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

Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

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

  • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
    You know your argument is failing when you have to use "pre-season" to help prove your point
    Why? It would seem to me that how a player is flowing within the offense is EXACTLY the kind of thing you can take away from preseason.
    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


    • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
      You know your argument is failing when you have to use "pre-season" to help prove your point
      Not really. Those are the most recent games Danny has played. It was only 3 weeks ago. Why is that not relevant?

      Comment


      • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

        Originally posted by rabid View Post
        Not really. Those are the most recent games Danny has played. It was only 3 weeks ago. Why is that not relevant?
        Nobody tries in pre-season. You know who else looked good in the pre-season, Solomon friggin Jones
        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

        Comment


        • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
          Nobody tries in pre-season. You know who else looked good in the pre-season, Solomon friggin Jones
          The preseason comment was just about Danny's willingness to pass, not about how well he was playing. Are you just trying to be argumentative?

          Comment


          • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            I think some believe that. I'm guessing Able believes a 100 percent healthy Granger is our 2nd best wing man. I could be wrong.
            Okay, cause I was going to say that's not my position. Danny on this team is a complimentary player, who would be best suited as a kick out shooter. Maybe on another team he would still good enough to be second fiddle, but he does nothing better offensively than PG/Lance (and even GHill) at this point in his career, other than being a straight shooter.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

              Danny was held out of Wednesday's practice with soreness. Has anyone heard if he practiced today?

              http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/grang...sdays-practice

              Comment


              • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

                Agness tweeted earlier that he didn't practice today because of an upper respiratory infection.

                Can't wait until that gets spun as the return of sinuspoutis, a la Tinsley.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

                  Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                  FREE VNZLA!!!!!
                  This really infraction worthy? I guess Vnz really is in some deep ****

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  So what did Danny do with the ball, when he didn't shoot it? The first answer I can think of, going with the logic that Danny doesn't pass, would be that he just turns the ball over. Well he has a career TO average of 2, and so does PG, so that rules out that answer.

                  So maybe he just didn't have the ball in his hands that much, and when he did, he just shot. So we look at Danny's usage rate. I see that Danny has/had a usage rate of anywhere from 23% to 29.6%. PG's usage rate? 29.7%. WOW!!! They had the ball in their hands similiar amout of time, have similiar shot attempts, but one is a black hole and the other one atleast knows how to pass.

                  Don't equate assist numbers to how often a player passes.
                  Intuition over Integers!!!

                  I agree. We're watching the same games, just coming to a different conclusion. Danny IMO is a ball stopper and lacks vision. I don't see that with Paul.

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  Danny Granger has never attempted 37 shots in a single game. Granger and Gay are not similar at all. Luol Deng would be a good comparison with a healthy Danny but Gay is completely different than both of them.
                  I don't mean a similar playing style. I'm comparing their overall impact in a game.

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  Here we go again with the "better" argument. I guess that the TS% thread didn't teach anything to some people.

                  Allow me to repeat it:

                  Better scoring efficiency does not equal better.

                  Since86 and I didn't focus on who is "better". We are just trying to debunk the "black hole" argument.
                  He used scoring efficiency to mock my opinion that Gay and Granger are similar caliber players. Unless he thought I meant similar style like you. If so my bad for the confusion.

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  And there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is when people resort to insulting Danny for their own personal reasons and then act like they are the victims.
                  How did I insult Danny for saying he's on the same level as Gay, and what is my agenda? Was the black hole comment that harsh? Smh, this place is tightly wound these days...

                  Comment


                  • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

                    Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                    How did I insult Danny for saying he's on the same level as Gay, and what is my agenda? Was the black hole comment that harsh? Smh, this place is tightly wound these days...
                    Well, yeah, for a team trying to share the ball calling a player a black hole is essentially saying he's not good enough to even play spot minutes. That's pretty harsh.

                    If all you mean is that he shoots more than he should, there are lots of ways to say it other than implying he's selfish and never gioes up the ball. Which leads to the question you were asked - if he shoots the same number of times as PG and turns it over the same number of times as PG, what is he doing the rest of the time that is different from what PG does such that he's a black hole?
                    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


                    • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Agness tweeted earlier that he didn't practice today because of an upper respiratory infection.

                      Can't wait until that gets spun as the return of sinuspoutis, a la Tinsley.
                      we need to put Danny in a bubble, his body hates him

                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

                        Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                        I don't mean a similar playing style. I'm comparing their overall impact in a game.
                        I disagree as far as their overall impact is concerned (since I believe that Gay, at times, has a negative impact) but as long as you concede that their playing style is different then fair enough.

                        Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                        He used scoring efficiency to mock my opinion that Gay and Granger are similar caliber players. Unless he thought I meant similar style like you. If so my bad for the confusion.
                        Here is your initial post:

                        Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                        Very similar players. Danny's more efficient because he shoots better and gets to the line more, but Gays the better ball handler, better athlete, better in transition. On the exact same level of player IMO... and both can be black holes
                        The phrase "very similar players" prompted me to believe that you were talking about playing style. Plus, the "both can be black holes" part reinforced that belief.

                        If you were simply talking about caliber then fair enough I guess. I'd still rather have a Granger (if healthy, of course) since he is cheaper and a better shooter but I won't argue against the notion that their caliber is similar. They both are in the 2nd tier of SFs when healthy.

                        Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                        How did I insult Danny for saying he's on the same level as Gay, and what is my agenda? Was the black hole comment that harsh? Smh, this place is tightly wound these days...
                        Well, I believe that calling someone a black hole is quite unfair when the accusation is untrue. Having said that, you were not among those people I mentioned in that post of mine. The ones that have that agenda know exactly who they are
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

                          Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                          This really infraction worthy? I guess Vnz really is in some deep ****


                          I'm surprised I didn't get an infraction for thanking it.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            OJ nor Solo are anything special on defense. They're average. So if all three are average, I fail to see how defense carries such weight. And OJ guarding the 2, makes Lance guard the 3, which Lance is average at doing.

                            So lower it to 10pts, like I've already said. That is double what OJ is giving you.

                            Have we really reached the point in absurdity that Orlando Johnson is as good as Danny Granger? Now THAT is funny.
                            Nobody is saying that OJ is as good as a healthy Danny Granger.

                            But, if you recall, I am saying that OJ is better than a 75% Granger. Let's do the math and start with Granger supporters' favorite subject. Shooting.

                            A healthy Granger on this team would average 17ppg. To get his numbers in the past, he averaged about 35.5min/game. At 75% even with those minutes, he's at 12.75ppg shooting 28.8% from 3 and 32.85% overall.

                            A healthy OJ is averaging 5.4ppg in 15min/game. If given 35.5 minutes, his average shoots up to 12.78ppg. He's currently shooting 33% from 3 and 42.9% overall. Clearly superior numbers.

                            As for defense, I don't need any numbers. To think a Granger moving 75% as slow as he already is...he can't defend the position.

                            As for other facets of the game such as rebounds, assists, steals...I don't think any math is necessary there either.

                            Really, a 100% healthy Granger is a figment of everyone's imagination...at least for this year. Factor in the likelihood of him staying a Pacer you might as well throw it out the window.

                            Still, everyone here, sans Vnzla81, wants to see him return to all-star form. But until he gets on the court and proves it I cannot believe he's going to be a factor this year. Been through too many years with JO to buy it.
                            Last edited by BlueNGold; 11-14-2013, 07:54 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              I'm surprised I didn't get an infraction for thanking it.
                              I'm surprised I didn't get an infraction for thinking it.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger To Resume Practice

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                A healthy Granger on this team would average 17ppg. To get his numbers in the past, he averaged about 35.5min/game. At 75% even with those minutes, he's at 12.75ppg shooting 28.8% from 3 and 32.85% overall.

                                A healthy OJ is averaging 5.4ppg in 15min/game. If given 35.5 minutes, his average shoots up to 12.78ppg. He's currently shooting 33% from 3 and 42.9% overall. Clearly superior numbers.
                                This is astounding.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X