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

3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

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

  • 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

    WHERE'S THE BEEF?


    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 8:00 PM EST
    Where: The Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
    Officials: J. Crawford, L. Richardson, J. Tiven

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Chicago Notes
    Television: ESPN / WCIU (Chicago) / NBAC (Canada)
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WMVP 1000 AM
    NBA Feeds:

    REMINDER: Per PD policy, please do not share a link to, describe how to search for, request a link to, or request a PM about streaming video of a NBA game that is not coming directly through the NBA. Not even in a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean" round-about sort of way. Thank you


    37-22
    Home: 24-6
    East: 23-12
    34-25
    Away: 17-11
    East: 26-12
    Mar 06
    Mar 08
    Mar 10
    Mar 13
    7:00pm
    7:00pm
    6:00pm
    7:00pm
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    GEORGE
    STEPHENSON
    HILL
    NOAH
    BOOZER
    DENG
    BELINELLI
    HINRICH


    PACERS
    None



    BULLS
    Taj Gibson - left knee (out)
    Richard Hamilton - lower back (day-to-day)
    Derrick Rose - left knee (out)




    Isaac Rauch: Four Things You Can Learn About The NBA By Skimming
    Sloan Sports Analytics Conference Research Papers


    The Sloan Sports Analytics Conference is under way in Boston and, though we sent no
    intrepid reporters to Dorkapalooza
    this year, the conference happily made its research
    paper finalists publicly available on its website. Let's blearily page through and see if we
    can't learn a few things. (We're focused on the SSAC's primary muse, the NBA, but this
    year they also have football, baseball, tennis and soccer papers, for those interested.)

    Some of it is conventional wisdom backed up by new metrics, some of it is new wisdom
    backed up by new metrics, but all of it is far more mathematically supported than any
    argument you've ever had about NBA players or basketball strategy. Let's get to it.

    A good defensive big man doesn't block shots, he reduces the efficiency of the
    opposing offense.


    Eric Weiss of Sports Aptitude, LLC and Kirk Goldsberry of Harvard (whose work has
    been featured here and on Grantland) wanted to develop metrics for evaluating defense,
    a portion of the game that's often ignored even by supposedly comprehensive statistics.
    The duo doesn't think that tallying blocks and steals says much about a defensive
    performance:
    The NBA's most prominent defensive metrics can be misleading, but this
    is not a problem unique to basketball. Until very recently, the dominant
    conventional defensive metrics in baseball were "errors" and "fielding
    percentage," which do not frequently correlate with a player's true
    defensive value. In the NFL, the best cornerbacks never lead the league
    in any conventional stats because quarterbacks are too afraid to even
    throw in their direction; they don't even get chances to defend passes.
    Basketball exhibits similar issues; our conventional defensive metrics
    fail to accurately reveal the NBA's most dominant defenders.

    As with a cornerback that's frequently the focal point of a play, blocking a lot of shots
    isn't always positive; it means the opposing team is testing you, which isn't a particularly
    flattering game-plan. A guy like Serge Ibaka may rack up blocks but, the paper notes,
    "coming out of nowhere" means that the other team doesn't have a consistent sense for
    where you are. In all probability, that's because it doesn't much care.

    So who are the good defensive big men? Weiss and Goldsberry used tracking data to
    determine the efficiency of the opposing team while a given defender is in their area,
    and the disparity between an opposing team's normal shot selection and its shot
    selection when it faces a given big man. It turns out that Larry Sanders and Roy
    Hibbert are excellent at disrupting a team's shots in the paint, while Dwight Howard is
    good at deterring shots in the paint from even happening. Conversely, teams shoot a
    great percentage in the paint against David Lee, and Serge Ibaka is a magnet for
    players driving and posting up.
    Overall, NBA shooters make 49.7% of their field goal attempts when
    qualifying interior defender is within 5 feet of the basket; however, this
    number drops to 38% when either Hibbert or Sanders are within 5 feet.
    In contrast, we found that Phoenix's Luis Scola and Golden State's David
    Lee were the worst defenders in these situations [...] When Howard is
    protecting the basket, opponents shoot many fewer close range shots
    than average, and settle for many more midrange shots, which are the
    least productive shots in the NBA. Furthermore, out of centers who have
    faced at least 100 total shots in the basket proximity study, Serge Ibaka
    ranked last; when he is within 5 feet of the basket, opponents shot 74%
    of their shots in the close range area.

    Weiss and Goldsberry also looked at who tends to get near shots (within five feet), and
    who tends to affect shots when they're close by—for all his pugnacious posturing, Tyler
    Hansbrough has a habit of getting out of the way, while Larry Sanders again proves good
    at inserting himself into the play. Click over for full tables, some pretty pictures, and a
    first look at defensive metrics that will likely be standard on advanced stat sheets soon.
    (The strangest finding...CONTINUE READING AT HOOP CHALK

    Ricky O'Donnell: Bulls slump brings out varying media rationalizations

    The Bulls have lost seven of their last 10 games. The local media has varying ideas
    on what's causing the team's recent struggles.


    This fair site would seem to take little-to-zero satisfaction in the non-Bulls related
    basketball happenings around the league on any given night, but it feels important to
    point out that Wednesday really was fun in the Association. Stephen Curry hit 11 three
    -pointers and hung 54 points on the Knicks in a close loss, Monta Ellis drained a crazy
    buzzer-beater, Wes Johnson drained a crazy buzzer-beater, Trevor Ariza air-balled a
    potential buzzer-beater that caused one of the funniest reactions you'll ever see on a
    broadcast. There were sweet behind-the-back passes and killer dunks. Wednesday
    night in the NBA had it all. Now the Bulls and 76ers are here to ruin your life.

    It isn't hard to see why TNT pegged Bulls-76ers for its prime Thursday night slot
    during the time when such things are decided. Calendar math said Derrick Rose
    would have been back by now, and putting a national spotlight on a game versus
    Philadelphia would have allowed plenty of time for all of those ready-made TV
    talking points. This could have been full circle for Rose's recovery, in the same
    arena, against the same team that he tore his ACL. Instead, the country will be
    left watching two immensely banged up squads at the low point of their existence.


    Doug Collins' rant drew plenty of headlines earlier this week, but it only happened
    because his team is playing so poorly. The 76ers are missing center Andrew Bynum
    almost as much as the Bulls are missing Rose. Philly has lost six straight, with
    Tuesday night's loss to the lowly Magic triggering Collins' delightful screed. While the
    76ers are 12th in defensive efficiency, they're 27th in offense. Sound familiar?

    The Bulls -- fourth in defensive efficiency, 25th in offensive efficiency -- aren't much
    different. The similarities here are striking, though the win-loss records are quite the
    opposite. It's enough to make one very thankful the Bulls selected the correct big man
    in the 2007 draft.

    The point remains: these are two teams that have seen better days. Following what
    might be Chicago's worst loss of the season, 101-98 home defeat to the Kyrie Irving
    -less Cavs, the local media finally started to kick dirt.

    What's interesting to me is how the Bulls' struggles were framed by the different beat
    writers. We'll just focus on two of them right now: the Tribune's K.C. Johnson and ESPN
    Chicago's Nick Friedell. Each took a very different approach to describing the Bulls'
    recent woes.
    The Chicago Bulls are exhausted. That's not the type of excuse that coach
    Tom Thibodeau loathes -- it is a fact.

    These are Friedell's opening words, and they aren't exactly incorrect. Remember when
    the Bulls blitzed the Cavs in Cleveland in the second game of the season? Or the 26
    -point thumping the Bulls gave Cleveland at the United Center in early January?

    Friedell's reasoning for the Bulls' struggles are surface-level: the heavy-minutes
    burden Tom Thibodeau places on Luol Deng and Joakim Noah has started to take its
    toll; injuries to Noah, Taj Gibson and Kirk Hinrich haven't helped, either.

    Friedell paints a picture of...CONTINUE READING AT BLOG A BULL




    Pacers
    Mike Wells @MikeWellsNBA
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows


    Bulls
    K.C. Johnson @KCJHoop
    BullsBlogger @BullsBlogger
    Kelly Dwyer @KDonhoops
    Mark Deeks @MarkDeeksNBA
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

    It's nice to say I expect a win vs the Bulls tonight. Too bad this game wasn't at 6 so it wouldn't coincide with The Walking Dead.

    "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

      EVERY ROSE HAS ITS TORN.


      That is all.
      Senior at the University of Louisville.
      Greenfield ---> The Ville

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

        Hinrich has been a Pacer killer over the years. I never have a good feeling when he is on the other team.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

          Originally posted by Steagles View Post
          EVERY ROSE HAS ITS TORN.


          That is all.

          This wasn't funny the first time, and it really still isn't.
          There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

            Originally posted by DGPR View Post
            It's nice to say I expect a win vs the Bulls tonight. Too bad this game wasn't at 6 so it wouldn't coincide with The Walking Dead.
            This is exactly my problem. TWD is only on once a week so it's going to take precedence tonight.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

              I got banned off the Bulls Real Gm board for asking them to explain to me how we got all the calls in the first 2 games of the series.
              There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                yay we get to talk about basketball for a bit and not whether Danny fits in or not

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                  We are wearing the pinstripes tonight!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                    Originally posted by PacerPenguins View Post
                    We are wearing the pinstripes tonight!!
                    I hope they make the fieldhouse a sea of pinstripes with free shirts on the seat
                    Proud owner of 'Dutch Pacers'

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                      Here's to hoping Noah cools off after two very good games. Roy: We need you to play well tonight!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                        Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
                        I got banned off the Bulls Real Gm board for asking them to explain to me how we got all the calls in the first 2 games of the series.
                        Bulls fans whine more than any other fanbase.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                          Originally posted by DGPR View Post
                          It's nice to say I expect a win vs the Bulls tonight. Too bad this game wasn't at 6 so it wouldn't coincide with The Walking Dead.
                          Replays at 11 and 12. Hopefully it's better than last week's abomination.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                            Rumors circulating that Rose is returning tonight. Probably nothing....but...
                            There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 3/3/2013 Game Thread #60: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                              I'm going to be TiVo-ing this tonight - just got last minute tickets to see Leonard Cohen in concert.

                              Any chance you guys could delay your comments by exactly 3.5 5 hours so I can still follow the game thread?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X