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 Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

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

  • #61
    Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    The reason he has so many passes is that he almost always touches the ball. He either brings it up or a player hands it to him to "initiate". There are times where Lance and Paul initiate and it doesn't touch Hill, but those are the exceptions. So, the fact Hill passes a lot often doesn't mean much in terms of quality of pass. He often pounds the ball a few times and drops it off to DWest or Paul to create. That doesn't amount to much and his assist totals reflect it.
    But my argument was never about the quality of the pass. You said that Hill is mediocre at moving the ball and I disagreed. I used this statistic in order to prove that Hill does indeed move the ball around.

    And I will further defend my point using the following:

    http://stats.nba.com/playerTrackingT...&sortOrder=DES

    Total Touches per Game:

    George Hill: 69.1 per game

    Paul George: 71.3 per game

    PG touches it more but he makes less passes. And that's perfectly normal since PG is looking to score whereas Hill looks to get everyone else involved.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      But my argument was never about the quality of the pass. You said that Hill is mediocre at moving the ball and I disagreed. I used this statistic in order to prove that Hill does indeed move the ball around.

      And I will further defend my point using the following:

      http://stats.nba.com/playerTrackingT...&sortOrder=DES

      Total Touches per Game:

      George Hill: 69.1 per game

      Paul George: 71.3 per game

      PG touches it more but he makes less passes. And that's perfectly normal since PG is looking to score whereas Hill looks to get everyone else involved.
      Ok. Hill is just fine dumping the ball off to David West. In fact, that is a great deal of what he does for "ball movement" which is one reason he ranks nowhere on the charts for assists in the NBA. Even Josh McRoberts has more assists and that's playing less minutes. I guess I don't really get the point of talking about ball movement when all he does is dump it off and start running around to play SG.

      Speaking of SG's, Paul is really our SG on offense and he has more assists than our PG. Lance is closer to doubling the assists. Not ripping on Hill but this talk about him moving the ball doesn't really add up.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Ok. Hill is just fine dumping the ball off to David West. In fact, that is a great deal of what he does for "ball movement" which is one reason he ranks nowhere on the charts for assists in the NBA. Even Josh McRoberts has more assists and that's playing less minutes. I guess I don't really get the point of talking about ball movement when all he does is dump it off and start running around to play SG.

        Speaking of SG's, Paul is really our SG on offense and he has more assists than our PG. Lance is closer to doubling the assists. Not ripping on Hill but this talk about him moving the ball doesn't really add up.
        I think using assists a judgment for whether someone moves the ball well is..a poor use of the statistic. In fact, high assist players can sometimes not move the ball well at all. (Brandon Jennings..) It totally ignores a player that understands the hockey assist..or the assist to the hockey assist.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
          I think using assists a judgment for whether someone moves the ball well is..a poor use of the statistic. In fact, high assist players can sometimes not move the ball well at all. (Brandon Jennings..) It totally ignores a player that understands the hockey assist..or the assist to the hockey assist.
          I like George, but to say he understands the hockey assists ignores the fact he so often just dumps the ball off to go play SG. I actually don't have a huge problem with him not playing the PG position traditionally but someone needs to start the ball movement. I suppose that can be the PF or SF or SG...or anyone. But this is the place where the team needs to work. It is hard to complain about the record and I'm not doing that. Very pleased with the entire team. But our issue is turnovers and our ability to move the ball successfully is highly related to it.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
            TOs come hand in hand with assists for perimeter players who act as PnR handlers. It's true that Lance has the second highest TO% on the team but he also has the second best Assist to Turnover ratio of our team after George Hill (who is great at taking care of the ball).
            True, even so his TO% is high for guards no matter how you slice it. While Paul has gotten better at taking care of the ball as he has been given more of the reigns, Lance has become more careless. Really the increase in TOs can be traced to him and Scola. Everyone else seems to be about the same or slightly better from last year, with a big improvement from Paul. Now I can't really explain why Scola's TO% jumped from 11% to 17%, but I do know why Lance's has jumped, and it isn't because of more movement in the offense. It is because as he likes to show off, and as he is given more leeway he tries to show off more. This leads to him being in situations with no plan for escape, and bad passes. Lance doesn't always go into the situation knowing where he will be able to pass the ball, he often just makes it up as he goes along hoping that there will be a pass. It can lead to amazing passes, but it also leads to unnecessary TOs.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              Ok. Hill is just fine dumping the ball off to David West. In fact, that is a great deal of what he does for "ball movement" which is one reason he ranks nowhere on the charts for assists in the NBA. Even Josh McRoberts has more assists and that's playing less minutes. I guess I don't really get the point of talking about ball movement when all he does is dump it off and start running around to play SG.

              Speaking of SG's, Paul is really our SG on offense and he has more assists than our PG. Lance is closer to doubling the assists. Not ripping on Hill but this talk about him moving the ball doesn't really add up.
              Josh McRoberts has more assists than Hill because the Bobcats run their offense through him. We don't run our offense through Hill and that's why he doesn't have a high assist number.

              Hill is asked to give the ball to our wings or dump it in the post and then spot up. That's his function in our offense. That's also exactly what CJ Watson is doing when he is in the game. That's what our system requires our PGs to do. Dump the ball in the post or to our wings and spot up.

              I feel that you mistake a player's individual ability with out offensive scheme and I don't think that this is particularly fair.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                True, even so his TO% is high for guards no matter how you slice it. While Paul has gotten better at taking care of the ball as he has been given more of the reigns, Lance has become more careless. Really the increase in TOs can be traced to him and Scola. Everyone else seems to be about the same or slightly better from last year, with a big improvement from Paul. Now I can't really explain why Scola's TO% jumped from 11% to 17%, but I do know why Lance's has jumped, and it isn't because of more movement in the offense. It is because as he likes to show off, and as he is given more leeway he tries to show off more. This leads to him being in situations with no plan for escape, and bad passes. Lance doesn't always go into the situation knowing where he will be able to pass the ball, he often just makes it up as he goes along hoping that there will be a pass. It can lead to amazing passes, but it also leads to unnecessary TOs.
                I wouldn't say that Lance's TO% is high for guards. There are several other guards with a higher TO% than him.

                Personally, I believe that it's our offense. We have incorporated a lot more PnRs in our offense this season and that's something that we really didn't do a lot in our last seasons. PnR plays can lead to higher quality shots but they can also lead to more turnovers. I believe that this explains why both our eFG% and TO% have increased.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  I wouldn't say that Lance's TO% is high for guards. There are several other guards with a higher TO% than him.

                  Personally, I believe that it's our offense. We have incorporated a lot more PnRs in our offense this season and that's something that we really didn't do a lot in our last seasons. PnR plays can lead to higher quality shots but they can also lead to more turnovers. I believe that this explains why both our eFG% and TO% have increased.
                  I believe with these few days off and with some practice time, that our offensive flow will improve. The defense is very good now, so practice on fine tuning the offense. We will see.
                  I would rather be the hammer than the nail

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

                    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                    Josh McRoberts has more assists than Hill because the Bobcats run their offense through him. We don't run our offense through Hill and that's why he doesn't have a high assist number.

                    Hill is asked to give the ball to our wings or dump it in the post and then spot up. That's his function in our offense. That's also exactly what CJ Watson is doing when he is in the game. That's what our system requires our PGs to do. Dump the ball in the post or to our wings and spot up.

                    I feel that you mistake a player's individual ability with out offensive scheme and I don't think that this is particularly fair.
                    I agreed until your last sentence. As I've said, I really like George Hill. But if he actually had the ability to play traditional point, he'd be doing it. This offensive scheme is built around the players as it should be. That's exactly where Frank Vogel and JOb are different. JOb forced square pegs into round holes. Frank looks at the pegs and is more likely to change the board some so they fit properly. He's done that with Hill. He's doing it with Lance, giving him some chances to initiate. But I fully disagree that George Hill has the ability to create much by initiating ball movement. It's just not his game. It is Lance Stephenson's game though.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

                      I would say Lance is already more of our PG than Hill is

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        I wouldn't say that Lance's TO% is high for guards. There are several other guards with a higher TO% than him.
                        There are other guards with a higher TO%, but not very many good ones.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          There are other guards with a higher TO%, but not very many good ones.
                          Wonder why people are talking about 9M/yr for Lance. They must not know anything...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            I agreed until your last sentence. As I've said, I really like George Hill. But if he actually had the ability to play traditional point, he'd be doing it. This offensive scheme is built around the players as it should be. That's exactly where Frank Vogel and JOb are different. JOb forced square pegs into round holes. Frank looks at the pegs and is more likely to change the board some so they fit properly. He's done that with Hill. He's doing it with Lance, giving him some chances to initiate. But I fully disagree that George Hill has the ability to create much by initiating ball movement. It's just not his game. It is Lance Stephenson's game though.
                            I also think that Vogel is doing an amazing job at building our scheme around the players.

                            That's exactly why Lance is asked to create and why Hill is asked to play off the ball and shoot 3s.

                            Lance is our best creator and Hill is probably our best 3 point shooter (he has the highest 3p% after Butler and Hibbert). That's why Hill plays off the ball. The issue is not that Hill cannot create. The issue simply is that Lance is a better creator than Hill and that Hill is better suited as a shooter anyway.

                            It has to do with taking advantage of each player's strength.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              There are other guards with a higher TO%, but not very many good ones.
                              Let's take a look at it then.

                              Here's a list about SGs -> http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holli...tio/order/true

                              Here's a list about PGs -> http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holli...tio/order/true

                              Here's a list about SFs -> http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holli...tio/order/true

                              Lance has a 13.5 TO ratio according to Hollinger's stats.

                              Jeremy Lin has a 15.5 ratio and he's significantly higher than Lance. Norris Cole has a 14.3 ratio and Mario Chalmers has a 14.1 ratio so we can easily say that Lance turns it over less than either of Miami's PGs.

                              Ricky Rubio has a 13.4 TO ratio and he is only 0.1 lower than Lance. Derrick Rose and Eric Bledsoe have a 13.3 ratio. Deron Williams is at 13.0 and even Stephen Curry himself is at 12.9.

                              In the SG list, we can see that rookies like Victor Oladipo, Nick Calathes and Giannis Antetokounmpo are significantly higher than Lance (15.8, 17.6 and 15.4 respectively). Same goes for veterans like Chauncey Billups and Ben Gordon even though they don't play a lot. Tony Allen has a 13.6 ratio as well. James Harden is at 13.0 and only slightly lower than Lance.

                              In the SF list, we can see that two prominent passing SFs are very close to Lance. I'm talking about Andre Iguodala and Nicolas Batum. Both of them are 13.2 and only slightly lower than Lance.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Pacers Vs. Wizards Post-Game Thread - 1/10

                                The TO% is beside the point. Lance Stephenson is an all-star caliber guard. He may be the best player on this team if he keeps this pace. He's already the 3rd best on the best team in the NBA.

                                Edit: Seriously, if I had to rank players only Paul and Roy are above him. DWest is expendable with Scola and CJ Watson could do a nice impression of Hill.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X