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

Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #1

    Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/web_100909.html


    The FIBA World Championship hasn't exactly been a coming-out party for Danny Granger. In fact, he's been something of a bit player on the international stage.

    Granger was the only player on the U.S. roster that did not appear in the 89-79 victory over Russia today in the quarterfinals in Istanbul, Turkey. It's the second DNP-CD of the event for the Pacers' star, who has averaged 13.2 minutes and 5.8 points, shooting 12-of-29 (.414) overall and 3-of-12 (.250) from the 3-point line in his five appearances. He has seven assists but just six rebounds, the fewest on the team.

    Granger has been stuck behind Andre Iguodala and Rudy Gay in Coach Mike Krzyzewski's rotation. Seeking to find the reasons why, I reached out to media experts that have been covering the U.S. team.

    "I think that defense probably has something to do with it, but it’s also just a numbers game," said John Schuhmann of NBA.com. "There are 12 good players on the roster, and only nine or 10 of them can realistically be in the rotation. In 2008, it was (Carlos) Boozer, (Tayshaun) Prince and (Michael) Redd that didn’t get much playing time.

    "But there could still be an opportunity for Danny to make an impact. If the team needs an offensive boost and Rudy Gay is struggling, I can see Krzyzewski bringing in Danny to put some points on the board. I remember Prince giving the U.S. a lift with a couple of big plays in the gold medal game two years ago in spot duty."

    Chris Sheridan of ESPN.com said he didn't expect much opportunity for Granger because of the depth of the roster.

    "It was down to him and (Rajon) Rondo for the last cut, and Rondo made the decision easy by quitting," Sheridan said. "At this point, Granger and Rudy Gay are somewhat superfluous, and Rudy has been pretty darn good in an energizer role off the bench.

    "Granger was hurt during the lead-up to the tournament, so he never really got to establish himself in a role. There's always one guy on the U.S. team who is an All-Star but rarely plays (see Carlos Boozer, 2008 Olympics), and Granger is that guy this year.

    Fanhouse.com's Chris Tomasson said Granger has been the victim of "a numbers game."

    "Granger is a scorer at forward, and Team USA has Kevin Durant, the NBA scoring leader," said Tomasson. "Plus, Iguodala and Gay are playing well at forward. And Iguodala does more things overall than Granger. It looked coming in as if Granger could slide a good bit to power forward due to Team USA being a bit weak in the post. But Kevin Love has been more efficient than perhaps some believed.

    "Coming to Europe three weeks ago, Team USA's greatest strength looked to be at guard. The guards have been up and down but the forwards have overall been quite solid. So Granger hasn't been able to get big minutes."

    Opportunities are dwindling. The U.S. faces the winner of the Argentina-Lithuania matchup in the semifinals Saturday. The championship game will be played Sunday.

    Fast breaks …


    The Pacers may have been close to acquiring a talented young power forward but a potential three-team deal involving New York and Portland reportedly was squashed by none other than Donnie Walsh of the Knicks, according to Hoopsworld.com. The deal would've brought Anthony Randolph from New York to the Pacers, with Indiana sending a first-round pick to Portland and the Blazers shipping Rudy Fernandez to the Knicks. Walsh reportedly passed because he didn't want to give up on the athleticism, versatility and potential of the 6-11 Randolph.

    After New Orleans voided a contract claiming he failed a physical in mid-July, Luther Head apparently has settled for a non-guaranteed deal with Sacramento, reports Yahoo! Sports. Head's contract with the Hornets was offered by former GM Jeff Bower but rescinded after Bower was replaced by Hugh Weber, citing a failed physical. Head played in 47 games for the Pacers last season, averaging 7.6 points.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

    It's the second DNP-CD of the event for the Pacers' star, who has averaged 13.2 minutes and 5.8 points, shooting 12-of-29 (.414) overall and 3-of-12 (.250) from the 3-point line in his five appearances. He has seven assists but just six rebounds, the fewest on the team.
    Right there are the numbers he is a victim of - his own. That, and a lack of defensive play.

    I can't see it being a matter of roster numbers. He is the ONLY player to get TWO DNP-CD's. If it were just a roster matter, he would still get SOME amount of minutes.

    I think, if nothing else, this world tournament is showing that he may be somewhat overvalued by Pacer fans. Remember the NBA players poll where he was voted "most over-rated"?

    Anyone here still think Granger is "Batman"?
    Last edited by Tom White; 09-10-2010, 08:26 PM.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

      Nothing good will come of this....

      Granger is either the innocent victim of the evil coach K, or a terrible player that's being exposed.

      Nobody's willing to give any middle ground and admit Granger is very good at certain things, and not very good at others. He just happens to be on a team that emphasizes the things he doesn't do well.
      Last edited by Kstat; 09-10-2010, 08:33 PM.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

        Coaches have preferences with skillsets, with players.

        But at the end of the day, Danny was one of the 12 guys picked to represent the US. I hope he considers this opportunity special, instead of worrying about the amount of minutes being played.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

          I fail to see why his minutes are even relevant. This is team USA, not team Indiana. Granger is just another player. Getting worried over who's getting minutes is silly.

          When Tayshaun Prince was on the 2008 Olympic team, it never even crossed my mind to be offended that he was the 10th man on the team. I just wanted my country to win the gold. That's just me, though.
          Last edited by Kstat; 09-10-2010, 08:59 PM.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

            What makes me sad , is that it seems like Danny is ALWAYS getting overlooked, so to speak..

            I mean .. yea it was GREAT when he made his first All Star team , but the accolade felt kinda hollow in how he didn't see the floor much , and never really got a chance to do what he does best out on the floor..

            I see this Team USA thing in the same light ..... while it is GREAT that he made the team... it SUCKS that he is relegated to the bench , while players like Gay and Iguadala get all the floortime .. Don't get me wrong both Gay and Iggy are nice players.... Maybe it is just the homer in me , but I think Danny could be a bigger asset out on the court than he is being allowed to be ...

            .
            Danny just needs to get fed up with it , get a chip on his shoulder , and PROVE to the world that he not only BELONGS, but that he deserves to be "the man" .. at least some of the time ..
            "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

              I don't think it SUCKS or its GREAT that he's on the bench.

              Team USA is 7-0 and in the semifinals. That's all that should matter.

              Granger isn't a Pacer at the current moment, he's an American. So far we're doing very well without him, so until I see otherwise, I'm on board with Krzyzewski's gameplan, which has worked pretty well thusfar.
              Last edited by Kstat; 09-10-2010, 09:16 PM.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                Granger victim of 3 years of bad coaching for Team USA/Conrad Brunner
                Fixed...
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                  Team USA doesn't even have a recognizable gameplan on offense. K is basically allowing them to go one-on-one and if all else fails have Durant bail the guys out. Since K is not interested in a postup game he is stressing putting pressure on the defensive end. This pressure leads to turnovers, which lead to fastbreaks which lead to much needed "easy" points. Amazing enough its working. I was listening to the Tony Kornheiser Show last week and on the show he had two basketball guys of the media (Bob Ryan and David Aldridge) basically say there isn't really much evidence of a coaching scheme going on on the offensive side of the ball when it comes to Team USA. They are right. But, hey, USA is undefeated so...whatever. Unfortunately for Granger he is not the ideal guy for applying perimeter pressure on opposing teams. So there is no role for him on this squad. It is what it is.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                    There's no interest in a post game because (A) they have no post players and (B) FIBA rules generally frown on post play.

                    small-ball is generally how the international game is played. Most of the big men step outside the 3-point line. May as well skip the middle men and start four swingmen.

                    Even when USA sent superstar centers to international tournaments, they never really dominated. You can pretty Much maul anybody in the low post.
                    Last edited by Kstat; 09-10-2010, 10:17 PM.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                      Um, who cares?

                      If Danny really wanted to play, he could give a better effort on defense. He should be honored he was given the chance to play.

                      I can't believe his minutes are even this big of an issue.


                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                        For me this oppurtunity clearly exposes the fact that we have secretly wanted to slide the other way. Danny is a lazy team defender and an equally lazy rebounder.

                        What gets me is that he gets the pass because he scores (although not extremely effective). While Rush gets slammed because he doesn't score, yet he defends (although gets lost in the crazy team defense----alas no more Troy!!!! :dancingapple.

                        Rush is a more active rebounder and a more solid one-on-one defender. Yes Brandon needs to be more assertive is shooting and driving with assurance. But our "franchise" player needs to quit Jermaining around and play hard in all facets. Just think Danny was considered the next Matrix/Pippen. Now he is lucky to be the next...

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                          I have to agree with Major Cold here....I know it is not a popular opinion but I believe it to be the reality. Granger wants to score, doesn't really care about rebounding or defense. It's actually pretty sad, because he is so gifted and if he was more driven he could really be great. I think Danny has peaked...he is not taking any team deep in the playoffs. I have been thinking this for the past two years, we need to trade him while his stock is high.
                          *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            There's no interest in a post game because (A) they have no post players and (B) FIBA rules generally frown on post play.

                            small-ball is generally how the international game is played. Most of the big men step outside the 3-point line. May as well skip the middle men and start four swingmen.

                            Even when USA sent superstar centers to international tournaments, they never really dominated. You can pretty Much maul anybody in the low post.
                            Correct. Tim Duncan basically "retired" from FIBA play after the 2004 Olympics because the importance of a postup bigman is greatly reduced and he wasn't getting any calls inside.

                            The 2008 Team won gold with basically what was small ball and this current team is a poor man's version of it.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                              I'm just happy Danny made the team, great experience for him. I hope it motivates him to become a better player.

                              Coach K has put the "team" out there that he thinks well do the best job, I have zero problems with the lineups he is using.

                              It's just to hard to compare who's better than who with a team like this, due to roles and team needs.

                              Personally from an NBA stand point I would only trade Granger one to one for a few guys on the team. Durant or Rose for sure, I'd have to think about Curry or Westbrook. The rest I don't think I would trade Danny for, especially not Odom or Billups due to age.
                              "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                              Working...
                              X