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

Granger - Turner

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

  • #16
    Re: Granger - Turner

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    Well if the validation of your point is Danny's numbers with the Clippers than exuse me if I call that a nonsensical agrument.

    Danny is playing well simply becuase he is playing next to players who can get him an open look. Nothing more and nothing less.
    Have you watched DG play with the Clippers? Yes he is playing in an up-tempo system and with a PG that delivers the ball, but they are using him off screens, and in post up situations. They are calling plays for him that aren't much different than what we ran for him here. He's finally got his legs under him, and he's making the most of his opportunities.

    The facts are, Danny was obviously misused here and wasn't quite dead as many posters suggested. Maybe he got off to a slow start here, and has just picked it up in LA, but don't discredit the fact that he's playing well because he's playing with players who get him the ball in position to score. I mean what the hell is Doc Rivers doing getting Danny some open looks?!? Ohh the tragedy
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 03-26-2014, 10:22 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Granger - Turner

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      That's what some of thought was going to happen when Danny played with the bench unit, being led by Lance.
      And exactly what happened for about the first 10 to 15 games after Granger came back.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Granger - Turner

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        Evan's EFG is another stat where he is much higher. Dunno if it's meaningful or not, but it's true.
        Turner knows he shouldn't be taking many threes, so he tends to take higher percentage shots. Not a bad thing at all. Knowing your limitations is something I highly value in a player, which Turner for the most part seems to know. I have nothing against Turner, this isn't about how I view Turner as a player. I like him as a potential 6th man type.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Granger - Turner

          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
          Turner knows he shouldn't be taking many threes, so he tends to take higher percentage shots. Not a bad thing at all. Knowing your limitations is something I highly value in a player, which Turner for the most part seems to know. I have nothing against Turner, this isn't about how I view Turner as a player. I like him as a potential 6th man type.
          I do too. It seems to me Turner isn't yet comfortable in Indiana. A lot of his movements and attempts seem awkward or forced.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Granger - Turner

            Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
            U forgot something:

            Pacers W-L record w/Danny Granger 30-9 .769
            Pacers W-L record w/Evan Turner 9-7 .562
            Naw. I think you forgot something. Danny did not play 39 games for the Pacers this year. He played 29 and his time on the court had almost no impact on the record either way.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Granger - Turner

              Granger could return to the Indiana Pacers and you would find that his production would be the same as the day he left. Evan Turner averaged over 17ppg for the Sixers and the same is true for him. His numbers are down with the Pacers as well.

              The fact is, our offense is a big part of the reason you see this. Also, like it or not, the Pacers have had a target on their backs most of this season having the best or one of the best records in the league. We are indeed getting every team's best shot every night. That may be waning soon if this keeps up...

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Granger - Turner

                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                Actually Granger played great when he first came back. Just prior to Lance starting to play for himself over playing for the team, in fact I believe Lance's success playing with Granger is part of what prompted that. The problem with the trade was that it didn't actually address any issues on this team. It was at best a lateral move for a different skill set. It did nothing to improve this team at all this season. Nothing in Turner's advance statistics suggested he would be better than he has been while here, absolutely nothing. Nothing happening on the court suggested that Granger was a problem, unless you somehow think Orlando was a better player and 3 point threat than Granger. The problem with this team was never the skill sets or the talent the players on the court had. It was all about how the players on the court were using them, more specifically how Lance and Paul were using them. Granger is a great team player, and is proving that he can still produce just fine in LA right now. Bird was wrong, and those of us saying it was because of how Granger and Lance were being use were right.
                You're dead on with this but being right doesn't make things any better. We should have never traded Granger and although he isn't the sole reason we're playing like we are now, losing Granger is a bigger factor on this team chemistry then anyone wants to admit. As basketball players go I think Granger and Turner are on the same level but we need what Granger brings much more then we need what Turner brings. Granger was traded because Bird honestly thought Turner would be an upgrade but he isn't. It wouldn't matter who we brought in for our bench if they didn't get enough minutes or shot opportunities to contribute. Granger wasn't used right here and Turner isn't being used right either. Both players deserve 25+ minutes but I'd like to see that at 30 and although it doesn't make any sense for Vogel to play PG and Lance 40 minutes in most of the games he's done it in, Vogel won't change this. If we want a bench player to light it up then the offense needs to run through that player, but that can never happen with Lance on the floor making himself option 1,2 & 3 until he dribbles the clock down to 2 tenths of a second and dumps the ball off. Lance has a negative impact on the players around him when he plays with the second unit.
                I never wanted a trade at all but if Bird felt he had to make a change then I think he moved the wrong player. None of that matters now. We have 11 games to go and somehow Vogel has to find a way to get this team to play with chemistry. While he's at it, it would be nice if he'd take the team back from Lance and Paul which might help the chemistry anyway.
                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Granger - Turner

                  Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                  You're dead on with this but being right doesn't make things any better. We should have never traded Granger and although he isn't the sole reason we're playing like we are now, losing Granger is a bigger factor on this team chemistry then anyone wants to admit. As basketball players go I think Granger and Turner are on the same level but we need what Granger brings much more then we need what Turner brings. Granger was traded because Bird honestly thought Turner would be an upgrade but he isn't. It wouldn't matter who we brought in for our bench if they didn't get enough minutes or shot opportunities to contribute. Granger wasn't used right here and Turner isn't being used right either. Both players deserve 25+ minutes but I'd like to see that at 30 and although it doesn't make any sense for Vogel to play PG and Lance 40 minutes in most of the games he's done it in, Vogel won't change this. If we want a bench player to light it up then the offense needs to run through that player, but that can never happen with Lance on the floor making himself option 1,2 & 3 until he dribbles the clock down to 2 tenths of a second and dumps the ball off. Lance has a negative impact on the players around him when he plays with the second unit.
                  I never wanted a trade at all but if Bird felt he had to make a change then I think he moved the wrong player. None of that matters now. We have 11 games to go and somehow Vogel has to find a way to get this team to play with chemistry. While he's at it, it would be nice if he'd take the team back from Lance and Paul which might help the chemistry anyway.

                  damn good post. so much in between detail here it deserves the credit due. without going into the detail this post deserves levoy allen is still undervalued as a 3rd big. maybe Bird thought these guys were all about winning a BANNER not hanging out after the games.


                  Heat game will prove this teams character.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Granger - Turner

                    I think this shows that Granger was not the problem. The Pacers' offense was, and is still the problem.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Granger - Turner

                      Evan's game would be pretty entertaining if he didn't play for the team I root for.
                      You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Granger - Turner

                        The production similarity is damning because it was supposed to be better. They didn't risk chemistry and fanbase issues for "exactly the same". If the production is a matter of the situation then you just keep Granger because he can defend the post better than Paul and is twice the defender ET is, and you live with the offensive numbers.

                        For the ET deal to be a success his production, especially scoring, must be a substantial improvement. So far the 2 "swing for the fence" deals have gone tilt.


                        I do like that ET has had the better FG% but it really sucks not having the 3pt threat. The issue was that DG hadn't gotten dialed in from 3 either.
                        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-26-2014, 05:46 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Granger - Turner

                          The production's a wash. My viewing experience is not. I ****ing HATE watching Turner play basketball, the dude is terrible. I'll take Danny playing adequate defense and launching the occasional ill advised transition 3 over Turner getting completely obliterated by the slightest screen and the majority of his shots being guarded fadeaway turnarounds from 12 feet.

                          I'm completely serious, Evan Turner's not an NBA basketball player, not one worth a **** on a winning team anyway. He's dreadful, there is absolutely no reason for him to get minutes over any of Butler, Cope, or Solo, in order.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Granger - Turner

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Granger could return to the Indiana Pacers and you would find that his production would be the same as the day he left. Evan Turner averaged over 17ppg for the Sixers and the same is true for him. His numbers are down with the Pacers as well.

                            The fact is, our offense is a big part of the reason you see this.
                            I dunno about that first statement, but I absolutely aggree with the second part of your post about our offense really being C-R-A-P.

                            Btw are you ready to atleast admit that Danny isn't broken or something? I mean seriously the way some of you talked about him just two months after coming back from a long absence due to a hefty injury made it sound like he would NEVER be able to actually play anymore.
                            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Granger - Turner

                              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                              The production's a wash. My viewing experience is not. I ****ing HATE watching Turner play basketball, the dude is terrible. I'll take Danny playing adequate defense and launching the occasional ill advised transition 3 over Turner getting completely obliterated by the slightest screen and the majority of his shots being guarded fadeaway turnarounds from 12 feet.

                              I'm completely serious, Evan Turner's not an NBA basketball player, not one worth a **** on a winning team anyway. He's dreadful, there is absolutely no reason for him to get minutes over any of Butler, Cope, or Solo, in order.
                              Well that's a little strongly worded, but his defensive positioning and staying with his man is . I can see he tries, but my god. I think it says a lot when a 30 year old supposedly "done" and "brokendown" player who wasn't known for his athleticism in the first place is superior defensively to a 25 year old player who has much better athleticism and a lot of the physical attributes to be a good defensive player and is in the prime of his (bball)life.

                              I also have to say that his drives into the lane seem pretty good, but his court awareness and ability to carefully pass the ball are definitely negatives IMHO. I knew he didn't have the best court awareness, but I did expect him to be a better passer, but maybe that's due to still finding his role and his part in our team. I honestly don't know.

                              I was always pretty sure that Danny would have become better during the season, with ups and downs, slowly getting back into form after his injury and I hope Turner will be able to round more into form aswell, because I think we are going to need him too IF we want to take the next step during the postseason.
                              Last edited by Mourning; 03-26-2014, 08:26 AM. Reason: grammar correction
                              2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                              2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                              2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Granger - Turner

                                Originally posted by 15th parallel View Post
                                I think this shows that Granger was not the problem. The Pacers' offense was, and is still the problem.
                                I aggree though we can't forget that Danny was shooting pretty badly from downtown. I had no doubt that his threepoint shooting would improve over the next months to at the very least be a reliable option, but I guess Bird was less sure of that.
                                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X