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

Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

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

  • Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

    I'd like to respectfully submit a visual comparison of Collison and Hill. This is in response to what I have perceived as a growing sentiment on the forum that George Hill would be better suited to start at point guard. I'd like to make a couple of arguments in Collison's favor.

    1. Collison is the better player right now.
    You can see below that Collison leads Hill in 12 of the 18 categories including surprisingly rebounds and steals. Collison is also quicker, has better vision and is a better passer than Hill. Collison is better able to break down defenses by getting in to the lane. While Hill's height and length make him a better defender, that alone does not make him a starting point guard.

    2. Collison has more potential to be a better player in the future.
    Collison is a little over 1 year younger then Hill, and has 1 year less experience in the NBA, but has already accomplished more than Hill both in career averages and in his impressive stint as the starter in New Orleans. Collison's accomplishments shouldn't be viewed in a vacuum either. Hill has had the benefit of stability, being taught the philosophy of the Spurs organization and being mentored by Veterans such as Parker, Duncan and Ginobli. Collison has been on 2 teams in 2 years, having had to learn the preferencs strengths\weaknesses of 2 groups of players. He has played for 3 coaches over those 2 years, having had to take the hardest position to learn in the NBA and learn it within 3 different systems in 2 years. Collison has also played on lesser teams with lesser talent. If that doesn't do it for you, Collison had to play for Jim O'Brien.


    I suspect that Collison will come out in year 3 and surprise us all. I don't imagine that there will be much of a controversy once basketball starts up again.

    http://www.signandtrade.com/nba/nbaplayercompare.aspx



    I generated these reports using this URL: http://www.signandtrade.com/nba/nbaplayercompare.aspx

    I am also using Imgur to host the above image. www.imgur.com

  • #2
    Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

    I think Hill is here to be the backup.

    Everything I read so far suggests that he is more of a combo guard. He can handle the ball but he is not really a playmaker. In San Antonio he was asked to defend, score, and knock down 3s. I think Collison is more of a floor general.

    Hill might start one day, IDK. For the upcoming season I don't think that will be his role though.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

      Maybe I'm the only one that isn't comparing Hill and Collison.

      -Hill is a guy that you can just plug in and play. Put him at the one or two and he will make things happen. He's a guy who will play 31 minutes either off the bench or he can even start at the one or two and carry a scoring load for us while providing stellar defense. He's going to be our version of a poor man's Manu Ginobli. I think he'll have a breakout year this year.

      -Darren is our starting 1. He is a scoring guard, and as soon as he finds a power forward to pair with him on the pick 'n roll he will make plays and help our offense greatly. This will be his first year without a new coach. He is capable of putting up huge numbers, and he is capable of going into the crapper for a five game stretch. Once he finds consistency, he will be a much better player than he currently is. I think he'll have a better year than he had last year; he'll have more guys to make plays to and he won't disappear nearly as much as he did last year.

      They're two separate guys who bring different things to the game. Hill can play two positions and he has great intangibles; DC is a scorer that plays strictly point guard who is capable of getting hot.
      Last edited by BringJackBack; 06-24-2011, 08:57 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

        The great thing no matter what about Hill, is he is a team player, in other words, he'll do everything he can to contribute whether he's on the bench or starting. So, if he starts over Collison? Great! That means, he has potential to be a really good point guard. If he doesn't? Great! Means we have scoring off the bench.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

          I think just lokking at these stats side by side is troublesome. DC was in a system for one half of a season that greatly inflated his numbers. Not to mention it doesnt show as much to me defensively.

          Is there a way to compare DC's stats second half of last year to GH's second half last year? That to me would be a much better indicator.

          Either way this is very cool to see nonetheless. Thanks for posting.
          I don't want to sound condescending, which means to talk down to you by the way

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

            Hill played with both Parker and Ginobli, not to mention played a lot of 2 this year. That will change your stats up a bit. (Not that they're far off the point, necessarily)

            A lot of talk in the past about players putting up good stats on bad teams, what about a player putting up solid stats on a good team?
            "man, PG has been really good."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

              why not play them side-by-side? collison's rookie stats are a little misleading due to the system he was running in New Orleans. there's no reason the rotation at the 1 and 2 guard can't be hill/collison at the 1 and hill/george/stephenson at the 2. imo there's no need for a "controversy" if they can play together.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                I'm not saying that HIll should or will start, but I think you (BBQ) aren't giving enough consideration to the value of defense at the point guard position. Hill is considered a very good perimeter defender. Collison is considered a below average defender.

                Defense, obviously, is half the game and it's particularly important at the point guard position, which too often in the Pacers' recent past has allowed opposing point guards to penetrate and break down the defense -- creating easy buckets and getting the Pacers' big men in foul trouble. This isn't something you can compare in your statistical breakdown, but it matters greatly.
                Last edited by Freddie fan; 06-24-2011, 09:29 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                  There isn't a controversy. This is great.

                  Collison/Hill
                  George/Hill
                  Granger/ George

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                    Ya, I think Collison is our starter at this point in time, but that doesn't mean Hill won't log serious minutes at the 1, depending on the defensive matchup. Hill provides a situational defensive option for us at the 1. I don't think Hill is better than Collison overall, but he's not far. He's a great option to have on the bench, and like has been said, he's capable of sliding over to the 2, spotting both Collison and George. I think he's a great 6th man and the fact he's home-grown adds to the relationship.
                    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                      Originally posted by A.B.Hollywood View Post
                      I think just lokking at these stats side by side is troublesome. DC was in a system for one half of a season that greatly inflated his numbers. Not to mention it doesnt show as much to me defensively.

                      Is there a way to compare DC's stats second half of last year to GH's second half last year? That to me would be a much better indicator.

                      Either way this is very cool to see nonetheless. Thanks for posting.
                      These stats begin the day Jim O'Brien was fired.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        Ya, I think Collison is our starter at this point in time, but that doesn't mean Hill won't log serious minutes at the 1, depending on the defensive matchup. Hill provides a situational defensive option for us at the 1. I don't think Hill is better than Collison overall, but he's not far. He's a great option to have on the bench, and like has been said, he's capable of sliding over to the 2, spotting both Collison and George. I think he's a great 6th man and the fact he's home-grown adds to the relationship.
                        Who starts is not nearly as important as who finishes. At the end of the game, I am guessing Hill and George will be in the bachcourt together. Personally, I think DC makes the ideal backup pg because he is a serious matchup problem for whoever tries to defend him and his defensive liability will not show up so much against a backup pg.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                          -I agree that Collison is still the starter.

                          -I do believe Hill will spend most of his time as a backup PG, at least that is the thought right now.

                          -What Hill brings other than the above statement is he can also play the 2 and guard 2's as well as 1s--he's the best thing that we have right now that is even relatively a PG that can actually DEFEND other PG's--big or small.

                          -George Hill is now sort of like what Jarrett Jack was for us, ONLY BETTER. I am probably Jack's biggest fan ever, but I do strongly believe that Hill will immediately give us even more versatility on both ends of the court than what Jarrett provided--plus probably a better shoote... and a better playmaker possibly??

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                            Originally posted by Freddie fan View Post
                            I'm not saying that HIll should or will start, but I think you (BBQ) aren't giving enough consideration to the value of defense at the point guard position. Hill is considered a very good perimeter defender. Collison is considered a below average defender.

                            Defense, obviously, is half the game and it's particularly important at the point guard position, which too often in the Pacers' recent past has allowed opposing point guards to penetrate and break down the defense -- creating easy buckets and getting the Pacers' big men in foul trouble. This isn't something you can compare in your statistical breakdown, but it matters greatly.
                            Good post. I think both of them are good players. Collison might have a higher ceiling but I don't think he's played quite as good at this stage of their careers considering all parts of the game. Defense is half the game and as you say PG defense is crucial...particularly looking at who took us out of the playoffs. Also, I think Hill is more well rounded and Darren's numbers are what they are because he calls his own number a lot.

                            In any event, Hill may not be my dream PG, but Hill is a team player folks and we are lucky to have him. I would not be surprised at all to see him on the team for many years.

                            Edit: ...and to point #1, no I don't think Darren was the better player last season. Stats lie folks and this is a good example. Darren has played on bad teams racking up numbers. Hill has played on great teams in a more difficult conference and contributed very respectable numbers. But the numbers mean next to nothing (see Troy Murphy). Let's watch what they do on the floor...
                            Last edited by BlueNGold; 06-24-2011, 11:09 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                              I'm a big Collison fan but I've seen George Hill play a bunch. He wasn't one of the main options for the spurs like Collison was for the Pacers. So obviously he got less points. From what I've seen he is smarter with the ball and is a better spot up shooter then Collison. You throw defense in the mix and I won't be suprised to see George Hill starting. Remember he backed up TONY PARKER!!!!! Collison isn't that type of player George Hill will start.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X