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

Top 5 Mistakes GMs Make At The Draft

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

  • Top 5 Mistakes GMs Make At The Draft

    We all make mistakes. Unfortunately, some people's mistakes can end up costing their employers millions of dollars, and that's why so much pressure is on NBA GMs to select the right player each year's draft.



    You'd think that would be easy enough, yet every year these GMs make huge mistakes with the players they take. Here's a look at some of the most common among them, as well as a look at which players could trip up teams this year:



    #5 –Drafting players with a questions about character



    Why they do it: Because Dennis Rodman is a Hall of Famer. There's more behind it than that, obviously, with questionable guys like Ron Artest and Amar'e Stoudemire having had tremendous careers despite questions about their character. Those guys are more the exception than the rule, however, and in many cases when a player comes in with a lot of behavioral damage, it's better to just let them go. No talent is worth locking yourself into a guaranteed first-round pick if they're going to make the organization's life miserable somewhere down the road.



    Case in point: Terrence Williams (New Jersey, 11th pick in 2009 draft), Sean Williams (New Jersey, 17th pick in 2007 draft), Sebastian Telfair (Portland, 13th pick in 2004 draft)



    This draft's potential culprit: Illinois's Jereme Richmond, who's been a huge headache for just about every coach he's ever played for. The talent is there, but his inability to prove himself as a coachable character may cost him the first round. It already cost him any measure of college success he may have had.



    #4 –Drafting players with histories of injury



    Why they do it: Because injuries heal, but talent is forever. At least, that's what teams tell themselves when they use a first-round pick on a player who faced a lot of injuries in college. Every year, some player with injury concerns drops and drops and drops down the draft board, but every year there's also a previously injured player who gets taken very, very high. In some cases, things work out okay (Kenyon Martin, perhaps), but other times (like with Greg Oden), it can be devastating. If all things are equal, and a GM has a choice between a player known for being hurt or a player with a clean bill of health, why not just draft Kevin Durant?



    Case in point: Greg Oden (Portland, 1st pick in the 2007 draft), Brandon Roy (Minnesota, 6th pick in the 2006 draft), Wayne Simien (Miami, 29th pick in the 2005 draft)



    This draft's potential culprit: Kyrie Irving, who only played eight NCAA games because of his foot injury, and probably is going to be the top overall pick, anyway. Some say Cleveland still hasn't settled on Irving for that exact reason. Only time can tell if that foot will really be an ongoing problem.



    #3 –Drafting for potential rather than experience



    Why they do it: Because open air is better than a closed ceiling. How many times do we see teams go with a kid that might be good rather than a player who already is undeniably reliable? Usually, the "potential" guys that succeed are the ones that pretty much everybody agrees on. The ones with a considerably smaller success rate are the "hope-so" guys, and that's where the problem lies. You're probably not going to strike out with LeBron James over anybody else in that amazing 2003 draft, for example, but in 2001 when three of the top four players were high schoolers, we saw a lot of faith poured into young guys when plenty of proven college studs were available. It gets teams into trouble more often than it saves them.



    Case in point: Jonathan Bender (Toronto, 5th pick in 1999 draft ahead of Richard Hamilton, Andre Miller, Shawn Marion, Jason Terry, and more), Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, and Eddy Curry (1st, 2nd, and 4th picks in 2001 draft ahead of Jason Richardson, Shane Battier, Joe Johnson, Richard Jefferson, and more), Shaun Livingston (LAC, 4th pick in the 2004 draft ahead of Luol Deng and Andre Iguodala), Marvin Williams (Atlanta, 2nd pick in 2005 draft ahead of Chris Paul and Deron Williams).



    This draft's potential culprit: Brandon Knight over Kemba Walker and Jimmer Fredette. You could say the same thing about Kyrie Irving, who's even more unproven than Knight in some ways, but Knight is a young, rail-thin point guard that teams hope will grow into something special, where Walker and Fredette have already proven what they can do over and over again.



    #2 –Trying to find the next big international success



    Why they do it: Because American stars are a dime a dozen, but international stars are harder to find. Also, there are times when a team wants to take advantage of a foreign market for financial reasons, and that helps fuel drafting an international prospect as well. There was a while there where European players were picked like crazy, but those selections have tapered off the last couple of drafts. Oddly enough, there are quite a few more interesting international prospects available this year than have been around for years, so we'll get a great opportunity to see which teams think the gamble on players who haven't gone against NBA (or, more accurately, NCAA) talent in their lives is worth it. Not all of these Euro kids will work out. So few international players become superstars, and there's huge flop potential for these unproven young men. That's why drafting them is so scary. As far as risk vs. reward is concerned, it's about as bad a payoff as you can get in a draft.



    Case in point: Ricky Rubio (Minnesota, 5th pick in 2009 draft), Yi Jianlian (Milwaukee, 6th pick in 2007 draft), Fran Vasquez (Orlando, 11th pick in 2005 draft), Darko Milicic (Detroit, 2nd pick in 2003 draft), Nikoloz Tskitishvili (Denver, 5th pick in 2002 draft), Frederic Weis (New York, 15th pick in 1999 draft).



    This draft's potential culprit: Jonas Valanciunas, Jan Vesely, Bismack Biyombo, and Donatas Motiejunas. The consensus is that Valanciunas has the best chance of the group to end up successful, but who knows? Drafting Euros is always a crapshoot, and this year's group will be no different.



    #1 –Drafting big



    Why they do it: Because you can't teach height. The best seven-footers in league history have been borderline unstoppable, so teams often find themselves erring on the side of tallness. There have been myriad times when a tall, unskilled player has been selected over a smaller, much more skilled one. It's all with the hope that they'll strike it rich with an influential big guy. Unfortunately, the list of gigantic flops below is only a small sample of the centers taken entirely too early, and it won't be the last time, either. This is a mistake GMs will never stop making because the potential payoff is entirely too big. Literally.



    Case in point: Hasheem Thabeet (Memphis, 2nd pick in 2009 draft), Patrick O'Bryant (Golden State, 9th pick in 2006 draft), Mouhammed Saer Sene (Seattle, 10th pick in 2006 draft), Pavel Podkolzin (Utah, 21st pick in 2004 draft), Sagana Diop (Cleveland, 8th pick in the 2001 draft), Michael Olowokandi (LAC, 1st pick in 1998 draft).



    This draft's potential culprit: Jonas Valanciunas (6'11"), Donatas Montiejunas (7'0"), or Nikola Vucevic (7'0"). All three have undeniable size, but none of them can really be labeled sure things. With not a lot of big men in this draft, there's an even higher chance they get drafted sooner than they maybe should.


    Drafting undersized players



    Why they do it: This is most common when it comes to drafting 5'11" point guards and 6'7" power forwards, and success stories like Muggsy Bogues, Spud Webb, Charles Barkley, and Dennis Rodman are enough to make GM's think that success can be repeated. Modern examples like Earl Boykins and Carlos Boozer haven't helped buck the trend, either, but too often we see teams take risks on guys that are clearly too small to play their best position in the NBA because there's the hope that talent transcends size. Occasionally that can be true, but more often the end result is players who are physically overpower at the next level.



    There's a reason guys like this often slip to the second round; teams don't want to guarantee contracts to players they aren't sure can make it to the next level. Occasionally, though, these guys go way, way higher than they should, and that's where the biggest mistakes are made.



    Case in point: Johny Flynn (5'11", 6th pick in 2009 draft), Ike Diogu (6'8", 9th pick in 2005 draft), Sean May (6'8", 13th pick in 2005 draft), Mike Sweetney (6'8", 9th pick in the 2003 draft), Speedy Claxton (5'11", 20th pick in 2000 draft).



    This draft's potential culprit: Isaiah Thomas, PG, 5'10". Thomas is projected a second-rounder for the very reasons discussed above. GM's are catching onto this, especially when it comes to tiny guards, but Thomas is still good enough to get someone to gamble somewhere about halfway through round #2



    Drafting for need over best player available



    Why they do it: Because it's the logical thing to do. Logic doesn't always equal success, however, and that means we've seen some very logical picks go very wrong in the past. If you're the Portland Trail Blazers in 1984 and you've already got Clyde Drexler, it doesn't make a lot of sense to draft Michael Jordan, does it? Go with size instead, you tell yourself. The rest of this story you know, but it dramatically illustrates who drafting for need can go wrong.



    It can also go right, but occasionally this tactic gets GMs into trouble. In the big picture of big mistakes, however, this isn't the worst one by far.



    Case in point: Sam Bowie (2nd pick in 1984 draft ahead of Michael Jordan), Darko Milicic (Detroit, 2nd pick in 2003 draft ahead of Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, and Dwyane Wade).



    This draft's potential culprit: The Minnesota Timberwolves, who if they keep the #2 pick probably will be forced to take someone other than Derrick Williams, who clearly is the second-best player in this draft. Even though they don't "need" him, it could be something they regret down the road, especially in a draft as weak as this one.



    Like Billy Bob Thornton's character says in the movie Bad Santa, "They can't all be winners, kid," and that's really the truth. All of the players selected in any given draft can't be a success. They just can't. And sometimes, you simply can't avoid making the sorts of mistakes mentioned in this article. All fans can do is hope that the people in charge make the best choices, and that the right players end up on the right teams.



    When that doesn't happen, though, all we need to do is take a look at this list and remind ourselves how it all happened. Then, hope that your team doesn't make the same mistakes next year.
    Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?...#ixzz1PLrVbAzG
    Sittin on top of the world!

  • #2
    Re: Top 5 Mistakes GMs Make At The Draft

    Ron Artest is the exception? Tell that to Chicago, Indiana, Sacramento, and possibly Houston.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Top 5 Mistakes GMs Make At The Draft

      Meh. There's so many things I don't like about this article. Shallow superficial analysis.

      Only weeks left till the draft, and you are going to throw all these (quite well known by now) prospects into huge groups and come up with big generalized conclusions? I thought we are way past that at this point. This may be ok for November 2010, not today.

      It's a popcorn article for the extremely casual fans.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Top 5 Mistakes GMs Make At The Draft

        The problem with these "mistakes" is that there are tons of examples to the contrary.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Top 5 Mistakes GMs Make At The Draft

          Originally posted by ballism View Post
          Meh. There's so many things I don't like about this article. Shallow superficial analysis.

          Only weeks left till the draft, and you are going to throw all these (quite well known by now) prospects into huge groups and come up with big generalized conclusions? I thought we are way past that at this point. This may be ok for November 2010, not today.

          It's a popcorn article for the extremely casual fans.
          I agree!

          They also say five top mistakes, but there are actually seven in the article. Why go to the trouble of listing seven and then say top five?

          #5 –Drafting players with a questions about character
          #4 –Drafting players with histories of injury
          #3 –Drafting for potential rather than experience
          #2 –Trying to find the next big international success
          #1 –Drafting big
          Drafting undersized players
          Drafting for need over best player available
          Last edited by Will Galen; 06-15-2011, 11:40 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Top 5 Mistakes GMs Make At The Draft

            The biggest mistake as the article says is drafting big.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Top 5 Mistakes GMs Make At The Draft

              There are some interesting points in this article, but obviously they aren't 100% accurate. The main thing I draw from it all is how HORRIBLE Detroit did in the 2003 draft. Darko Milicic when you could've had Carmelo, Bosh, or D-Wade? OUCH. That's a pretty hard one to swallow.

              Comment

              Working...
              X