we bother discussing games after they are over? And why discuss games before they happen because that's all speculation too. Let's not discuss anything that hasn't happened because "we don't know" and let's not discuss it afterward because "it's in the past now".

                        Gee, that is fun. Great idea for a discussion forum, kill off all instances where you would discuss something.


                        Now IMO we are supposed to still be in the "give them 3-5 years before you judge this draft" window where we are evaluating whether a pick or trade was actually good.


                        I guess I'm just sick and tired of people taking whatever stance at the time, lobbing big fireballs of outrage about whatever subject, and then coming up with 150 reasons not to discuss it later if it doesn't go their way.

                        I'm pro-opinions as long as they come with accountability, and that means you discuss them later after we've found out how things went and who's opinions were closer to the truth.

                        Sorry MS, but this is a hot button topic for me (the "lets not discuss anymore" thing). People need to man up and look their terribly wrong opinions in the eye, swallow some pride and maybe ease up the next time around if they've strung together a series of duds. Guys who say a lot of things that end up being true are who I'm intereseted in hearing from before the next topic pans out. I have little interest in hearing from the crackpot with more misses than hits when it comes to predictions and opinions.

                        And I have no problem having my stuff bumped or copied (if context is kept intact). I've had my share of misses.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                          Bayless and Jones are nothing alike and you know it.
                          Why? How do we know it?

                          The point was made "look at this game he had, look at the output and the circumstances" and it was being used to show that Bayless was good and was headed for greatness.

                          My counter is "other people have done the EXACT same thing". Not kinda, but I mean really really close. We know what became of Fred, but not one damn person here was saying Fred sucks time to dump him the day after that flipping Orlando game.

                          That's what I'm sick of too. NOW when I bring up Fred's game we get "oh come on", but no one said that then. What you have is perspective on Fred's long term career, something you 100% don't have for Bayless yet.

                          So this example shows that we must be careful to read too much into this 31 point game.

                          IT DOES NOT DISCOUNT IT. After all, 10 straight 31pt games is made up of 10 individual 31pt nights. But 1 game like this by itself isn't a trend or a sure sign.

                          For Bayless fans it's hope, a ray of light that something might be there. I think Portland would be dumb to plant him deep on the bench again. But they'd also be dumb to now trade Blake, Rudy and Roy because they have the next AI and need a star big to go with him with Oden out.


                          You go ahead and use 5 good games from Rush and compare them to one "bad game" of Bayless.
                          It wasn't his bad game, it was his best game, his 31 point game. I also mentioned Bayless having 2 other games over 20 points.

                          How does a guy that Portland doesn't want to play having 3 total games over 20 points prove how good he is? That's my point. The very things you are running right back at me are the things I threw at you. It's the same thing going either way.

                          The difference is that I'm not saying "oh snap, I told you Rush rocked and Bayless sucked". I've never had that view.

                          I have gone into the "see, Bayless is great and Rush stinks" threads and put up counter evidence to that fact, and the people that feel that way see this as Bayless hatred.

                          IMO this helps indicate how unreasonable some of those views are. If someone comes in and says "well, it's in the middle" you quickly find out the extremes because those are the people that think the middle man is crazy.



                          Bayless is 9 of 21 this year.
                          He was 7 of 27 last year, and his career 3P% is 33%
                          The PCT this year looks huge but it's because the sample space is tiny. If he has one game of 0-3 from deep his 3P% drops from this great 43% to 38%. The sample space is that small.

                          Rush by comparison has shot 90 3PA this year, for a team with a hella lot less talent and offensive structure. He's not getting Roy kicking to him for Aldridge pressing the inside.

                          Last year Rush put up 209 3PAs for 37% and has a career PCT at 36% still, despite his bad start this year.

                          So we are viewing 21 shots this year only as proof that he's better from deep than Rush and his 209 last year or 299 total? Rush takes 10 times the shots and we figure we are looking at the same thing?




                          The irony here is that you were ticked off at my "cherry picking" all the 20+ point games and showing that Rush had more, and that in those games he shot better, and yet your MAIN COUNTER is based entirely on the tiniest sample space you could find.

                          Bayless in this one game or with these few shots has proven that he's not only equal but better than Rush???


                          Does Bayless deserve a look? Of course he does. I'd be interested in having him here. But I don't think he has proven that he's better than Ford or Rush (style, player traded for). He's only proven that he's worth looking at.

                          As for potential, I was one of the people before the draft talking about his potential. You never saw me say "avoid him" and if you were at the draft party you saw me cheer when they drafted him.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

                            Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                            Ok this dude has to miss Jack or maybe the body snatchers is not beyond the realm of science fiction.

                            25 FGA? He has not even sniffed that this year.
                            Amazing what good point gaurd play can do.
                            "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


                            • #74
                              Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              I have gone into the "see, Bayless is great and Rush stinks" threads and put up counter evidence to that fact, and the people that feel that way see this as Bayless hatred.

                              IMO this helps indicate how unreasonable some of those views are. If someone comes in and says "well, it's in the middle" you quickly find out the extremes because those are the people that think the middle man is crazy.
                              Yes, that's exactly what you said in your first post, then my reply was a simple statement based on the situation of the Pacers as a team and had nothing to do with Bayless except that he could be the more talented player. Yet, you went off on some condescending and ridiculous post that had nothing to do with what I said.

                              Then you wonder why you get what you perceive to be extreme answers ..... not only that, but apparently entertaining the idea of holding on to more talented players is an "extreme" view. Maybe you're just a little jumpy on what you consider extreme.

                              -- Steve --
                              Last edited by Pacersfan46; 12-26-2009, 06:33 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: How 'bout that ex-Pacer Jerred Bayless last night!!!

                                Brandon has been shooting the ball better lately, if anyone has noticed. He is shooting about 47% from the field and 38% from three in the last 10 games. He is still only averaging around 9 PPG in that span, but the numbers indicate he should probably start taking more shots. He had a nice 15 point outing against Boston the other night.

                                If he can become something close to the player he was the last two months of the season last year, which is quite possible, I don't see why anyone should be longing for Bayless. People bemoan our current shoot first point guard and than clamor for a less proven one. I like point guards that can run a team, Bayless is fools gold.

                                Rush is and always will be the superior defensive player. He's been in a shooting funk this year, but has already started to come out of it. Don't panic folks. Bayless is not the answer. There is a lot more to basketball than just scoring.
                                Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 12-26-2009, 02:21 AM.
                                "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

                                Working...
                                X