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

Projected PPG for the Pacers

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

  • #31
    Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

    What I think will happen

    GH-10.1
    CJ-5.2
    =15.3

    PG-19.4
    LS-8.3
    =27.7

    DG-13.8
    CC-5.1
    =18.9

    DW-13.6
    LS-9.9
    =23.5

    RH-13.7
    IM-3.8
    =17.5

    So it comes out as 101.9 ppg

    Then i feel like we will probably give up 92.8 ppgs
    Why you Grimpin?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

      I'm going to assume PG leads scoring and Granger is close behind, but really it's a shot in the dark. I think the Pacers are absolutely loaded offensively, but Vogel likes to play a slow place and concentrate on defense. So. I have no idea.

      Out of the starting lineup, I expect Hill and West will take the biggest hit on their numbers since they love to facilitate, and are very unselfish. But there should be a lot of opportunities, especially if Danny is healthy. If he's healthy, the team transforms from lacking shooters, to loaded with shooters. I mean a starting lineup with 4 good shooters, with guys like OJ and Copeland coming off the bench. That should open things up. There should be lots of looks for our guys.

      On one hand you definitely see PG attacking a lot and piling up points, but you also can imagine a shitload of open looks for Hill and Granger. This is the role Granger was made for. He's going to feast from the outside. Hill should improve as well since before he was the lone perimeter threat when PG had the ball. Now he's just one more shooter in addition to Granger.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

        Do many of you see us averaging over a 100 points per game? I just don't see us doing it. We're a slow it down, grind it out with our defense team. Sure, we'll average a little more, but I see our new weapons being more of a bail-us-out-when-someone-is-off kind of thing.
        PG24: "Don't tell me the sky is the limit when there are footprints on the moon!"

        RT @Hoya2aPacer "When I play this game I love. I play to make my teammates better. But I'm a mouther****er on defense."

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

          Originally posted by Richard_Skull View Post
          Do many of you see us averaging over a 100 points per game? I just don't see us doing it. We're a slow it down, grind it out with our defense team. Sure, we'll average a little more, but I see our new weapons being more of a bail-us-out-when-someone-is-off kind of thing.
          I was just getting ready to post something like this.

          I really think what we'll see is more efficiency, with fewer shots leading to no score and a new opponent possession, but considering how efficient we were at limiting both possessions in total and opponent points of their own possessions I don't see the overall numbers going up.

          I could see our PPG creeping into the high 98 range, but what I REALLY expect to see is our margin of victory increase, with fewer games under 5 points. I also expect fewer 20-point swings because the scoring will be more balanced. One might think this would lead to the "comeback" points being scored to give huge wins and 100+ point games, but the reality is that without pressure they will be able to maintain a consistent scoring pace (within the normal "game of runs" that is NBA basketball) and not have to find huge sequences of score/score/score/score to get back in the game.
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

            Hibbert and West will still likely be on a minute hold. I doubt we will ever see Roy average 15+ ppg during a reg season. Using the rotation posted below
            Hill/Watson
            Paul/Lance
            Danny/Cope/Hill
            West/Scola
            Roy/Ian

            I think the scoring will break up something like this
            Hill 12 PPG/Watson 5PPG
            Paul 20 PPG/Lance 8 PPG
            Danny 15 PPG/Cope 4PPG/Hill 3-4ppg but PT negligible so not a true reflection of per game scoring for the team
            West 15 PPG/ Scola 9 PPG
            Roy 12 PPG/Ian 4PPG

            That puts us averaging 104 which seems high. I think 100 is doable. So take a PPG away from Roy, Hill, and Scola to end up 101.


            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

              Hibbs - 14 & 9 (2dimes, 2.3 blocks)
              West - 14 & 7 (2dimes)
              Granger 12 & 4 (1steal - 44%, 40% from 3)
              PG - 17 & 7 (5 dimes, 2steals, 0.8blocks, 45% overall-39% from 3)
              Hill - 12 & 4 (6dimes, 38% from 3)
              Lance - 7 & 3 (3 dimes, 1 steal 45%, 36% from 3) - He would average more, but he'll not likely get the minutes that he got last season.
              Watson - 5 & 1 (2dimes - 38% from 3)
              Copeland - 6 &2 (42% from 3)
              Scola - 10 & 6
              Ian - 5 & 4

              102pts
              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

                George - 17
                Hibbert - 14
                West - 13
                Granger - 13 (beginning of the season probably 10, by the end he will be averaging 15)
                Hill - 10
                Scola - 9
                Lance - 9
                Watson - 5
                Copeland - 5
                Ian - 4

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

                  If Paul George's scoring doesn't move at all he better make a huge percentage increase then.


                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

                    Danny 35 (bionic knees)

                    West 20 (bionic body)

                    Paul George 10 (batman is back so he takes the passenger side seat again)

                    Roy 8 (Ian the "rim protector" Mahinmi is going to take points from him).

                    Hill 6 points

                    Lance 4 points (loses starting job to bionic knees)

                    Scola 8

                    Ian 14 (best backup center in the NBA)

                    Coperland 15 (he is like a combination of Danny with Lebron)

                    Watson 2 points


                    Total of 122 points per game for sure.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

                      Originally posted by Richard_Skull View Post
                      Do many of you see us averaging over a 100 points per game? I just don't see us doing it. We're a slow it down, grind it out with our defense team. Sure, we'll average a little more, but I see our new weapons being more of a bail-us-out-when-someone-is-off kind of thing.
                      Sure, but the only reason our scoring was not good last year was our bench.... The starters were very good scoring wise,
                      #LanceEffect

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

                        doing some math, we lost (rounding):

                        Gerald Green- 7 ppg
                        D.J. Augustin- 5 ppg
                        Miles Plumlee- 1 ppg
                        Jeff Pendergraph- 4 ppg
                        Ben Hansbrough- 2 ppg
                        Sam Young- 3 ppg

                        so that gives us 22 ppg to spread out between Scola, Granger, Watson, Copeland, Solo, and Sloan, as well as increased averages of Hibbert and PG, now lets say our offense improves (which it should) and we average about 100 ppg which would put us at about 11th or 12th in the NBA, that gives us about 6 more ppg to spread out making our total 28 ppg, You can also bump down some players averages to get more ppg, so I am guessing George Hill goes form 14 ppg to 10, Lance from 8 to 6, Ian from 5 to 3, David from 17 to 14, OJ from 4 to 2, which makes our total 40 ppg, so here is my guess for the new guys and increased averages from Hibbert and George, Scola averages 10 ppg, C.J. 6 ppg, Copeland 6, Granger 11 Solo 2, Sloan 2, PG 19, Hibbert 14, this is just something I was bored so I decided to go through and make a guess at what the averages would be, what you realize when you are doing something like this, is our steam is stacked, can't wait for the season to start!

                        Edit- btw the reason I have Lance's averages as low is because I think he can be more of a creator for the 2nd unit more than a scorer, I view Scola as the scorer, but really when guessing averages it is just a complete guess, I bet these won't even be close when the season starts
                        Last edited by BlueCollarColts; 08-01-2013, 02:29 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

                          How about MPG projections? So we can tell how many minutes each player will get in order to get there PPG

                          George - 17 PPG in 36 MPG
                          Granger - 14 PPG in 28 MPG
                          Stephenson - 8 PPG in 28 MPG
                          Copeland - 3 PPG in 6 MPG
                          Hill - 12 PPG in 30 MPG
                          Watson - 5 PPG in 18 MPG
                          West - 14 PPG in 28 MPG
                          Scola - 10 PPG in 24 MPG
                          Hibbert - 12 PPG in 28 MPG
                          Mahinmi - 2 PPG in 14 MPG

                          Changed some from my previous prediction. This is 97 PPG I think.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

                            I want Paul George to take the next step as a scorer.

                            More efficiency offensively (less turnovers, better shooting percentage). Hopefully that translates into 20+ PPG.

                            I hope we fastbreak a bit more this year.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

                              Something I really never think about. I think a lot more about shooting percentages. That is what I want to see increase.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Projected PPG for the Pacers

                                Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
                                How about MPG projections? So we can tell how many minutes each player will get in order to get there PPG

                                George - 17 PPG in 36 MPG
                                Granger - 14 PPG in 28 MPG
                                Stephenson - 8 PPG in 28 MPG
                                Copeland - 3 PPG in 6 MPG
                                Hill - 12 PPG in 30 MPG
                                Watson - 5 PPG in 18 MPG
                                West - 14 PPG in 28 MPG
                                Scola - 10 PPG in 24 MPG
                                Hibbert - 12 PPG in 28 MPG
                                Mahinmi - 2 PPG in 14 MPG

                                Changed some from my previous prediction. This is 97 PPG I think.
                                Hill- 30 mpg/ Watson- 18 mpg
                                George- 22 mpg/Stephenson- 23 mpg/Granger- 3 mpg
                                Granger- 20 mpg/ George- 12/ Copeland- 16 mpg
                                West- 28 mpg/ Scola- 20 mpg
                                Hibbert- 29 mpg/ Mahinmi- 14 mpg/ Scola- 5 mpg

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X