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

2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

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

  • 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

    The 2012 Olympics and Team USA are in full swing, but that doesn't mean it isn't time to look forward four years to ponder who might be on the roster for the 2016 games in Rio. That's exactly what Neil Paine of Basketball-Reference.com did for ESPN Insider.

    While doing research, he found some interesting stats and trends.

    "As a general rule of thumb, for every year older that a player is four seasons before the Olympics, he's 8 percent less likely to be on the next Olympic team, even after holding performance equal," he said. "This is because older players are at a much greater risk to decline, or suffer an injury that prevents them from being a world-class player in the future.

    "Another key factor in predicting whether a player will be on the Olympic roster is his minutes per game in the NBA season four years prior. ... Since 1992, the average member of Team USA had logged 36.4 mpg four seasons prior to the Olympics, a number that has grown to 37.5 for veteran members of the current team."

    Not surprisingly, Paine expects studs who will be in their prime to be on the roster, but he projects some interesting players who are "somewhat likely" to make the team: Kawhi Leonard SF (24), Greg Monroe C (25) and Paul George SG (25).

    Savvy fantasy owners already are aware of the upside that Monroe, Leonard and George will have over the next few years. All three could be poised for major stat increases in the NBA this coming season.
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Aww Yeea, of course we'd all love to see Paul at the top of his game or close to it by this time. If he does in fact step up another level in the coming years it'd be awesome to watch him be a big contributor on an Olympic team. Something the Pacers have never had. Miller was there in 96 but, Barkley and Shaq we're the main guys. Either way I'd love to have a PG olympic jersey. Too bad Chicago lost out on 2016 or I would have made the trip.
    I'm a Beast

  • #2
    Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

    actually...it is too soon, considering at least one of the 2016 team is still in high school, and we don't even know if we will still have NBA players on the 2016 team at all.

    Paul George's chances of making it are about %1.

    It's not zero, because he does have some talent, but he's not even an above-average NBA starter right now. He remains a wing that can't dribble, shoot off the dribble, or fight through a solid screen.

    I really do like Paul George. I just think there's a far too much expected of him right now and the next Olympic team as of now is not a realistic goal.
    Last edited by Kstat; 08-04-2012, 06:08 AM.

    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


    • #3
      Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

      If George made the Olympic team, it'd be in more of a Tayshaun Prince (2008) or Andre Iguodala (2012) role. A 10th man. Not as a starter or anywhere close to it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Lebron, Durant, Melo, and Paul are probably the only locks if we still have NBA players.


        Sent from #ColtsNation using Tapatalk
        Senior at the University of Louisville.
        Greenfield ---> The Ville

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

          My interet in Olympic basketball will seriously wane if we can't have our country's best players represent us.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            actually...it is too soon, considering at least one of the 2016 team is still in high school, and we don't even know if we will still have NBA players on the 2016 team at all.

            Paul George's chances of making it are about %1.

            It's not zero, because he does have some talent, but he's not even an above-average NBA starter right now. He remains a wing that can't dribble, shoot off the dribble, or fight through a solid screen.

            I really do like Paul George. I just think there's a far too much expected of him right now and the next Olympic team as of now is not a realistic goal.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

              Too early. In 2008 Anthony Davis was a to-be-sophomore only getting interest from Cleveland State.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                Originally posted by PaulGeorge View Post

                Aww Yeea, of course we'd all love to see Paul at the top of his game or close to it by this time. If he does in fact step up another level in the coming years it'd be awesome to watch him be a big contributor on an Olympic team. Something the Pacers have never had. Miller was there in 96 but, Barkley and Shaq we're the main guys. Either way I'd love to have a PG olympic jersey. Too bad Chicago lost out on 2016 or I would have made the trip.
                Reggie was 2nd to Shaq for the leading scorer 94 FIBA World Championships 18 to 17.1. He was the 3rd leading scorer in the 96 Olympic Games, behind Barkley 12.4, Robinson 12, Reggie 11.4. I'd say he was one of the main guys.

                He also set records for 3pt shooting in FIBA and the Olympics. I also remember he was co-team captain for at least one of those teams.
                "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                  Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                  People love to be such homers around here. Kstat is right.
                  There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                    Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
                    People love to be such homers around here. Kstat is right.
                    Okay then... name me the 15 SGs with a better all around game than our Paul George. Then why you're at it, for the hell of it, name me 15 better SFs.

                    If you look at the stats and take into account Paul's defense, there's no way you can argue he's a below average starter in this league.

                    As for Rio, it's way, way too early to say Paul basically has no chance to make the team. That along with the ridiculous claim that he's a below average starter is why his post got the 50 cent treatment.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                      Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                      Okay then... name me the 15 SGs with a better all around game than our Paul George.
                      For last season the primary SG were: Joe Johnson, Ray Allen, Marshon Brooks, Gerald Henderson, Ronnie Brewer, Anthony Parker, Vince Carter, Arron Afflalo, Rodney Stuckey, Klay Thompson, Kevin Martin, Randy Foye, Kobe Bryant, Tony Allen, Dwyane Wade, Monta Ellis, Wesley Johnson, Eric Gordon, Landy Fields, James Harden, JJ Reddick, Evan Turner, Jared Dudley, Wesley Matthews, Marcus Thornton, Manu Ginobili, DeMar DeRozan, Raja Bell, Jordan Crawford.

                      Let's say Johnson, Ray Allen, Kobe, Wade, Ellis, Gordon, Harden, Matthews, Ginobili, DeRozan are better (I know some of these can be debated about, just making a point). That would put him in the upper half. It's up to him to improve and make sure he gets in the top 5. Let's hope he will!
                      Trying to enjoy every Pacers game as if it is the last!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                        Thank you pacersgroningen. Anyone else wanna give it a shot? Kstat maybe. Let me guess... you got Stuckey ranked ahead of George?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Right now? Absolutely. Stuckey is a lot more diverse offensively, and he's also a plus defender. In the long run? Could be another story, but George has things he needs to work on first. Would I trade stuckey for George? Probably, but on the same token I'd take stuckey for just this season.

                          I'll get to a complete list in the morning when I have some time, but I'd be surprised if I couldn't find 15 SGs I'd rather have right now. George has a LOT more to work on than your average starter.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 08-05-2012, 11:38 PM.

                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                            Long time lurker here.

                            As somebody who generally agrees with kstat and as somebody who's always liked Stuckey (and is a huge fan of Paul), this interests me. I'm trying to post their basketball-reference comparison, but it's not letting me, for some reason. Probably because I'm a forum noob. Anyway, here are some of their relevant stats for the 11-12 season:

                            Paul: Age 21, 16.5 PER, .555 TS, DRtg 100, ORtg 108, 19.3 USG, 14.7pp36min
                            Stuck: Age 25, 17.6 PER, .550 TS, DRtg 109, ORtg 112, 24.7 USG, 17.8pp36min

                            Pretty close. Stuckey had to take more bad shots to help carry Detroit's offense. Is it fair to say Paul's more likely to take another step at age 22 than Stuckey will at 26? 26 is usually when players are starting to hit their prime. So I don't mind if you take Stuckey for next season, but the margin is very thin, and Paul's way more valuable as an asset long-term. People might take this as bad information for Paul, but it's not, it's showing that Stuck is a solidly positive player and is underappreciated. (And if you compare Paul's 2nd season to Stuckey's 2nd, it's not particularly close)

                            By the way, Paul's advanced stats compare pretty nicely to Danny. Danny has the better PER, but it's worth noting that Paul is the better rebounder, assist man, and steals man (obv, Paul was 8th in the NBA in steals per game this year) . Granger might be the better player, but Paul is close to elite at the 2 spot at some aspects of the game.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 2016 Rio Olympic team forecast

                              It's debatable, but I'd take Paul's superior shooting, size, rebounding, defense, and character over Stuckey's superior ball handling and scoring. I like his game though... I think he'd look nice playing along side Paul.

                              I can't wait to see you explain how Paul was a below average starter last year after he ranked 2nd in BPG, 2nd in REB per game, 3rd in SPG, top ten in PPS, top ten in PER, top 10 in eFG%... all while recieving votes for being one of the two best defenders at his position. Should be interesting

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X