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

Granger or Melo?

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

  • #46
    Re: Granger or Melo?

    I say no to it. Melo seems to just get his shots and put up points on the board, but he doesn't do all that much else on the other end of the court as well as help make his teammates better. Just my opinion about the matter, though.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Granger or Melo?

      Danny's advanced stats can be deceiving. He gets to the line a lot because he puts his head down and charges into the paint trying to draw contact. He's figured out how to get calls without charging for the most part, but he's getting a few missed shots a game throwing up trash because he doesn't always get the call. This along with his terrible shot selection at times is dragging his fg% down. Of course the free throws helps his advanced stats, but I don't see how it really helps the team when he shoots for a low fg% and part of the reason why is because he forces things.

      And he's not passing the ball either so yeah, not impressed...

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Granger or Melo?

        The whole point of sharing the ball is to get the ball into the best position to score. Against most NBA defenses you aren't going to run a play that results in an uncontested layup very often. This means you run plays or pass the ball into positions that give you the most favorable match ups.

        The reason Carmello, Kobe, Durant, Dirk, etc don't pass out of single coverage when they have the ball in their spots is because this is ALREADY the place you would have wanted to get the ball during a play. This is feeding Shaq in the post. You got the ball to the best matchup, to the place you have the best chance to score. If a double doesn't come (and even if it does in the case of Shaq sometimes), you WANT this player to shoot the ball. This is the NBA, not HS, not College, there is only a 24 second shot clock and you are playing against the best defenses in the world. I'll take Melo putting a shot up against single coverage 90% of the time as a good possession.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Granger or Melo?

          Originally posted by Dece View Post
          This argument is nonsensical. You are essentially saying that because Carmello is so much more dangerous than Danny that he demands a double team, which leads to far more assists, this isn't actually more helpful than Danny throwing the ball around the arc... it also suggests that if Carmello weren't doubled he wouldn't pass the ball to an open teammate, which is wrong. Further, it makes the implication that Carmello, the best, or at least certainly a top 3 one on one scorer, should give the ball up when he isn't double teamed... which would be foolish, because as discussed he's most likely about to get his team a bucket against single coverage, unlike Danny. (and most players not named Kobe, Durant, etc)

          The reason that argument gets ignored is because it is silly.
          The problem is when Melo refuses to give the ball when he is double teamed. Frankly, this happens quite often. Especially, if it is the last play.

          Like in this game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvlDGrv4lV8

          Or this game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7EewHjWSTE

          Or this game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5eo3ZQ_OZg

          Or all the other numerous times that he refuses to pass to an open man and prefers to take a tough shot instead. Yes, Carmelo is one of the best one-on-one players. Still, an OPEN shot has a much higher chance of going in than a tough, contested shot. I don't care who you are. If there's a man open you'd be better passing the ball to him. Jordan did this and was rewarded. Was Jordan a worse one-on-one player? No. He was a better teammate and was smart enough to understand that the easier play has more chances of going in.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Granger or Melo?

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            Fascinating... I didn't expect to have a majority here.

            For the record, Melo is clearly the more dynamic scorer and better individual player. Yet he never seems to help his team.
            Goodness. I can't believe I'm defending Granger.

            My issue with Melo is that he thinks he's good enough to win every game by himself. He has the JO mentality. This doesn't usually work well in the playoffs. Combine that with the fact he shoots a lot of volume and not for a great percentage...and he's not a good defender really...I just find Melo grossly overrated. There was a time when people compared him to LeBron. That seem so ludicrous now. I would compare him more to a more talented version of Al Harrington...with a touch of Allen Iverson. None of those guys are winners. At least Danny is willing to defer in order to win. I have yet to see Melo do much of that.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Granger or Melo?

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              Goodness. I can't believe I'm defending Granger.
              Feels strange, isn't it?
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Granger or Melo?

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                Goodness. I can't believe I'm defending Granger.

                My issue with Melo is that he thinks he's good enough to win every game by himself. He has the JO mentality. This doesn't usually work well in the playoffs. Combine that with the fact he shoots a lot of volume and not for a great percentage...and he's not a good defender really...I just find Melo grossly overrated. There was a time when people compared him to LeBron. That seem so ludicrous now. I would compare him more to a more talented version of Al Harrington...with a touch of Allen Iverson. None of those guys are winners. At least Danny is willing to defer in order to win. I have yet to see Melo do much of that.
                AI took a craptacular team to the finals. I wouldn't say he was a loser.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Granger or Melo?

                  I guess I don't understand why anyone would believe NY would be better with Granger instead of Melo. I know you guys want to cite Denver as an example, but it's a really bad one.

                  Denver got better because they got Wilson Chandler, Raymond Felton, Danilo Gallinari, and Timofey Mozgov. That's 3-4 starting quality players and I'd certainly welcome ANY of those guys on our team right now. I know it's a better story if we pretend it was addition by subtraction, but the reality is Denver went from a relatively shallow team to a deep one, and they have always played a very high pace -- a pace that naturally favors depth.

                  In this proposed trade NY would get back a player who rebounds worse, passes worse, doesn't demand a double, doesn't have an effective post game, but shoots marginally better from the 3pt line and maybe plays better defense although honestly DG's defense isn't that great either. They don't gain any depth, they don't gain... anything.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Granger or Melo?

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Fascinating... I didn't expect to have a majority here.
                    It doesn't surprise me at all.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Granger or Melo?

                      Danny Granger is shooting the ball 15 times a game at a sub 40% rate. Where is this deferment you guys keep talking about? If that's deferring then WOW.

                      Also the idea that Melo is a loser but Danny is a winner? Danny has managed to make the playoffs twice in his career and I really wouldn't credit him for making it in 05. Melo has never missed the playoffs and led a team to the western conference (read: better conference) finals. You guys are just making up fantasy story lines.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Granger or Melo?

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        Ok, question for Dece, venezuala, and company.

                        I understand why you believe this trade would make the Pacers better. Do you think it would make New York worse?
                        Just call me company.

                        I think Granger helps NY. Amare is an inside player and Chandler is going to be in there too. Granger is a better perimeter shooter than Carmello Anthony...and would help stretch the floor. No, I'm not a JOb lover, but I understand the need to have a few threats deep.

                        Then you have to look at the defense. Again, I'm sick at my stomach defending Granger, but he's simply a lot better defender than Melo. While Melo is one physical beast, he's not interested in defending and he's going to be shooting volume for 44-45% when they could have Amare and Tyson scoring more efficiently. Amare's career FG% is over 53% and Tyson's is over 57%. Tyson is at over 70 freaking % this year...while Melo is under 40%.

                        Now who do you really want shooting the ball? I know Melo is good, but he simply isn't as good as he thinks.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Granger or Melo?

                          Originally posted by Dece View Post
                          The reason Carmello, Kobe, Durant, Dirk, etc don't pass out of single coverage when they have the ball in their spots is because this is ALREADY the place you would have wanted to get the ball during a play.
                          This is true. However, explain this to me. Why does Durant and Dirk take decent to good shots in crunch time and Melo or Kobe usually take horrible shots?

                          Here's a Nowitzki missed game-tying shot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNg5R5E-4MQ

                          Here's a Durant missed game-winning shot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Poq8JY23oD0

                          On the contrary, he's a Kobe missed shot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqcgy6xLrEM

                          You see what I'm talking about? Sure, you want them to shoot. But you don't want them to take a horrible shot that has no chance in hell of going in. Guys like Durant and Nowitzki seem to acknowledge this and mostly try to take good shots (like every player, they can throw a bad shot eventually but that's not the norm). There's a reason that Kobe and Melo are known for their horrible shot selection. People are not crazy.

                          That said, Danny's shot selection was not great in the past seasons either. So, a lot of you could think that both do the same mistakes so we may as well bring in the best player of the two. But Danny has improved a lot since Vogel came in. He is taking mostly good shots now. Sure, he throws some stupid shots once in a while but he's nowhere near the chucking that he did in previous seasons.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Granger or Melo?

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            I think Granger helps NY. Amare is an inside player and Chandler is going to be in there too. Granger is a better perimeter shooter than Carmello Anthony...and would help stretch the floor. No, I'm not a JOb lover, but I understand the need to have a few threats deep.

                            Then you have to look at the defense. Again, I'm sick at my stomach defending Granger, but he's simply a lot better defender than Melo. While Melo is one physical beast, he's not interested in defending and he's going to be shooting volume for 44-45% when they could have Amare and Tyson scoring more efficiently. Amare's career FG% is over 53% and Tyson's is over 57%. Tyson is at over 70 freaking % this year...while Melo is under 40%.

                            Now who do you really want shooting the ball? I know Melo is good, but he simply isn't as good as he thinks.
                            I agree with this 100%. NY would get a lot better by just having a good 3 point shooter instead of a shot creator. Teams with ball-dominant PGs and bigs who are great on the pick and roll do not need a shot creator. Just look at Phoenix did all these years. Pair Nash with great PnR bigs and spot up shooters. It works.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Granger or Melo?

                              Originally posted by Dece View Post
                              Danny Granger is shooting the ball 15 times a game at a sub 40% rate. Where is this deferment you guys keep talking about? If that's deferring then WOW.

                              Also the idea that Melo is a loser but Danny is a winner? Danny has managed to make the playoffs twice in his career and I really wouldn't credit him for making it in 05. Melo has never missed the playoffs and led a team to the western conference (read: better conference) finals. You guys are just making up fantasy story lines.
                              Melo is shooting over 18 times a game sub 40%...and he's shot over 20 times a game and his percentages have never been that good. Career he shoots 19.3 times a game to Danny's 14. What is that? 37% more shooting? That's amazing when you consider JOb gave Granger a blinding green light from anywhere inside half court.

                              Not saying Danny is much better though...so let me beat on him a little.

                              Danny's percentages have gone down every year except one small blip up. Yes, he's lower than ever right now. But even with that, he's not nearly as ball dominant...particularly down the stretch where you might as well call Melo, Force Anthony.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Granger or Melo?

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                Goodness. I can't believe I'm defending Granger.

                                My issue with Melo is that he thinks he's good enough to win every game by himself. He has the JO mentality. This doesn't usually work well in the playoffs. Combine that with the fact he shoots a lot of volume and not for a great percentage...and he's not a good defender really...I just find Melo grossly overrated. There was a time when people compared him to LeBron. That seem so ludicrous now. I would compare him more to a more talented version of Al Harrington...with a touch of Allen Iverson. None of those guys are winners. At least Danny is willing to defer in order to win. I have yet to see Melo do much of that.
                                Stop it. If Danny was a winner the field house wouldn't be so empty. What exactly has Danny won? A selfish A.I took scrubs to the finals, Danny has never done that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X