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

  • #16
    Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

    I am willing to go a step further with this and state Rush is a very average shooter at best, based on expectations of him out of college some could even consider him terrible.

    Anyone who is not biased and makes a fair observation of Rush's talents should see this, so in many ways yes this argument is "foolish" and should not require a thread in order to be concluded that Rush is not a [B]consistent[B] 3 point shooter.

    In fact, I have yet to be convinced Rush is a good shooter at all. Rush shoots 67% from the free throw line and yet those on here who were willing to vote yes on this poll believe he is a consistent threat?? Maybe some are still viewing Rush from his KU days and need to take better look at how bad of a shooter Brandon Rush is. I clarify by saying Brandon because his brother Kareem was the one who could shoot the rock, Brandon is no where even close to having that type of ability.

    First, as many have already eluded too, Rush only shoots when he is wide open, the majority of his attempts he has his feet set, and has a good look at the rim, most prolific shooters in this league rarely get that opportunity.

    How often does Rush come off of a screen and shoot the ball, how often does Rush come down on a fast break attempt and shoot with a hand in his face like Granger does, how often does Rush take 1 or 2 dribbles to get open and then shoot the ball.. the answer is very rarely to all the above. The reason, because he is not CONSISTENT at shooting the ball.

    For a guy who shoots 41% you would think he would be more of a focus on the offensive end, but he is not and with good reason. The only attempts Rush usually takes is when he is wide open and the D has dropped down to double team the post or something to that effect.

    There are 4 guys I would much prefer shooting the 3 ball over Rush: Granger, Dunleavy, Posey, and even George.

    Rush is a stationary shooter, rarely does he have the confidence to pull up when his defender is gaurding him tight. As I have already mentioned previously in the other thread where this discussion began, %'s are at times very misleading. Rush may shoot 41% from 3 last season, but the majority of his shots are wide open and he is set. Thankfully, Rush does not come off of screens and try shooting the ball because he %'s would go way down.

    Rush is an average shooter at best, and a terrible free throw shooter, which is a very good indicator that Rush is not a good shooter overall.

    Pacer fans, do not misinterpret my comments here, I support Rush as long as he wears Blue & Gold, and I hope that he improves his jump shooting capabilities this season and changes my opinion of his ability. I also believe Rush is a very good player defensively, and can rebound from the sg position. He has value, but for those who suggest Rush is a good shooter, and consistent from three I will politely disagree with 100%.

    As I stated once before, Rush on occcasion will have a good shooting night, normally 1 game out of 10, and then he goes back into passive mode and offers very little on the offensive end of the court.

    I am not implying that Rush does not have the ability to be a good shooter, but at this time and from what I have seen based on performance, Rush is average when it comes to shooting overall.

    The good shooters in this league do not get left wide open, Granger rarely gets an attempt without a hand in his face, and even with a hand up Granger will still knock it down.

    For those of you who only want to base his shooting ability on stats, go right ahead, there are many shooters in this league who shoot 36% I would prefer taking a wide open 3 than Rush.

    I honestly hope that Rush proves me wrong this season and becomes a consistent shooter, but from what I have witness thus far, the answer is clearly NO, he is not consistent at all.

    To reiterate what began this conversation to begin with, Rush has poor follow through on his jumper, he needs to hire a shooting coach to help him with his form imho; obviously it would not hurt any when it comes to his free throw % either.

    Go Pacers!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

      I think the nos in this thread prove how easy it is to dislike Brandon and ignore his strengths.

      Next poll: is LeBron James athletic?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

        Originally posted by imawhat View Post
        I think the nos in this thread prove how easy it is to dislike Brandon and ignore his strengths.

        Next poll: is LeBron James athletic?
        No. I saw him trip on his own once.
        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

        -Lance Stephenson

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
          I think the nos in this thread prove how easy it is to dislike Brandon and ignore his strengths.

          Next poll: is LeBron James athletic?
          I votes no because this thread sucks
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

            Let's hope so. Because if not, it would be useless for him to cross halfcourt.(except for once a week, when he wakes up)

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

              2005-06 47.2%
              2006-07 43.1%
              2007-08 41.9%
              2008-09 37.3%
              2009-10 41.1%
              2010-11 30%

              Ten shots, when you consider the bulk of his career, is a terrible sample size.

              Now, numbers don't tell the whole story. However, the numbers are telling me that if you think Rush is a poor shooter then you are taking outliers and using only those instances to pass judgment. Then saying something like "I don't think he's a good shooter" only makes it sound like you know better than data samples built up over the last 6 seasons. This is a pretty ignorant situation to get yourself into.

              For the record, I voted "Is this real life?"

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                2005-06 47.2%
                2006-07 43.1%
                2007-08 41.9%
                2008-09 37.3%
                2009-10 41.1%
                2010-11 30%

                Ten shots, when you consider the bulk of his career, is a terrible sample size.

                Now, numbers don't tell the whole story. However, the numbers are telling me that if you think Rush is a poor shooter then you are taking outliers and using only those instances to pass judgment. Then saying something like "I don't think he's a good shooter" only makes it sound like you know better than data samples built up over the last 6 seasons. This is a pretty ignorant situation to get yourself into.

                For the record, I voted "Is this real life?"
                Im sorry, I didnt realize this question was based on college statistics, in that case.. the question should be the following..

                is Adam Morrison or Brandon Rush the better 3 pt shooter. pretty "ignorant" situation you just got yourself into.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                  Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                  In fact, I have yet to be convinced Rush is a good shooter at all.
                  This is easy to do when you ignore the other side of the debate.

                  Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                  How often does Rush come off of a screen and shoot the ball, how often does Rush come down on a fast break attempt and shoot with a hand in his face like Granger does, how often does Rush take 1 or 2 dribbles to get open and then shoot the ball.. the answer is very rarely to all the above. The reason, because he is not CONSISTENT at shooting the ball.
                  So he's a bad shooter because he doesn't take contested shots?

                  Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                  Rush is a stationary shooter, rarely does he have the confidence to pull up when his defender is gaurding him tight. As I have already mentioned previously in the other thread where this discussion began, %'s are at times very misleading. Rush may shoot 41% from 3 last season, but the majority of his shots are wide open and he is set. Thankfully, Rush does not come off of screens and try shooting the ball because he %'s would go way down.
                  So good shot selection makes someone a bad shooter?

                  Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                  For those of you who only want to base his shooting ability on stats, go right ahead, there are many shooters in this league who shoot 36% I would prefer taking a wide open 3 than Rush.
                  Stats don't lie. They keep track of the things your brain forgets with time. The brain typically remembers only the glaring good and glaring bad.

                  One last thing:

                  All clutch shooters are good, not all good shooters are clutch.
                  Last edited by TinManJoshua; 11-16-2010, 12:44 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                    Im sorry, I didnt realize this question was based on college statistics, in that case.. the question should be the following..

                    is Adam Morrison or Brandon Rush the better 3 pt shooter. pretty "ignorant" situation you just got yourself into.
                    Fine. You want to dismiss what you consider "irrelevant".

                    2008-09 37.3%
                    2009-10 41.1%
                    2010-11 30%

                    One these things is not like the other. Maybe it's the one that only measures ten shots.

                    And to the bold:

                    Last edited by TinManJoshua; 11-16-2010, 12:51 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                      I can only hope that 8 out of those 9 "No" votes are jokes.

                      My next poll will be: Roy Hibbert: Is he tall or is it just an optical illusion?

                      I guess some of you would also say that Robert Horry was not a consistent three point threat due to the fact that he rarely shot the ball?
                      Last edited by Trader Joe; 11-16-2010, 01:28 PM.


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        I can only hope that 8 out of those 9 "No" votes are jokes.

                        My next poll will be: Roy Hibbert: Is he tall or is it just an optical illusion?

                        I guess some of you would also say that Robert Horry was not a consistent three point threat due to the fact that he rarely shot the ball?
                        He isn't that tall. Maybe in some games, but more often than not he isn't. The question should be, who's taller Hibbert or Muresan?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                          Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                          Im sorry, I didnt realize this question was based on college statistics, in that case.. the question should be the following..

                          is Adam Morrison or Brandon Rush the better 3 pt shooter. pretty "ignorant" situation you just got yourself into.
                          Morrison never shot better than 33.7% from 3 in the NBA and that was during his rookie year. I'd say it's pretty clear who was the better shooter between him and Rush even if we toss out their college statistics. So, I'm not sure your point stood up as well as you would hope it would.

                          Oh also, Morrison's college stats from behind the 3 point line...

                          30%
                          31%
                          42.8%


                          Brandon Rush's college stats from behind the 3 point line...
                          47.4%
                          43.1%
                          41.9%


                          Adam Morrison was without doubt one of the most overrated shooters of all time. He never came close to Brandon's 3 point %'s against much weaker competition. Generally you will find that if a guy was a good shooter in college, he will be a good shooter in the pros, and if he was a bad or overrated scorer in college, he will also be that in the pros. Morrison proves both of those points wonderfully. Thanks for bringing him up.

                          Also, thanks for bringing him up without actually double checking his %'s in college.

                          And here just for fun, were Kareem Rush's stats in college since we've already proven he wasn't as reliable as his brother in the pros...

                          42.6%
                          44.8%
                          40.5%

                          Kareem only out did his brother in one year.
                          Last edited by Trader Joe; 11-16-2010, 01:37 PM.


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Morrison never shot better than 33.7% from 3 in the NBA and that was during his rookie year. I'd say it's pretty clear who was the better shooter between him and Rush even if we toss out their college statistics. So, I'm not sure your point stood up as well as you would hope it would.
                            In College Morrison averaged ~36% from 3Pt. Rush was still somewhere around 43%. I don't know what point he was trying to make with that, but it didn't address my argument anyway.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                              Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                              In College Morrison averaged ~36% from 3Pt. Rush was still somewhere around 42%. I don't know that point he was trying to make with that, but it didn't address my argument anyway.
                              I'd just stop arguing with this guy. He is completely out of touch with reality.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                                He shoots well enough to strech defenses consistently. Can't really expect more consistency at 3pt line. Ray Allen, Danny or Kevin Martin have fairly many off nights too. But compared to those guys, Rush simply has many more 1/1, 1/2, 0/2 nights - which in huge part comes with limited rotation status.
                                If he played big consistent minutes for a season, many of those nights would probably look differently. But we haven't seen those consistent big minutes yet. And I'm not quite sure I want to see them - as opposed to bringing a high quality guard with the cap space, and developing Paul with some of those wing minutes.
                                So I vote 'maybe'.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X