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

Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

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

  • Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

    Isn't it funny that right when Brown left/after he left that suddenly the Bobcats are able to get their top pick from last year onto the floor, even in a winning effort.


    I know that Henderson has more interest to me since I scouted him favorably, but the reason for the thread is to point out that what was speculation - Brown needlessly keeps young players off the court - has been validated with his departure. A little "told you so" on my part I'll admit...and of course he might suck it up and prove that he wasn't a good pick too.




    Obviously this might be seen to apply to JOB/Jo****yler/etc but that's not why I posted it. It's simply interesting to me to see proof that what one coach thinks is right is not always what another coach or his GM thinks is right.

    It's funny to see how certain player/coach combos just don't go well, yet the player can get paired up with another coach or team and flourish. Henderson may or may not pan out, but at least now he's getting a chance to prove himself.

    Maybe Jalen Rose can send him a "welcome to the club" card.

  • #2
    Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

    We'll see who told who once he sucks it up. ;-)


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

      Whatever happened to player coaches?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

        There's plenty of guys here who needed to be freed from Jim's doghouse.

        We'd be a better team with Josh and Tyler in a PF rotation getting consistent minutes.

        DC is our guy and is going to be a well known star. He's going to be big for this team in the future, but Jim holds him back.

        Danny, Roy, and DC will be our big 3 of the future and get this team back to the playoffs.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

          Originally posted by Pacersalltheway10 View Post
          Whatever happened to player coaches?
          I believe that one of the past CBA's did away with this.


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

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

            Gerald Henderson is a poor man's Dahntay Jones.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

              Originally posted by Trophy View Post
              There's plenty of guys here who needed to be freed from Jim's doghouse.

              We'd be a better team with Josh and Tyler in a PF rotation getting consistent minutes.

              DC is our guy and is going to be a well known star. He's going to be big for this team in the future, but Jim holds him back.

              Danny, Roy, and DC will be our big 3 of the future and get this team back to the playoffs.
              And Paul can (and will, eventually) develop into our Tracy McSixthman. If we give him more than 2 minutes per game (which I was still grateful he received tonight), he'll get the feel of the offense, just like everyone else. Besides "poor" coaching, our issue could be related to having such an overpacked roster. Once (if) it becomes a little less convoluted, playing time won't have to be as sporadically distributed as it is now.
              witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

              Originally posted by Day-V
              In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
              Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.


              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

                Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                Gerald Henderson is a poor man's Dahntay Jones.
                I'm shocked you would think that.
                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                -Lance Stephenson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

                  Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                  Gerald Henderson is a poor man's Dahntay Jones.
                  Well that's a complete misread of his game. Even if he's less talented (he isn't), his game was about scoring which was justified because he also was willing to play defense. He was not a defender that could score enough for his position.

                  I ranked him high because he had both turn around and on the move jumpers as well as the ability to drive in traffic and finish with dunks. The fact that he also was willing to get after it on defense and can block shots at the SG spot made him a very attractive pick.


                  Larry Brown's opinion of him was 355 minutes all of last season and before he was fired he'd played him 176 minutes this year.

                  Per Bobcats game that was 4:20 last year and 6:30 this year.

                  In the 6 games since then Henderson has played 148 minutes, or 25 minutes per Bobcats game (he's played in all 6).


                  Larry Brown is a genius and recognizes a lack of talent, right? Well last year and this year Brown's record was 53-57. Paul Silas, going without Gerald Wallace, has started 4-2. Admittedly the wins are all against weaker teams but one of those was over a Wizards team that just before Brown was fired had beat them by 33 points.

                  Henderson has not scorched the NBA in his first 6 games, but at least Silas is looking at him and giving their top pick a chance to develop.

                  This just resulted in Henderson going 8-11 for 19 points, 9 rebounds, 2 assists and 3 blocks.

                  This represented not only the most minutes he's ever been given in an NBA game (40), but the most points, rebounds and blocks he's had.


                  Henderson's games last year of 5 FGA or more (3PM)
                  3-7 (0)
                  3-8 (2)
                  3-6 (0)
                  5-9 (1)
                  1-5 (0)
                  3-7 (0)
                  6-9 (0)

                  When given a chance to get even slightly warm Henderson shot 47% (50% eFG).

                  This year, same thing
                  3-7 (0)
                  3-5 (0)
                  50% (50%)

                  Those 2 games were his two highest minutes all year with Brown, 20 and 19 minutes). Last year he got 20+ minutes 4 times, the high being 25 on opening night vs Boston (he went 3-7), and 23 minutes Nov 25th (5-9 with one 3PM).


                  So here you have a high draft pick that performs every time he's given a chance. And I know many of you will love the fact that he's stuck on the bench because Brown wants to run Jackson 40 minutes a night.

                  Silas takes over and Henderson gets these minutes
                  28
                  3
                  22
                  22
                  33
                  40

                  He's shooting 51% overall in those games (no 3PM).

                  He has 3 total TOs in those games vs 4 steals and 5 blocks.

                  In 3 of the games his rebounds hit 5, 6 and 9.

                  And again the team has gone 4-2.




                  WHY DO YOU CARE?
                  Well for me it's obviously partially personal since he was a draft target for me and I scouted him very well. Since I've been amateur scouting I've started following all these kids.

                  But it's also a mirror image of what is going on with the Pacers as I mentioned when I started this thread. If star coach Larry Brown can irrationally, incorrectly hold a high draft pick on the bench when the results suggest he should be turning to him, the it's clear that JOB could also be wrong.

                  Just because guys don't play doesn't mean they stink. Sometimes it has to do with coaching.

                  After all do you really trust a coach that played Troy Murphy 36 minutes when a bad Nets team can barely tolerate to have him come off the bench at all, and that's even when they don't use Derrick Favors either.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-09-2011, 03:59 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

                    In those games since Paul Silas took over, if you take away the 19 point game he's scored a total of 28 points in 5 games. That's around 5.5 points per, his season average is 4.2. Not much of a difference if you ask me. How about we check back after 20 or so games and see if there's much of a difference?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

                      This thread is absurdly premature. One game against a bad defensive team doesn't validate much. I know people can have games where everything goes in because I watched the Pacers drop 50 in one quarter. That quarter doesn't validate Larry Bird as a great GM, JOB as a great coach, or Dunleavy as a great player.

                      But I know you know this.

                      I guess its worthwhile pointing out that he finally had his shiny game, where you can glimpse his potential, rather than watching him look terrible in 8 minutes 40 games in a season. Still, you're going out on a limb here.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

                        Originally posted by judicata View Post
                        This thread is absurdly premature. One game against a bad defensive team doesn't validate much. I know people can have games where everything goes in because I watched the Pacers drop 50 in one quarter. That quarter doesn't validate Larry Bird as a great GM, JOB as a great coach, or Dunleavy as a great player.

                        But I know you know this.

                        I guess its worthwhile pointing out that he finally had his shiny game, where you can glimpse his potential, rather than watching him look terrible in 8 minutes 40 games in a season. Still, you're going out on a limb here.

                        Exactly. I once saw Shawne Williams drop 19 in a Pacers uniform... once.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

                          Originally posted by judicata View Post
                          This thread is absurdly premature. One game against a bad defensive team doesn't validate much. I know people can have games where everything goes in because I watched the Pacers drop 50 in one quarter. That quarter doesn't validate Larry Bird as a great GM, JOB as a great coach, or Dunleavy as a great player.

                          But I know you know this.

                          I guess its worthwhile pointing out that he finally had his shiny game, where you can glimpse his potential, rather than watching him look terrible in 8 minutes 40 games in a season. Still, you're going out on a limb here.
                          A bump just for Judicata and SMosley to have a 2nd try at reading.

                          What I wrote was that Henderson had been incorrectly held on the bench when he seemed capable enough for a rookie and should be getting a standard level of developmental minutes (ie, 15-20 per night) for a high draft pick. I said that this was further reinforced by the fact that he had an inefficient shooter getting 40 minutes a night ahead of him (Jackson).

                          I also said that he'd shown that he was capable enough when given any kind of decent PT.

                          I DID NOT SAY HE'D MAKE IT OR PAN OUT. The only person that read this thread correctly IMO was Dr. Awesome because his comment acknowledged that we were finally now in a "we can find out" period which was my point.

                          The stats were about the fact that he clearly didn't warrant a lack of investigation, not that he demanded serious PT. He was a rookie and then a virtual rookie this year yet again.


                          Since Judicata decided to bring this back to life in the post NY game thread it brought me back here to see all these comments and be reminded of how derailed from the point they were. Should I guess that there were people in here with a vested interest in being proven right about Henderson's chances? Or perhaps a hatred of Duke (I was accused of loving the team I might hate more than any other NCAA team)?


                          All I know is that like our own guys under Jim it seemed like Henderson was abnormally being refused any development time for no apparent good reason. The only reason I noticed is because I like to follow the progress of kids I've scouted, even the kids I didn't think would make it.


                          But since this "premature" thread, which was impossible to be premature since it was about Henderson deserving a chance to prove himself one way or the other, Henderson has started to show the kind of progress you show when you start getting the PT it takes to improve your game and learn how to not be a rookie.

                          If his 19 point game vs the Wiz meant nothing then maybe his 6-9 with 4 boards and 4 assists vs the Lakers was a good night. Who plays SG for the Lakers, I forget.

                          How about 22 points vs the Bulls on 6-9 plus 10-12 FT? I've heard Chicago is pretty good so I'm not sure how he pulled off that miracle.

                          Of course we don't count the 21 points against the Kings and we don't count 10-18 vs the Clippers or 20 points again vs the Bulls because he also shot poorly against Denver and the rematch vs the Lakers.



                          I don't know, I kinda feel like I was pretty spot on in saying that Brown was being stubborn and dumb for not at least trying to play Henderson and coach him up a little bit.


                          PS - despite irrational gut instincts to the contrary you should not interpret what I've written to say anything close to Henderson being a future all-star. I know you want to, I know you want to picture me having Duke blue dreams of Henderson dropping J's, but for the sake of sanity try to resist it.

                          Go with "the point about Brown being an irrational coach with a knack for pointlessly benching players might have been a pretty solid point", even if it feels wrong.
                          It isn't.
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-13-2011, 09:43 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

                            I still don't get it. There are two things going on in this thread.

                            (1) Larry Brown hates rookies; and
                            (2) Gerald Henderson doesn't suck.

                            You use a small sample and statistical wizardry to try and validate your opinion that both are true. In fact, you can't prove the first unless you're arguing the second as well. I happen to think that attempting to use small samples to prove your argument is premature.

                            Is this supposed to make me look bad?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Gerald Henderson set free from Larry Brown's doghouse

                              The sample size is getting bigger and it's becoming more clear that Gerald Henderson doesn't suck. Ditto for Tyler.
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X