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

Insider 8/12 - yep, more Brown

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

  • Insider 8/12 - yep, more Brown

    Shaq's impact often overstated

    By Terry Brown
    NBA Insider
    Thursday, August 12
    Updated: August 12
    10:26 AM ET

    We've seen Shaquille O'Neal make opposing centers disappear with a single drop step. We've seen him leave piles of power forwards behind on his way to three Finals MVPs. For the past 12 years, we have watched him become what many analysts call the most devastating post player in the history of the game.

    But does that really mean that 33-year-old Wesley Person, recently signed by the Miami Heat, will suddenly remember how to shoot and score in the NBA because he is now playing on the same team as Shaq?

    The theory goes that with Shaq in the middle, opposing teams are forced to double and sometimes triple him thereby leaving the center's teammates wide open for jumpshots. And the individual statistics posted by Shaq seem to confirm this. Not only has he averaged 27.1 points per game over his career, but he's done so while shooting 57.7 percent from the field.

    In his most recent Finals appearance, the Detroit Pistons decided to defend him in man-to-man coverage and O'Neal shot an incredible 63.1 percent from the field while scoring 133 points in five games.

    The problem, though, was that his team still lost.

    After Shaq scored 34 points on 13-for-16 shooting to open the series against Detroit, Pistons head coach Larry Brown decided against double or triple teaming him. When he scored 36 points on 16-for-21 shots in the fourth game of the series, Shaq still found himself in single coverage for the fifth game.

    In between, he never shot below 50 percent and never had to go to the free-throw line more than 16 times in a game, averaging only 11 per contest after many playoff teams had resorted to a "Hack a Shaq" defense that once resulted in 31 free throws in a single contest.

    Of course, many analysts argued that he should have gotten the ball more, taken twice as many shots, and his teammates should have force fed him with countless numbers of passes.

    But there is no indication that even that would have taken the Pistons out of single coverage, which questions the theory that Shaq does make his teammates' jobs that much easier and their potency on offense that much better.

    The more Laker coaches were calling for the ball down low, the more Brown knew that his opponent would run less for easy baskets, the less time his opponent would have on the shot clock once the half-court offense was set up and the more his opponent would become psychological dependant on Shaq at the actual expense of his teammates' games.

    These things simply don't show up in the boxscore.

    Unless, of course, a closer look is taken.

    For the 2000 season, Ron Harper became a Laker after several years with the Chicago Bulls. He knew the triangle offense, and Phil Jackson wanted him to help teach it to the Lakers as the starting point guard.

    In the two seasons prior to the move, an aging Harper shot 41.7 percent from the field and 25.4 percent from 3-point range. But in the two seasons that he played for the Lakers with O'Neal in the post, he shot 42.2 percent from the field and 29.2 percent from distance.

    This seems to indicate that Shaq can and does help his teammates.

    But on the other side of the argument is Robert Horry, who shot 38.7 percent from the field in last season with the Lakers, 39.8 percent from the field the year before that and 38.7 percent the year before that. Of course, he was getting older and it can be expected that his touch might be fading because of this.

    But in his first season with the Spurs and without O'Neal in the post, he shot 40.5 percent.

    This would have been the same season that Gary Payton went from Seattle and Milwaukee to Los Angeles only to see his shooting percentage go from 45.4 percent in 2003 without Shaq to 36.6 percent in 2004 with Shaq.

    Of course, there are several reasons for all these numbers, but that doesn't change the fact that Shaq doesn't always make his perimeter players better shooters.

    Perhaps a better example would be Eddie Jones, who once played more than two seasons with Shaq in Los Angeles and will now be paired with him again in Miami.

    Before Shaq was signed as a free agent for the 1997 season, Jones shot a career-high 49.2 percent from the field. The following year, the guard's precision plummeted to 43.8 percent with O'Neal in the lineup. But he very next year, with Shaq still wearing the same uniform, Jones then shot a much better 48.4 percent. Jones' accuracy then dropped again in the 1999 season as he shot 42.3 percent from the field and was traded. In his new home in Charlotte without O'Neal, his shooting percentage went up to 44.6 percent.

    Now, these numbers may have more to do with Jones than they do with O'Neal, and Jones has said how much easier his job was with Shaq than without. But easier, obviously, doesn't always mean better. Jones has since shot 44.5 percent from the field for Miami in 2001 and a career-high 40.7 percent from 3-point range in 2003.

    We will have further evidence this year when the two players take the floor together again as we will when players like Derek Fisher, now in Golden State, and Devean George attempt to go at it without O'Neal for the first times in their careers.

    But there is still other evidence to examine.

    In 1996, the year just before O'Neal came to Los Angeles, the Lakers shot 48 percent from the field. In 1997, with O'Neal, they shot 45.4 percent.

    But we can also see Shaq's impact on the floor as a passer and attention getter if we take his own shooting out of the equation to see how his teammates around him are doing as a result of his presence. If Shaq's own percentage of 55.7 percent is taken away, the Lakers shot only 43.6 percent in 1997.

    In fact, if Shaq's personal numbers are subtracted in the ensuing seasons, the Laker shooters don't fare very well at all. In 1999, they shot 43.6 percent from the field again. In 2000, they shot 42.1 percent. In 2003, they shot 42.4 percent. Overall in eight seasons, the Lakers shot 43.5 percent from the field if Shaq's numbers are taken out.

    Last year, the Lakers shot 43.1 percent from the field with O'Neal's numbers subtracted, which would have ranked them 22nd in the league between the Cavs at 43.3 percent and the Magic at 42.9 percent.

    Similarly, if the Spurs had Tim Duncan's numbers taken out, they would have shot 42.8 percent. If the Pacers had Jermaine O'Neal's numbers taken out, they would have shot 43.5 percent. And if the Warriors had Erick Dampier's numbers taken out, they would have shot 43.1 percent or the same as the Lakers without O'Neal.

    And no one is claiming that Dampier ever made Jason Richardson a better shooter.

    Clearly, the Lakers were a better team with O'Neal in the lineup. They won three NBA Titles and reached the Finals in four of his last five seasons there. Their offense was more potent. They ground teams down in the post, and in the playoffs when the pace was slowed, they simply beat them up with Shaq doing the bulk of the damage. And as a result, O'Neal may have made his teammates' jobs easier.

    His presence in Los Angeles allowed players like A.C. Green and Horace Grant to add year or two to their careers as well as some jewelry. He covered for younger players like Samaki Walker and Fisher. He even helped provide for the NBA education of Kobe Bryant.

    But he, nor any center, can actually shoot the ball from distance for his teammates with the same efficiency that he is shooting from within the post. To say that he made his teammates better shooters is, well, statistically false.

    And with Shaq taking up $30 million in cap space, the Heat are left with a shooting guard who averaged 5.8 points per game on 40 percent shooting last year simply because Person would sign for the $1.6 million veterans exception.

  • #2
    Re: Insider 8/12 - yep, more Brown

    Even with the Terry Brown warning, I still started to read the first two paragraphs.

    This guy is dangerously stupid.
    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


    • #3
      Re: Insider 8/12 - yep, more Brown

      Yea, that makes sense.But with Shaq in the lineup wouldn't you shoot less?
      [edit=452=1092362893][/edit]
      [edit=452=1092362990][/edit]
      Super Bowl XLI Champions
      2000 Eastern Conference Champions




      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Insider 8/12 - yep, more Brown

        How do guys like him and Sam Smith even become journalists, they get paid for this crap. It ain't right
        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Insider 8/12 - yep, more Brown

          So what exactly is he saying here, that signing Person for the vet's minimum isn't a good deal? Weird.

          Shaq is the best passsing big man currently in the game. I'd take him over Webber, Vlade, or Miller (the next three). A lot of guards struggle in the triangle; I don't think we'll see the same problem in Miami.
          This space for rent.

          Comment

          Working...
          X