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

Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

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

  • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    The whole idea of "big man coach" has always bothered me. Correct me if I am wrong, but a big man coach has to be an ex-NBA player who was a "big man" OK, but then why don't teams hire a point guard coach, or a shooting guard coach.....you get more point. Why can't Frank Vogel coach Roy as well as he coaches George Hill. I mean do we need Bill Walton to coach Roy, but Frank is fine to coach George Hill.

    I mean is the center position that specialized that only a very select few can proplerly coach the position.
    And why does Roy need a coach to tell him how to do things he used to be able to do, like hit free throws?

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

      Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
      I don't think he used the term you have in quotes there.

      That's why I put it in quotes. Notice I mentioned Jabbar and Ewing when I stated BIG MAN coach for Bynum and Howard. I think in terms of those types as BIG MAN coaches, not a Clifford Lee, etc. Hakeem would be another one I'd put in the QUALITY BIG MAN coach category. When Duncan retires he'd be another one.

      I could be wrong, but I feel someone who has had a successful career as a big man knows more about the ins and outs of how to play the position than an ast coach who wasn't a big man player or a journeyman big man. JMO

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

        I think folks are too hung up on dollars. I don't think expectations should be based on the dollars Hibbert has been paid. They should be based on a reasonable continuance or improvement of previous performance, as well as what is needed from him in respective of how he is being utilized and in conjunction with who he is on the floor with and how they are being used. Does my garbled wordiness make sense?

        My issue with Hibbert is that he has proclaimed that he wants to be the best defender in the league and has done an excellent job of pursuing that goal, yet is underperforming as an offensive player with respect to the role he has within the offense and his previous performance.

        It is possible that my issue should be with Vogel because he has not given Hibbert an offensive role more in alignment with his talents. But based on last year's performance, I have discounted this. But, if plays are going to be run for a starting center in the NBA to the tune of 10 shots per game, then regardless of his salary, it is a reasonable expectation that his production be well above 9 points per game. I haven't bothered to look it up, but I would think that an efficient production for a starting center should be perhaps 1.2 to 1.3 points per shot. That would be 12-13 points for Hibbert.

        If that is not possible then I believe that his role within the offense should be decreased because we can get better production elsewhere. In that instance, I would probably expect more out of Hibbert in the areas of rebounding and offensive screening.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          Who was this "big name quality" big man coach?
          Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
          I don't think he used the term you have in quotes there.
          Yep, Josh is right.

          But the coach in question was Mark Aguirre.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            That is a cop out. The FO can easily tell Vogel that they want to bring in a big man coach if they wanted to.
            No reason to, so far. Roy has showed improvement the last few season. If I was Walsh, and I started working with Vogel this past offseason, I'd have said "Just keep doing what you're doing; it seems to be working." And they're not going to hire a big man coach mid-season.

            If it's like this all year, then something clearly needs to change. But I don't fault the FO (or Vogel) for not going out and hiring a big man coach this past summer.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I mean is the center position that specialized that only a very select few can properly coach the position.
              The head coach is coaching the team as a whole, and assistants work with individual players. Vogel's not the question here, it would be whether Dan Burke or Jim Boylen are effective at coaching big men. I don't know that they are, I don't know that they're not. I have no information either way. But it's not a question of Vogel himself, which you know very well, Buck.

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Why do people always talk about needing a big man coach but never a point guard coach, or a shooting guard coach, or a wing coach? That is what gets me.
              We do have a wing coach. His name is Brian Shaw.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                The Hibbert/Gasol comparison is comedy. Looking at the numbers for this season it's not even close both offensively and defensively.

                Roy's averaging 28.5 mpg. Next to his anemic offense, that has to be the most disappointing part of Roy's game. Tough deal when your highest paid player can't give you 30+ minutes.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                  Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                  The Hibbert/Gasol comparison is comedy. Looking at the numbers for this season it's not even close both offensively and defensively.

                  Roy's averaging 28.5 mpg. Next to his anemic offense, that has to be the most disappointing part of Roy's game. Tough deal when your highest paid player can't give you 30+ minutes.
                  Offensively, yes. Defensively, no.

                  Click on me!

                  They have similar defensive ratings, similar defensive rebounding percentages, similar stealing %. But Roy has a much higher block %, offensive rebounding %, and despite his offensive ineptitude doesn't have a terrible PER comparted to Gasol. They both anchor high quality defenses, but the Pacers do it by forcing a low FG% while the Grizzlies do it by creating a lot of turnovers.

                  Gasol is a good defender, but this season Hibbert has been a phenomenal defender.
                  Time for a new sig.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                    Sorry if I'm wrong but I thought Boylen was brought in to be the big man coach...

                    And it seems to me that a lot of people here are glossing over Roy's wrist injury as a major part of his offensive woes this season... I don't know if that is because they missed that news (it was hardly discussed on here) or if people aren't understanding of the true impact that playing with a "stump" could have on Roy's hook shot... Which was a deadly weapon last year...

                    But right before that info came out there was a good Eight Points Nine Seconds article posted at the beginning of a few game threads that spoke to the issue of Roy rushing his shots and passes more this season than last which could definitely be another contributing factor...
                    Last edited by J7F; 01-04-2013, 06:50 PM.
                    Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                      Offensively, yes. Defensively, no.
                      Hibbert's been good playing help D, but he's getting outplayed by his own man most nights. check out this site and compare them... http://www.mysynergysports.com/?lid=corpSite

                      Gasol's better at defending his man, and Hibbert's a better rim protector. They're probably a wash on the defensive end honestly, but when you factor in Gasol's able to play 7 more minutes than Hibs, I'd have to give him the edge.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                        They have similar defensive ratings, similar defensive rebounding percentages, similar stealing %. But Roy has a much higher block %, offensive rebounding %, and despite his offensive ineptitude doesn't have a terrible PER comparted to Gasol. They both anchor high quality defenses, but the Pacers do it by forcing a low FG% while the Grizzlies do it by creating a lot of turnovers.

                        Gasol is a good defender, but this season Hibbert has been a phenomenal defender.
                        Oh, joy of joys. It's gone from bad to worse.

                        Please refer to the offensive win shares in your spreadsheet. Hibbert, at -0.5, is the last man on the list. Heck, Mahinmi is even a little above him at -0.1. But to think that your starting center is actually a distraction from winning on the offensive end, that just sucks.
                        Last edited by beast23; 01-04-2013, 07:21 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          The head coach is coaching the team as a whole, and assistants work with individual players. Vogel's not the question here, it would be whether Dan Burke or Jim Boylen are effective at coaching big men. I don't know that they are, I don't know that they're not. I have no information either way. But it's not a question of Vogel himself, which you know very well, Buck.


                          We do have a wing coach. His name is Brian Shaw.

                          I thought, maybe I'm wrong, that Billy Keller was the shooting coach.

                          What did the big/tall coach the Pacers have in JOB's last year do? I believe his last name started with a V? It seems like he wasn't re-hired the following year under Vogel.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            AGAIN, Hibbert got paid for what he accomplished last season. Compare that with this season, and yes he's OVERPAID.


                            I'm glad you asked about Marc Gasol!! Early last season I stated Gasol was better than Hibbert, and I'd trade Hibbert for Gasol. You'd have thought I was a baby, puppy, and kitten killer by many for even suggesting such an outlandish thing.

                            Gasol

                            10-11 season
                            11.7/7/2.5
                            Gets max contract for those #'s.

                            11-12 1st year of max contract
                            14.6/ 9/ 4
                            Please note the "increase in production" of 3 pts, 2 rebs, and 1.5 Ast per game after getting a max contract.

                            12-13 season
                            14.4/ 7.5/ 4 at 48% FG and 87% FT

                            Throw in the fact Gasol is a tougher player and the answer to your question of is Gasol an overpaid player is an overwhelming NO!!! He's worth what he's being paid.
                            So, you're saying that 14.5 / 7.5 are worth a max contract. Right? Isn't is a bit far from the 20 / 12 mark you claimed earlier?

                            PS: Gasol being a "tougher" player stems from what exactly? Your perception?

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            Hibbert

                            11-12 season
                            12.8/8.8/1.7 at 49.7% FG and 71% FT.
                            Stats Hibbert got MAX contract.

                            12-13 1st year of MAX contract.
                            9.6/8/1.7 at 40% FG and 64% FT.

                            Down 3 pts in scoring, almost 1 rebound, almost 10% in FG%, and 7% in FT%. This doesn't shout MAX player, it shouts OVERPAID!
                            Seems like someone forgot to post Hibbert's 2.9 Blocks per Game

                            I love how all this argument that Hibbert is "overpaid" and "soft" completely fails to take his rim protection into consideration.

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            Hibbert is not as strong physically or mentally as Gasol who deserves the MAX contract. Barkley a week or so ago on tv said Gasol was the 2nd best center in the NBA not Hibbert.
                            Gasol has a pretty good argument for 2nd best Center at the moment. Still, in the game against Hibbert he only contributed 13 points, 2 rebounds and 1 block and was a non-factor for most of the second half

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            Edit: The sad thing is that for Bird's 1st 2 years he scouted the Euro players, and in the 2007 draft Bird traded Orlando for the 39th pick and drafted Stanko instead of drafting Marc Gasol who was drafted at #48 by the Lakers.
                            That makes a lot of sense. Stanko was a much more skilled player than Marc Gasol back then. In fact, Marc Gasol wasn't anything special when he played in Europe. Memphis made him the player that he is at the moment.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                              Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                              Hibbert's been good playing help D, but he's getting outplayed by his own man most nights. check out this site and compare them... http://www.mysynergysports.com/?lid=corpSite

                              Gasol's better at defending his man, and Hibbert's a better rim protector. They're probably a wash on the defensive end honestly,



                              but when you factor in Gasol's able to play 7 more minutes than Hibs, I'd have to give him the edge.

                              Thanks for pointing out the MPG played. I just forgot to put it in the post after writing it down.

                              This year Hibbert 28:30 and Gasol 35:06. Gasol 36:30 last year to Hibbert's 29:48. Hibbert doesn't have the strength to play the type minutes Gasol does, which means you have to have a good b/u center for the 18-20 minutes Hibbert doesn't play. With Hibbert only playing 28-29 minutes, it makes it necessary the other bigs produce. When DWest plays the 5 then whoever replaces Dwest at PF has to produce, or Ian has to give production when replacing Hibbert. If both Hibbert and DWest is out of the game at the same time, it causes a problem. I like Hibbert as a person, but his limitations and production has hurt the Pacers this season. Hibbert's production doesn't warrant a Max contract. The only person who can make Hibbert's play and production warrant his Max contract is Hibbert himself. It's time for him to pull himself up by his bootstraps and elevate his game.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                I mean is the center position that specialized that only a very select few can proplerly coach the position.
                                Yes. I definitely believe that it's the hardest and most specialized position to play properly.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X