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

Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
    Rush had two good games in november out of 12-15. his best game was in a blowout win.. shocker right??

    he improved in december but half the good games again were blowouts.

    january he was awful. one good game shooting from 3 and guess what ... it was in a blowout win.

    feb - INCONSISTENT

    march- INCONSISTENT except for one or two blowout wins

    april - he sucked. one good game in a blowout.
    Brandon Rush
    Oct: Overall .324
    Above 50% 2 games
    above 40% 3 games
    Above 30% 4 games
    Below 30% 6 games
    games played 11
    10.7 ppg
    28.2 mpg
    FG% .469

    Nov: Overall .478
    Above 50% 6 games
    Above 40% 10 games
    Above 30% 12 games
    Below 30% 3 games
    Games Played 15
    13.1 ppg
    31.7 mpg
    FG% .445

    Dec: Overall .387
    Above 50% 5 games
    Above 40% 6 games
    Above 30% 8 games
    Below 30% 3 games
    Game Played 11
    8.1 ppg
    26.4 mpg
    FG% .386

    Jan: Overall .429
    Above 50% 3 games
    Above 40% 4 games
    Above 30% 5 games
    Below 30% 1 game
    Games Played 6
    6.0 ppg
    21.0 mpg
    FG% .414

    Feb: Overall .379
    Above 50% 5 games
    Above 40% 5 games
    Above 30% 10 games
    Below 30% 6 games
    Games played 18
    6.7 ppg
    24.5 mpg
    FG% .372

    Mar: Overall .526
    Above 50% 3 games
    Above 40% 3 games
    Above 30% 5 games
    Below 30% 1 game
    Games played 6
    8.0 ppg
    18.5 mpg
    FG% .436

    Post: Overall .750
    Above 50% 2 games
    Above 40% 2 games
    Above 30% 2 games
    Below 30% 1 games
    Games played 5
    3.2ppg
    11.0 mpg
    FG% .462

    max variance FG% .097 3pt% .426

    average variance FG% .041(.043 without playoffs) 3pt% .193(.097 without playoffs)

    max variance in mpg 20.7
    average variance in mpg 5.2

    and a comparison Kyle Korver

    Oct: Overall .438
    Above 50% 8 games
    above 40% 10 games
    Above 30% 10 games
    Below 30% 3 games
    games played 13
    10.3 ppg
    24.7 mpg
    FG% .470

    Nov: Overall .358
    Above 50% 7 games
    Above 40% 8 games
    Above 30% 8 games
    Below 30% 8 games
    Games Played 16
    8.2 ppg
    20.8 mpg
    FG% .402

    Dec: Overall .387
    Above 50% 7 games
    Above 40% 8 games
    Above 30% 10 games
    Below 30% 4 games
    Game Played 16
    7.3 ppg
    18.6 mpg
    FG% .418

    Jan: Overall .477
    Above 50% 5 games
    Above 40% 6 games
    Above 30% 10 games
    Below 30% 1 game
    Games Played 11
    8.5 ppg
    19.5 mpg
    FG% .478

    Feb: Overall .379
    Above 50% 6 games
    Above 40% 7 games
    Above 30% 11 games
    Below 30% 5 games
    Games played 16
    8.6 ppg
    18.1 mpg
    FG% .455

    Mar: Overall .321
    Above 50% 4 games
    Above 40% 4 games
    Above 30% 4 games
    Below 30% 4 game
    Games played 8
    7.6 ppg
    19.6 mpg
    FG% .396

    Post: Overall .423
    Above 50% 8 games
    Above 40% 8 games
    Above 30% 10 games
    Below 30% 5 games
    Games played 16
    6.6ppg
    17.3 mpg
    FG% .318


    max variance FG% .16 3pt% .156

    average variance FG% .051 (.045 without playoffs) 3-t% .076 (.071 without playoffs)

    max variance in mpg 19.8
    average variance in mpg 2.03

    I suggest you copy and paste these into two separate Notepad notes.
    Last edited by Eleazar; 08-02-2012, 06:36 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

      When comparing these two you will see that Korver is more consistent from month to month on average. This can be explained for two reasons. At the end of the season BRush exploded into a .526 3pt% which is high for anyone's standard, and a .750 for the playoffs (small sample size). This causes Rush's average variance from month to month to be high at .193. If you disregard the playoffs, that drops down to a .097 which is greater than Korver's .071, but not by it is a lot closer. There are also some other factors you need to look at such as, Rush suffered an injury in the middle of the season which kept him out for about a month (give or take), which can have an effect on a players consistency. Also Rush's average variance in minutes from month to month was almost 2.5 times higher than Korver's. Korver pretty much stayed relatively equal in minutes per game over the course of the season while Rush varied much more. Anyone who knows anything about sports understands that consistency in minutes means consistency in production, and inconsistent minutes means inconsistent production. Finally the last fact that needs to be considered is that we are comparing Rush's 3rd season to Korver's 9th season. It is typical for a younger player to be more inconsistent than a veteran. I would imagine if you went back and looked at Korver's third season he would be about as consistent as Rush.

      Comment


      • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

        The Great Brandon Rush...

        -smh

        Comment


        • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

          Who said Brandon Rush is great? What are you reading?

          I guess you can exaggerate what is being said if it makes you feel better.

          Comment


          • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

            nobody even reads much of anything else someone has to say. i have made so many valid points throughout this thread and im done repeating them. everyones minds are already made up and its like talking to a wall in alot of ways.

            lets make this simple shall we. my original comment was during a game thread way back. i stated rush is not a good shooter or 3 pt shooter, something like that. p4e took offense to the comment and so here we are.

            i probably should have clarified but heck with it.. i think i was aneibrieated of some kind watcching the game somewhere and prob misspoke to some degree. the premise was simply that for all the talk about rush's shooting abilities, he is inconsistent. if rush is as consistent as many of you have voted than i do not understand why this guy is not an allstar or getting offerred more than 4M a season which is almost equivalent to a guy who played over in europe for several season and had half a good season and is paid appoximately the same as rush.

            if rush is a knock down 3 pt shooter than why is he not starting. he is better defensively and more athletic than many of the other above average shooters in this league. i mean even rashard lewis got paid a max and the only thing i know that guy can do is jack up 3's. if rush per the votes is a consistent shooter from deep, than he neeeds to start firing em up at will so he can get paid.

            anyways. as i was eluding to earlier. i prob shoulda just said rush is not a consistent shot. i mean the guy flippin airballed a wide open 3. i remember like it was last season. i have nothing against rush but the guy was a total dissapointment here. i like many held Obrien accountable.. and even hoped rush would return as primary backup off the bench at both sg/sf - his size is an advantage.

            the title of this thread is irrelevant because its next to impossible to define consistent in this context.

            lets just ask the question, is rush a consistent shooter overall. i without hesitation say no. in fact, rush always seemed uncomfortable unless he was shooting from deep wide open. even his 12 foot jumpshots just felt like they were not going in most of the time.. i can understand this because there are some spots on the court a player is not as skilled, heck even rush was bad at ft's.

            is rush a consistent shooter overall.. NO. is he a good 3 pt shooter, i guess, but the majority of his good shooting games were with large leads. i def believe rush is more talented than he has demonstrated at least w the Pacers, but his play was always lackluster 75% of the time, but he would play good defense most nights.

            bottom line:

            rush is good shooter when he can set and get his shot off. dont expect him to come off a screen and score, or even create his own. is rush a good shooter ... at times, but he can dissappear from one game or 5 game stretch at a time. maybe it was Obriens style.. tho it would tend to benefit rush one would think?? never knew what to expect from rush..

            granted players have off nights, but too often rush would contribute little off the bench vs weaker opponents.

            for the sake of argument; i will say rush is a above average to good 3 pt shooter when the right circumstances is presented. i just do not see rush ever in a role of even a korver, where he can come off the bench and light you up.. throw jj reddick in that group as well. korver/reddick those guys will take more aggressive shots and its probably the reason they have lower %s than rush.. but i would take them over rush anyday as that shooting specialist off the bench.

            who would you all have chosen to have during the heat pacers semi conference finals.. they all play pretty much the same position. rush's defense is the only reason he is even included in that conversation, but strictly shooting, its not even close.

            sure rush's % is solid, its because he only takes good shots within the flow of the offense, which is fine, but for whatever reason it is that i cannot put my finger on.. i still trust a guy like korver or reddick over rush even tho the %s indicate otherwise.

            i still do not see him as consistent but thats okay.. and its okay you all believe he is consistent.. just have different POV's and defined meanings of consistent that vary.

            in unison im sure many of us see rush the same way. as primarily a wing off then bench that can come in and give you solid d, and every 1 game out of 4 will score. nothing special, and not a guy i see making a significant impact in the postseason.

            lastly, i also do not understand with all the skill rush possesses why this guy was so difficult to trade. any of the many yes voters feel welcome to shed some insight on any of the above mentioned statements.

            Comment


            • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                I won't quote or address the entire post before, but how many players are all stars because they're consistent from 3 and play good D? Not to mention play in a small market.

                Goodness, I know people didn't like Rush, but I figured most agreed he could knock down a deep shot and D up.
                Last edited by ECKrueger; 08-02-2012, 10:02 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  [IMG][/IMG]
                  easy solution. do not read the thread.

                  this from a guy who is on record as saying ryan anderson is equal to or better than david west. vnzla i bet gets a real kick out of not being considered the village idiot for a change.



                  you ever find your ball**** to post again on the "Legend will win EOY" thread.
                  Last edited by PacersPride; 08-02-2012, 10:57 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                    easy solution. do not read the thread.

                    this from a guy who is on record as saying ryan anderson is equal to or better than david west. vnzla i bet gets a real kick out of not being considered the village idiot for a change.



                    you ever find your ball**** to post again on the "Legend will win EOY" thread.

                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                      can i change my vote to "Kill me. Kill me now"?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        Just for funsies...

                        Yay or nay.
                        The only thing that will ever be "consistent" about Rush is that he will always have a decent year when his contract is expiring.

                        Kind of like the sainted McRoberts and a few dozen other players in the league.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                          Sorry, I didn't read this whole thread, because I haven't had much time to even be on here lately, but I will say this as someone who really likes Brandon's game.

                          The idea that anybody is a consistent three point shooter is contradictory. You are asking for consistency from the least inconsistent shot in basketball? Nonsense.

                          But I digress... Brandon is a fantastic three point shooter, because he typically takes smart shots within the offense. He continues ball movement when the shot isn't there and knocks down a hell of a lot of threes when he is open. I am looking forward to seeing Brandon in GS this year playing next to Curry. I think Curry is easily the best PG that Brandon will play with. He didn't get a huge sample size of games to get comfortable with Curry. I think we will see a better Brandon Rush this year, because this offense is going to suit him much better than anything we had or a team with Monta Ellis holding the ball until there are two seconds on the shot clock. I think Brandon's career would be looked at much differently if he had found a team that fit his skill set better. Hopefully this GS offense is better than what they were doing last year.

                          Brandon is a championship caliber first wing off the bench, who is a very capable starter on half the teams in the league. His three point shooting is very good, IMO. Much of this has to do with his form and his excellent balance. Now if he would be a bit more aggressive playing to a more diverified offensive game, then he would give you more like 15 ppg and great defense. He has a good mid range shot that he doesn't utilize nearly enough, especially considering his balance and leg strength are his greatest asset as a player. I just hope he continues to grow as a player. I know I will be rooting for him to do well against everyone but the Pacers.

                          I'm still going to look into getting Green across my Pacers #25 jersey, though.
                          "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                          Comment


                          • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat



                            For Pete's sake,

                            LET IT DIE.
                            "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                            "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                            Comment


                            • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                              Yea I hate to lock threads but this is just starting to spiral out of control.

                              I am certain I've spoken to a couple of you before but again could we please stop with the insulting of one another. It does no good for anyone and does not advance your point of view forward at all and in fact distracts from it generally.


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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X