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

Andrew Bynum 13-14 General Discussion

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

  • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
    Moving Danny for a guard who can back up Lance makes sense to cut down on his 36 mpg. Copeland would slide in to back up PG. Unless Vogel is willing to move Danny down to backup 2, and Copeland to back up 3.
    If there's not a team we could actually make such a trade with, then what's the point of the statement?

    If you have a guard in mind, then let's hear it. Make a trade that works and put it in the trade forum.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

      Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
      Where was Mahinmi ranked last year?

      Regardless, Frank said after the shoot around yesterday that Bynum will be the backup once he is brought up to speed and says he's a difference maker coming off the bench.

      http://www.nba.com/pacers/video/2014...202f4v-3132805
      You don't bring in Bynum if your plan is to never give him a chance, so that really isn't a surprise. We will see what happens once he is brought up to speed and gets some time on the court. At this point we have no idea if we will get the Bynum that was in Cleveland, or if we got a better version. We just don't know and will not know until he is on the court. That is all I am saying cause some people seem to just assume there is no possibility other than the best possible outcome. It is the same warning I gave Colts fans when it came to Richardson. Just because he is a big name does not mean he is a guarantee to be better.

      Comment


      • Re: So what was Andrew's Bynum's conduct detrimental to the team??

        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
        Well if his knees are bad that may hinder him from getting into shape but what I am most shocked about is that the Pacers didn't give him a physical before the signing. Hopefully they atleast obtain some medical records but that 1 million that could easily go down the tube.
        I have a vivid memory of seeing him interviewed in October of 2012. Thinking to myself and later posting here, that he is in no shape at all to play basketball. He was hardly recognizeable to me. And in October of 2012 with the Sixers he was supposed to be ready for the start of the season only diagnosed with a bone bruise. But he was fat.

        http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...rgery/1998091/

        Comment


        • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

          Claimer: Sorry this was rushed but I will try to go into as much detail as I can.

          Defensively:

          Ian ppp 0.85 fg% 40.2

          %Time
          7% Isolation 0.78 ppp
          45% Post up 0.95 ppp
          25.6% PnR roll man 0.82 ppp
          17.8% Spot up 0.65 ppp

          Rim protection via sportsvu fg% 43%

          Andrew Bynum 0.77 ppp fg% 36.5%

          %Time
          13.6% Isolation 0.67 ppp
          28.4% post up 0.64 ppp
          27.3% PnR roll man 0.58 ppp
          27.3% Spot up 1.13 ppp

          Rim protection via sportsvu fg% 37.6%

          So the glaring weakness in Bynums defense is his spot up defense. I haven't look hard at it but my guess is that he doesn't close out nearly as well as Ian but he also may just concede that shot more often to protect the paint where he sees less attempts at the rim per game than Ian and does a pretty good job at defending the rim as well.

          Their perecentage of shooting fouls are about the same at around 7%.

          The suprises to me are the highlighted in red and specifically the PnR defense of Bynum. Giving up 0.58 ppp is absurd and I need to look further into it and see what kind of help defense he was getting but it was most likely the typical ICE play we run with Ian.

          Offensively:

          I need more time but I will point out two things that probably many of you already have noticed.

          Ian is a turnover machine at 20.8% while Bynum is a modest 11.3% per possession

          Ian's offensive ppp is 0.75.

          Bynums offensive ppp is 0.82.

          The largest disparity in offensive plays is Bynum post up 58.9% to Ians 8.1%. Bynum on post ups ppp is 0.75, Ians is 0.5 ppp with a eye popping 18.2% field goal percentage.

          Ian is the much better roll man on the pnr as you would expect as well as a better cutter to the basket. This is where he makes up his efficiency.

          Bynum however is much better at getting to the free throw line and like I said he doesn't turn the ball over on a fifth of his possessions.

          As for offensive rebounds Bynum is also better and he is also better at passing the ball.

          Like many of you have said if Bynum finds his offensive mojo then this will be a slam dunk signing all things considered.
          Last edited by Gamble1; 02-03-2014, 02:34 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

            Originally posted by Grimp View Post
            But why? Copeland is better.
            Better than who? Granger? He isn't even better than Butler. Granger's D by itself makes him a better player than Copeland. Copeland as a SF shooting 3's in nothing special that makes defenses adjust. It is normal for SF's to be good at the 3. What makes him valuable is as a stretch 4. There he can stretch out the defense with his ability to make 3's, he is capable of taking other 4's off the dribble, and won't be destroyed by the athleticism of most SF's. If Copeland was capable of being an effective SF he would have received more time there prior to Granger's return.

            Comment


            • Re: So what was Andrew's Bynum's conduct detrimental to the team??

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Why are we only focusing on what happened in Cleveland. He was a little bit of a problem in LA and he didn't show much desire to get into shape and play for the Sixers either.
              This


              What he did in Philly was an embarrassment. The guy was a cancer and he never even suited up because he was to lazy to get in shape like a pro. He was the ultimate me guy in Philly.


              EDIT: And lets not forget he did this to a franchise who was ready to make him the franchise player and traded their face of the franchise Iggy too get him.
              Last edited by pacer4ever; 02-03-2014, 02:41 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                Agreed. It seems he's either totally forgotten on offense, or he's the primary focus. He had best offensive play of the season when he was part of a functional unit: Scola, Lance, and Granger worked well together and played off each other. More recently, they've each been less effective. I'm not sure why.
                I know why, cause Lance Stephen spent the last week trying to make the all-star team instead of running offense.
                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                Comment


                • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                  Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                  I know why, cause Lance Stephen spent the last week trying to make the all-star team instead of running offense.
                  Odd thing is, that probably hurt his chances more than helped him.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                    I know why, cause Lance Stephen spent the last week trying to make the all-star team instead of running offense.
                    I wondered the same thing, actually. It reminded me of Al Harrington after his 40-point game. Here's hoping Vogel can reel Lance in a bit.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                      Being a "glass half full" kind of guy, I see 2 possible ways the sighing of AB can be helpful to the Pacers. The first of course, is if Bynum comes in, buys in and rebuilds his game. The second in a lot of ways could be even better down the road. Say Bynum comes in and causes problems in the locker room and Vogel/Bird toss him. As a Championship caliber team in the future, we should become a magnet for former AS level players to be drawn to. Success with AB shows these players that they can come here in the twilight of their career or off an injury and become a part of a winning team. Failure and an early tossing of AB would should the future want-to-be's that the Pacer will not tolerate disruption in their locker room. Win/win.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        You don't bring in Bynum if your plan is to never give him a chance, so that really isn't a surprise. We will see what happens once he is brought up to speed and gets some time on the court. At this point we have no idea if we will get the Bynum that was in Cleveland, or if we got a better version. We just don't know and will not know until he is on the court. That is all I am saying cause some people seem to just assume there is no possibility other than the best possible outcome. It is the same warning I gave Colts fans when it came to Richardson. Just because he is a big name does not mean he is a guarantee to be better.
                        I hope my post above shows you that atleast Cleveland Bynum is better than Indiana Mahinimi which is the whole point of the signing.

                        How I see the offense changing is in the post ups we have now and if teams decide to double team Bynum or not. That was a none factor with Ian and his roll was simply to be a cutter and a pnr guy on offense which he was ok at but nothing special becuase his hands were sooo bad.

                        Atleast with the Bynum we have more options to expose an opponents weakness and more importantly if they decide to go small we can punish them for 48 minutes with size. The Pacers strength is now even more formidable IMO.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                          able is not a fan of Lance huh?
                          There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                          Comment


                          • Re: So what was Andrew's Bynum's conduct detrimental to the team??

                            Originally posted by Psyren View Post
                            Strangely, i worry more about our players accepting Bynum, than Bynum himself trying to fit in.

                            I know the guys haven't met with Bynum yet, but none of them seemed even the least bit thrilled at his arrival.
                            At least he is just taking an empty roster spot. I can't see it bothering the guys that much, when we didn't loose anyone. Frank will only play him if it helps the team. If he doesn't buy in, he walks.

                            Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                            • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                              Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                              A combo deal would work. Also there are a lot of unhappy players in the NBA right now on certain teams. Rodney Stuckey isn't thrilled in Detroit these days. So Granger to Detroit for the expiring contracts of Stuckey and Villenueva works on ESPN and Real GM. Charlie will never see the floor but Stuckey would be an excellent back up for Lance. He can create his own shot, create for others, and be a facilitator overall off the bench.
                              FOCUS!!!

                              FOCUS!!!

                              FOCUS!!!

                              This thread is about matters relevant to the recent signing of one Andrew Bynum. Nothing more. Nothing less.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 02/01/14 Update: Andrew Bynum is a Pacer

                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                                I hope my post above shows you that atleast Cleveland Bynum is better than Indiana Mahinimi which is the whole point of the signing.

                                How I see the offense changing is in the post ups we have now and if teams decide to double team Bynum or not. That was a none factor with Ian and his roll was simply to be a cutter and a pnr guy on offense which he was ok at but nothing special becuase his hands were sooo bad.

                                Atleast with the Bynum we have more options to expose an opponents weakness and more importantly if they decide to go small we can punish them for 48 minutes with size. The Pacers strength is now even more formidable IMO.
                                Except the team as a whole played worse with Bynum on the court, both offensively and defensively. There are two parts to this story. It is hard to predict how that will translate over to this team with this teams defensive system. I've already said a healthy and motivated Bynum is better than Mahinmi, but it isn't a guarantee that will be the case so stop acting like it is. It all depends on how hard he is willing to work, how much he buys into the system, and if he is capable of performing in this system. We won't know any of that until he actually steps on the floor and plays. Until that point there is no reason to assume either way. You have stats saying he did well individually, but you have contradicting stats saying his play made the team worse. Why that is, I have no idea, but I do know it makes him being an improvement far from a guarantee.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X