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

Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #1

    Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

    I hate both Rick Reilly and LeBron James. But I couldn't agree more with this article. Seems like most of the sports world agrees that LBJ is playing great, but I'm shocked by how many think he isn't. Is it possible to shrink in a victory? Are national columnists too lazy to pay attention to defense?

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6634464

    You wonder sometimes, what kind of mushrooms people are eating.

    A reporter the other day asked LeBron James if he's "shrinking" in the fourth quarter of these NBA Finals.

    True, James has scored only nine points in the three fourth quarters so far.

    AND ... ?

    If anything, the way James is playing has only made him double in greatness. James' legend isn't shrinking, it's swelling up like a Macy's float.

    I'm the last guy that wants to write a glowing column about LeBron James. I hate how he conspired to get to Miami, hate how he took a short cut to a ring. But you'd have to be visually impaired not to see that James is playing gorgeous, selfless, complete basketball.

    He is defending first, passing next, screening third and shooting fourth. The man had nine assists in Game 3! If anything is shrinking, it's whichever poor Dallas Maverick he's guarding. Have you seen the line on the Mavs' No. 2 scoring option, Jason Terry, in the Finals? Thirty-eight percent shooting, four 3-pointers, total, and no buckets in five tries in the final quarter versus TCO (The Chosen One). James has been on him like scales on a flounder. Terry has to leave the building just to get a full breath.

    Eventually, LeBron James is going to win enough rings to start a pawn shop. He may win them by scoring like Wilt. He may win them by passing like Magic. He may win them by defending like Russell. What's your point? Aren't they all shiny?

    Michael Jordan won his fifth ring when a 6-foot-3 guard named Steve Kerr made a jumper. You know who got the assist? Jordan. Was that shrinkage? Do you get an extra ring for scoring the most points?

    Even Dwyane Wade admits that it's James' team in crunch time.

    "He makes the decisions for our team," Wade explained last week. "Whether he wants to shoot or whether he wants to pass. … He's a great player. He's 6-8, he can see over the defense and he's a great passer. … Normally I was the guy here in Miami. At the end of games I always had the ball in my hand. So it took me time to get comfortable with that and get comfortable with saying, 'All right, LeBron, you take it.' … Yesterday, Coach called a play in the huddle for LeBron. He wound up saying, 'No, I want D-Wade to have it right here.'"

    By the way, Wade wound up lobbing to The King for a flush on that play.

    Besides, statistically, James is a better clutch player than Wade anyway. According to Chasing23.com, James has made "nearly twice as many crunch time baskets [and] shot nearly 10 percent higher in FG" in crunch time in playoff games.

    Instead, James is making me-last decisions. Double-teamed with just seconds left in the loser-lays-awake-all-night Game 3, he threw a beautiful corner-of-the-eye, side-wing pass to a wide open Chris Bosh for the winning jumper. Then, at the other end, he clamped down on Terry so hard that Terry -- a pure outside-only shooter -- found himself in a clump under the basket.

    People who only care about "points scored" in a box score are the same kind of people who think the waiter made the soufflé.
    People who only care about "points scored" in a box score are the same kind of people who think the waiter made the soufflé.

    My God, what's James supposed to do? Dunk from the bus? This is a man who averaged 38 points a game in an Eastern Conference finals versus Orlando and lost. He's relishing a new role.

    "LeBron don't have to score to be effective," is how Wade put it Monday.

    Does James feel like he can't win?

    "No, I did win," he says with a grin. "We won. That's all that it's about."

    James told the "shrinkage" guy he was only looking at one side of the floor, only looking at the stat sheet. He's right. The stat sheet is just the problem. James is so ridonkulously talented that we need to come up with new stats for him. For instance:

    • SPU -- Shots Passed Up … by the man you're guarding because that man knows you're a 6-8, 265-pound freak who can move like a tornado and jump like a Calaveras County frog and would've knocked his shot into the mezzanine.

    • PNT -- Possessions with No Touches … by the man you're guarding, because that man knows you're going to make him look like Elton John's sister if he asks for the ball.

    • LOB -- Minutes the player you're guarding is left on the bench (Players' Decision.)

    So, just to recap, LeBron James is:

    A. Really, really good at passing (no forward in history has ever averaged more assists, including Larry Bird).

    B. Really, really good under pressure in these playoffs. (Remember? In Game 4 against Boston, he scored 11 of the Heat's last 13 in regulation; Game 5 against Boston, Miami's last 10; Game 2 against Chicago, nine of the last 12.)

    C. Really, really bad at one-hour ESPN specials. I get being angry at him for that. I get being torqued at him for ganging up with two of the other top-10 players in the league and crushing all the uncoordinated kids on the playground.

    But ripping him for playing beautiful basketball?

    That's so dense, light can't escape it.
    The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
    RSS Feed
    Subscribe via iTunes

    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

    He's considered to be "shrinking" because he's supposed to be the future GOAT(according to Scottie Pippen) and if he's the best player in the game he should play like it.

    Meaning coming up huge in the 4th Quarter on the big stage.

    Do I think its that simplistic? No but he brought a lot of this on himself with "The Decision" special and the preseason party of how they were going to win not 5.. not 6 ... not 7 rings.

    Everyone expects him to back it up now.

    I do find it interesting though that Lebron and Wade are co-leaders but when it was Shaq/Kobe well Kobe was a sidekick at least where the media stands.

    Which is it?

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

      His shot selection and decision making has always been **** poor in the fourth quarter, IMO. That is why I don't consider him even close to the greatest of all time. He isn't even the best player on his own team.

      I still consider Kobe the best player in the NBA. He was dogged with injuries this year, but I am not taking that title away from him.
      "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

      • #4
        Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

        Making the right plays, and playing defense doesn't matter.

        Only scoring the last point does, duh.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
          He's considered to be "shrinking" because he's supposed to be the future GOAT(according to Scottie Pippen) and if he's the best player in the game he should play like it.

          Meaning coming up huge in the 4th Quarter on the big stage.

          Do I think its that simplistic? No but he brought a lot of this on himself with "The Decision" special and the preseason party of how they were going to win not 5.. not 6 ... not 7 rings.

          Everyone expects him to back it up now.

          I do find it interesting though that Lebron and Wade are co-leaders but when it was Shaq/Kobe well Kobe was a sidekick at least where the media stands.

          Which is it?
          If Kobe and Shaq had been friends of similar age who decided to "join forces" in LA. People would have considered them "co leaders"

          As it was, Kobe was "the baby" and Shaq was in his prime. I remember a "big brother/little brother type of relationship" (well that the media tried to portray)

          Anyway, I'm not a fan, but if Lebron puts his ego away, plays great defense and a complimentary role, and let's Wade be "the man" because it's better for the team (and it is, for a few reasons) than good for him.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

            In my opinion, in this Finals Lebron has been the third most dominant player in the fourth quarter. He's been playing great, but he hasn't had his "out of his mind" moment yet.

            His defense has been fantastic, but its hard to shine in the shadow of Wade's and Dirk's theatrics.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

              Originally posted by Sookie View Post
              If Kobe and Shaq had been friends of similar age who decided to "join forces" in LA. People would have considered them "co leaders"

              As it was, Kobe was "the baby" and Shaq was in his prime. I remember a "big brother/little brother type of relationship" (well that the media tried to portray)

              Anyway, I'm not a fan, but if Lebron puts his ego away, plays great defense and a complimentary role, and let's Wade be "the man" because it's better for the team (and it is, for a few reasons) than good for him.
              Partly yes

              But don't you see how absurd that is? Wade was already the leader of the team and LeBron chose to go there and giving up his top dog status that he had with the Cavs to join a team where one of the leaders won a ring before he got there.

              So if LeBron wins a ring with the Heat it will be portrayed as a joint effort rather than LeBron being a sidekick.

              Yet for years Kobe had to hear how he couldn't have done it without Shaq and he didn't even leave the Lakers to make it possible when he did.

              This isn't directed at you just pointing out the never ending hypocrisy of the media.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

                LeBron has become the rich man's Pippen to Wade's poor man's Jordan.

                There's no shame in that. LeBron can be the best 2-way player in the game, and still not be the best pure scorer or closer.

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

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

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

                  If Lebron has concerns about "shrinkage", he should stay out of a cold pool:

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cUNNKzj_Nc
                  Last edited by CableKC; 06-07-2011, 04:39 PM.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

                    I don't see how he is shrinking. Like Rick said, he is doing so much more than scoring. He dominated the Bulls late.

                    Like judicata said though, Wade and Dirk are making more big plays.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

                      LeBron is playing like Peyton Manning in the 2006 Super Bowl. They take away the pass, dump it off to the running backs and ride them to a title. Maybe the stat line won't blow people away but who cares.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

                        Lebron had the game winning assist on a nice pass to Bosh. He made the right play at the right time.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

                          What Jordan did doesn't define greatness. What he did was great, but there a lot of other ways to play at the highest level. LeBron isn't trying to be Michael, he's trying to be the best he can possibly be, and he's just about doing it.

                          You can't match every player to either Michael or Scottie, life isn't that simple. Wade is doing things MJ couldn't, MJ did stuff Wade couldn't, and so on infinitely.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

                            What Wade and LeBron are doing is as close as it's ever going to get, though.

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

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

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Rick Reilly - LeBron not a "shrinker"

                              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                              Partly yes

                              But don't you see how absurd that is? Wade was already the leader of the team and LeBron chose to go there and giving up his top dog status that he had with the Cavs to join a team where one of the leaders won a ring before he got there.

                              So if LeBron wins a ring with the Heat it will be portrayed as a joint effort rather than LeBron being a sidekick.

                              Yet for years Kobe had to hear how he couldn't have done it without Shaq and he didn't even leave the Lakers to make it possible when he did.

                              This isn't directed at you just pointing out the never ending hypocrisy of the media.
                              I believe that Kobe and Shaq were a joint effort.

                              Shaq does not win his 3 rings in LA without Kobe. He's won 4 Championships. And all of them were with the league's best or second best shooting guard.

                              It just means, inevitably that it takes more than one guy to win a championship. Yes, someone inevitably gets named the top dog. And if the right guy takes the reings, the ultra talented team usually wins.

                              The last year of Kobe/Shaq was a fight. Kobe had let Shaq have that title, and he wanted it. Because Kobe Bryant wanted to prove he was a top dog, was one of the greatest players. He had already won, he needed to prove he could win as "the one."

                              With Lebron, I think it's different. I mean, in the first place..I don't know that Lebron really wants to be "the guy." I think he tries because of outside pressure. But I think he'd rather be a guy like Pippen. Where he can just be great, win championships..but not have the pressure of bailing the team out.

                              Wade on the other hand..is more like Kobe.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
                              Working...
                              X