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

NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

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

  • #46
    Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

    I got Iggy in the top 5. I think he's underrated around here. He might not put up the stats like some of the other guys, but he makes his teammates better, and you can't always find numbers for that.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

      Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
      I got Iggy in the top 5. I think he's underrated around here. He might not put up the stats like some of the other guys, but he makes his teammates better, and you can't always find numbers for that.
      yeah, he's probably the one who should be #5, although again the gap is small between him and Danny, Gay and Deng.
      But he's going to play SG most of the time in Denver, so they listed him at SG.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

        Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
        http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/lists/T...photo=31364726

        10. Batum
        9. Wallace
        8. Gallinari
        7. Granger
        6. Gay
        5. Deng
        4. Pierce
        3. Anthony
        2. Durant
        1. James

        There's not way Danny should be in the Top 10 and its not even close
        I'm not sure which bothers me more, Gallinari being ranked in the top 10 of small forwards or the fact that I don't disagree with it.

        As to Danny, it seems about right to me. I'll agree 100% with Vnzla81 here, I'll take an active and engaged Danny over everyone but the top 4 but the lazy laid back Danny would be hard pressed to crack the top 10. Thankfully he very rarely is not interested.


        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

          The fact that you have to choose between "engaged Danny" and "disengaged Danny" is one of the primary reasons I, and pretty much everyone who isn't on this message board, would pick Deng or Gay (and Iggy if he's a 3) ahead of Granger.
          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

          -Lance Stephenson

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
            The fact that you have to choose between "engaged Danny" and "disengaged Danny" is one of the primary reasons I, and pretty much everyone who isn't on this message board, would pick Deng or Gay (and Iggy if he's a 3) ahead of Granger.
            That is exactly right......

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

              Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
              The fact that you have to choose between "engaged Danny" and "disengaged Danny" is one of the primary reasons I, and pretty much everyone who isn't on this message board, would pick Deng or Gay (and Iggy if he's a 3) ahead of Granger.
              As Peck pointed out, when's the last time we've seen "disengaged Danny"? Danny has been more focused and has played harder than ever--most notably ever since Vogel has become our coach. Yes he has a lax game here or there, but who doesnt?

              And if we want to talk about a player who's effort is hot and cold, Rudy Gay is not exactly the standard to playing hard all the time. In fact he is a lot worse at this than Danny (in spite of being more talented than DG)

              Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
              Deng might have been inefficient but he is a better defender than Danny and slashes waaaay better. .
              This has been a myth for years. Deng FTA's per game (a pretty good way to gauge who's taking it to the racks) are always well below Danny's. I think Deng is better at coming off the ball and getting into the lane, but I don't think he is a good slasher at all. To say he slashes waaaay better is kind of silly IMO

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                The fact that you have to choose between "engaged Danny" and "disengaged Danny" is one of the primary reasons I, and pretty much everyone who isn't on this message board, would pick Deng or Gay (and Iggy if he's a 3) ahead of Granger.
                I've watched enough Rudy Gay to know that he more than on occasion will take a night off. I've seen Iggy play a few times where it appeared to be either a Philly game or an episode of the walking dead.

                I'm not saying Danny is not wrong for having off nights but let's not pretend like he is the only one who does it. Only the super super star players bring it every night every game & it's always been that way.

                Reggie Miller himself has admitted to taking nights off or not getting up for certain teams. When he say's he brought his "A game" to the playoffs doesn't that imply that he wasn't giving his effort every game.

                Deng is odd, every time I see him he is the exact same way.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

                  Charles Barkley said it best last year just before the all star game, the spot Luol Deng got had Danny Granger's name written all over it and Danny basically nuked his chance by starting so slow last year. If Danny comes out and scores 19 or 20 a game this year on 45% shooting from the field, 40% from the arc, and 90% from the FT line it will be tough for anyone to argue against him being higher than Deng and Iggy IMO. That being said, Danny's start last year was ridiculously bad, so I'm not offended at all that people around the NBA would put him behind the rest of those guys.


                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    This has been a myth for years. Deng FTA's per game (a pretty good way to gauge who's taking it to the racks) are always well below Danny's. I think Deng is better at coming off the ball and getting into the lane, but I don't think he is a good slasher at all. To say he slashes waaaay better is kind of silly IMO
                    That is what a slasher is. To me, there is a difference between a dribble penetrator and a slasher.
                    And FTAs mean nothing since Danny is our first option and Deng is third...at best.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

                      Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                      That is what a slasher is. To me, there is a difference between a dribble penetrator and a slasher.
                      And FTAs mean nothing since Danny is our first option and Deng is third...at best.
                      Deng averages about 9 more minutes and their FGA's are comparable (14.0 for Deng and 15.2 for Danny) so their rank within the offense aside, Deng has just about as many opportunities to get to the basket and the FT line as Danny does.

                      Yes there is a difference between Slashers and dribble penetrators, but to say Deng is WAYY better in either area a bit of an overstatement

                      Better? Probably.

                      Wayy better, I disagree. But that's just my opinion.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post

                        Wayy better, I disagree. But that's just my opinion.
                        It is my opinion that you are wrong.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          Deng averages about 9 more minutes and their FGA's are comparable (14.0 for Deng and 15.2 for Danny) so their rank within the offense aside, Deng has just about as many opportunities to get to the basket and the FT line as Danny does.

                          Yes there is a difference between Slashers and dribble penetrators, but to say Deng is WAYY better in either area a bit of an overstatement

                          Better? Probably.

                          Wayy better, I disagree. But that's just my opinion.
                          BTW if Deng gets 9 more minutes then why would he have less FGA? Probably because he has a lesser scoring role than Danny? And since he doesn't have the ball as much as Danny, why would he have more FTA?

                          Danny is not known fo his back door cuts or cutting in the lane when his man leaves for a double. Danny and other Pacers rotates on the 3pt line to the adjacent elbow. When teams shift over it is the opposite wing that slashes. When Danny is that opposite wing, he rarely slashes in the lane. Deng crashes through on the opposite wing when Boozer/Rose draws a double or a defensive rotation.





                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

                            Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                            BTW if Deng gets 9 more minutes then why would he have less FGA? Probably because he has a lesser scoring role than Danny? And since he doesn't have the ball as much as Danny, why would he have more FTA?

                            Danny is not known fo his back door cuts or cutting in the lane when his man leaves for a double. Danny and other Pacers rotates on the 3pt line to the adjacent elbow. When teams shift over it is the opposite wing that slashes. When Danny is that opposite wing, he rarely slashes in the lane. Deng crashes through on the opposite wing when Boozer/Rose draws a double or a defensive rotation.





                            Danny averages one more shot attempt a game in nearly 10 less minutes. That's far from a significant difference when you compare their MPG. Also Danny is a superior 3pt shooter so yes he is more likely to drift for a 3 as opposed to cutting to the basket. The bulls offense is designed for those back cuts. Guys like Noah and Boozer can make that pass so that guys like Deng, Ronnie Brewer excelled at finishing.

                            Good Slashers normally get to the line at a high rate bc they get shots in traffic and near the rim. If a guy is considered much better at this skill, I'd expect them to average more than 3 FTA a game.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

                              You got to cut hard to the rim and make shots in the paint to be considered a slasher. Danny's a jumpshooter who gets to the line off dribble penetration which doesn't help anyone but himself because he's not looking to set anyone up.

                              Dannys got a very selfish game. That's what seperates him from guys like PIerce, Iggy, and even Deng. I got a feeling if players were asked their top 10 or who'd they rather play with, their lists would be much different than ours here at PD.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: NBA Top Ten Small Forwards SI.com

                                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                                Danny averages one more shot attempt a game in nearly 10 less minutes. That's far from a significant difference when you compare their MPG. Also Danny is a superior 3pt shooter so yes he is more likely to drift for a 3 as opposed to cutting to the basket. The bulls offense is designed for those back cuts. Guys like Noah and Boozer can make that pass so that guys like Deng, Ronnie Brewer excelled at finishing.

                                Good Slashers normally get to the line at a high rate bc they get shots in traffic and near the rim. If a guy is considered much better at this skill, I'd expect them to average more than 3 FTA a game.
                                Look shots per minute is pretty telling.
                                Deng shoots a FGA every 2.8 minutes
                                Danny shoots a FGA every 2.1 minutes

                                Whether they get to the line or not does not matter. Slashers do not get to the FT as much because they usually have a wide open bucket. Watch the two play. Danny would rather shoot. It is who he is. And if he played on the Bulls he would be much more effective than Deng in their offense when they had Brewer (another slasher). If Deng played here I really think he might score better than he does in Chicago, because Paul compliments him.

                                I really don't want to use last year anyway.
                                10-11 show a better season for both.

                                Deng
                                Shot Distance At Rim 244 372 .656 0 0 .656 142 .582
                                3 to 9 ft 96 215 .447 0 0 .447 51 .531
                                10 to 15 ft 31 98 .316 0 0 .316 18 .581
                                16 ft to 3-pt 121 299 .405 0 0 .405 97 .802
                                3-pt 137 401 .342 137 401 .342 .512 132 .964

                                Granger

                                Shot Distance At Rim 178 286 .622 0 0 .622 68 .382
                                3 to 9 ft 70 188 .372 0 0 .372 19 .271
                                10 to 15 ft 49 127 .386 0 0 .386 13 .265
                                16 ft to 3-pt 116 319 .364 0 0 .364 47 .405
                                3-pt 165 430 .384 165 430 .384 .576 145 .879

                                Players normally get to the line, when they dribble penetrate or iso mid range. That is not Deng's game. He hits the open spot on the floor and when the ball rotates he spots up or slashers. Rarely does he dribble the ball, Pick and Roll, or Triple Threat. Danny gets his FTA on dribble penetrations and post ups. Danny is a much better scorer, but he does not move well without the ball. How is this not news to you?
                                Last edited by Major Cold; 10-19-2012, 08:14 AM. Reason: tired

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X