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

All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    I definitely think it works both ways here.

    Many tend to only focus on the flashy plays that looked really good, as opposed to looking at Lance's game in totality. I agree with Cdash, Lance was typically VERY hot in cold in terms of the types of plays that he would make on the court.

    The things I appreciated most about him were the things that he focused on less and less as his time progressed here.

    For as gifted of a passer, rebounder, and competitor that Lance is - He is also a terrible shooter, mediocre scorer, and a guy that would often rather be the center of attention, than be a strong contributor within a team concept.

    I'm probably in the minority but I always much preferred the Lance of the 2013 playoffs (positive energy, fierce rebounder, tough defender, secondary scorer) than the guy that would try everything he could to get some attention (air humping, AS campaign, blowing in ears, etc)

    The contract that Bird presented was Bird hedging his bets that Lance would mature and learn to play within the team concept more. Given the numbers, I don't think Larry foresaw Lance becoming a "star" for the team, but moreso a long term piece to the puzzle. Lance didn't sign because he thought that he could be a bigger part of the puzzle elsewhere, and so far he has failed miserably. It's not the first time it's happened to a player, and it probably won't be the last either.
    As written, I don't disagree with you that much. But I would not conclude (yet) that he's a terrible shooter. For just one example, his last year in Indiana he shot almost an identical 3 point percentage as George Hill last year.

    Edit: The only real star on this team was going to be Paul George. Roy was supposed to have been the centerpiece to the defense. DWest was hopefully going to have enough in the tank to make a few runs. Lance was supposed to be the spark plug, provide a variety of skills and would also do the dirty work. Kind of a jack of all trades. At no point did I expect Lance to be the star, although I did want him to be a worthy running mate for Paul.
    Last edited by BlueNGold; 09-02-2015, 07:26 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      As written, I don't disagree with you that much. But I would not conclude (yet) that he's a terrible shooter. For just one example, his last year in Indiana he shot almost an identical 3 point percentage as George Hill last year.
      I agree its too early to determine where he falls in terms of outside shooting ability. Labeling him as inconsistent outside shooter would probably be the best way to classify him at this point in his career. The problem with Lance is he's never backed up a good outside shooting season (as where George Hill has shot either 36-37% for the past six seasons in a row). It's also not that uncommon for a player to have one really decent season shooting from outside and never do it again. Monta Ellis had one decent shooting season from 3 point range where he was at 36% but has yet to ever repeat that or come close.

      Personally if I was Lance, I'd say screw the 3 point shot and work on developing a consistent mid-range game. The Clippers have plenty enough 3 point shooters to fill the void.

      Comment


      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

        Lance is not a good shooter, and never has been. I'm specifically talking about his JUMP SHOT.

        Here are his shooting splits from his last year in Indy:

        3-10ft: 40%
        10-16ft: 31%
        16-3pt: 39%
        3pt: 35%


        Compare that to a guy that was probably an average JUMP SHOOTER last season in Rodney Stuckey:

        3-10ft: 41%
        10-16ft: 41%
        16-3pt: 37%
        3pt: 39%

        If we are talking about pure shooting ability, Lance isn't and has never been a good shooter by any means. 3pt percentage is a part of shooting ability, but it is not the end all be all to determine one's ability to shoot the ball.
        Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 09-03-2015, 12:03 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

          How relevant is that if he is converting at a high rate around the rim? At the end of the day his FG% and 3% taken together in Indiana were quite good.

          Comment


          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            How relevant is that if he is converting at a high rate around the rim? At the end of the day his FG% and 3% taken together in Indiana were quite good.
            Shots at the rim, for his career, are 35% of his shots. I'd say 65% of his shots hold more relevancy to whether or not Lance is a good shooter than 35%.

            You're wanting to toss out Lance's shooting numbers, based on 1 year of shooting from 1 location, and saying the rest of his career and the rest of the locations don't mean much. You've got to look at the full picture, not the snippits that reinforce your belief.

            EDIT: And shots at the rim aren't "shooting" numbers. No one would say DeAndre Jordan is a good shooter. He's a fantastic finisher, but he couldn't hit water from a boat shooting wise.
            Last edited by Since86; 09-03-2015, 12:44 PM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Shots at the rim, for his career, are 35% of his shots. I'd say 65% of his shots hold more relevancy to whether or not Lance is a good shooter than 35%.

              You're wanting to toss out Lance's shooting numbers, based on 1 year of shooting from 1 location, and saying the rest of his career and the rest of the locations don't mean much. You've got to look at the full picture, not the snippits that reinforce your belief.

              EDIT: And shots at the rim aren't "shooting" numbers. No one would say DeAndre Jordan is a good shooter. He's a fantastic finisher, but he couldn't hit water from a boat shooting wise.
              I'm not the one claiming he's a terrible shooter...or really even saying he's a good shooter. All I am saying is that if he's converting 50% of his shots like he did in Indiana, he is "shooting" well. If he's hitting 35% of his threes, that is some indication that he can shoot OK. But I'm not the one really making statements about the technicalities of shooting the basketball. I am saying at the end of the day he's converting shots. To me, it doesn't matter too much if they are at the rim or 12 feet out...as long as the team has a mix of other players who can stretch the floor (like George Hill). It is a team game. You need more than 5 Kyle Korvers...although a couple would really help us....

              Is he as useful to a team who has no 3 point shooters? Obviously not in Charlotte. But he isn't playing in Charlotte this coming year.

              Comment


              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                I'm not the one claiming he's a terrible shooter...or really even saying he's a good shooter. All I am saying is that if he's converting 50% of his shots like he did in Indiana, he is "shooting" well. If he's hitting 35% of his threes, that is some indication that he can shoot OK. But I'm not the one really making statements about the technicalities of shooting the basketball. I am saying at the end of the day he's converting shots. To me, it doesn't matter too much if they are at the rim or 12 feet out...as long as the team has a mix of other players who can stretch the floor (like George Hill). It is a team game. You need more than 5 Kyle Korvers...although a couple would really help us....

                Is he as useful to a team who has no 3 point shooters? Obviously not in Charlotte. But he isn't playing in Charlotte this coming year.
                It's an indication he shot averagely from one location, for one season. No one is denying that. But you have to look at the whole picture, and where their shots are coming from in order to determine their overall shooting ability.

                I think you'd balk at this logic if used on different players. If you honestly think that it doesn't matter whether or not they're at the rim or from 12 ft out (I'm assuming that extends to the 3pt line) then you should agree that Roy Hibbert is a better shooter than Kyle Korver. Roy's career FG% is 46%, Korver's is 44%. So it doesn't matter what type of shot they're taking, nor where they're taking them from, can you agree that Roy is a better shooter than Korver? Or does location and distance suddenly have merit?
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                  Said differently, he should only be taking shots at the rim because he is a good finisher. His jumpshot at any distance, especially after a shot clock full of iso-ball, is not reliable and should be a team's fifth option. An in rhythm catch-and-shoot 3FGA would be a better choice but still a low priority in context of a team offense.

                  Again, my complaint isn't even the volume of shots but rather the "how." If he can't immediately make a drive to the basket then the rest of his iso-game is rotten. He should only be in a catch-and-shoot role and even then he's not one of the better options. He should never be "calling his own number" because he's just not that good. And neither is Paul George, talking about his offensive game.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    Said differently, he should only be taking shots at the rim because he is a good finisher. His jumpshot at any distance, especially after a shot clock full of iso-ball, is not reliable and should be a team's fifth option. An in rhythm catch-and-shoot 3FGA would be a better choice but still a low priority in context of a team offense.

                    Again, my complaint isn't even the volume of shots but rather the "how." If he can't immediately make a drive to the basket then the rest of his iso-game is rotten. He should only be in a catch-and-shoot role and even then he's not one of the better options. He should never be "calling his own number" because he's just not that good. And neither is Paul George, talking about his offensive game.
                    Lance is at his best pushing the ball up the floor and as a playmaker. He is not a stand in the corner guy whatsoever. After the defense is set, then he should give up the ball (assuming he doesn't have a clear opportunity.

                    Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                      I don't know about catch and shoot, but catch and drive most certainly.

                      He can't be relied on as a primary creator, because he's one dimensional (driving). You've at least go to be some type of pull up threat in order to be a primary ball handler, or the defense just sags off on you and forces you to either pass the ball, which is what Lance should have done, or shoot midrange jumpshots which is what Lance did do.

                      26.9% of Lance's shots came from 16ft<3ptline last season, compared to 12.8% the season before. Defenses simply sagged off him and forced him to take shots he couldn't hit.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                        Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                        Lance is at his best pushing the ball up the floor and as a playmaker. He is not a stand in the corner guy whatsoever. After the defense is set, then he should give up the ball (assuming he doesn't have a clear opportunity.

                        Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
                        Right. But he's a better stand-in-the-corner player ... once the defense is set ... than he is with the ball in his hands or attempting to iso.

                        The relevant caveat - if he gets a pass and the defense is rotating (due to a DWest pick and roll, due to a double team to push Roy out of the post, etc.) then he's okay again at attacking the basket because there is a seam in the D. But he's rotten at attacking a set defense.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          It's an indication he shot averagely from one location, for one season. No one is denying that. But you have to look at the whole picture, and where their shots are coming from in order to determine their overall shooting ability.

                          I think you'd balk at this logic if used on different players. If you honestly think that it doesn't matter whether or not they're at the rim or from 12 ft out (I'm assuming that extends to the 3pt line) then you should agree that Roy Hibbert is a better shooter than Kyle Korver. Roy's career FG% is 46%, Korver's is 44%. So it doesn't matter what type of shot they're taking, nor where they're taking them from, can you agree that Roy is a better shooter than Korver? Or does location and distance suddenly have merit?
                          This is weak. A high percentage of Korver's shots are from 3. Exactly 75% were from 3 last year and he nailed 49% of them. I know you...and that you can do better than that.

                          Comment


                          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                            Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                            Lance is at his best pushing the ball up the floor and as a playmaker. He is not a stand in the corner guy whatsoever. After the defense is set, then he should give up the ball (assuming he doesn't have a clear opportunity.
                            Too bad his BB IQ is too low to understand this.

                            Comment


                            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              It's an indication he shot averagely from one location, for one season. No one is denying that. But you have to look at the whole picture, and where their shots are coming from in order to determine their overall shooting ability.

                              I think you'd balk at this logic if used on different players. If you honestly think that it doesn't matter whether or not they're at the rim or from 12 ft out (I'm assuming that extends to the 3pt line) then you should agree that Roy Hibbert is a better shooter than Kyle Korver. Roy's career FG% is 46%, Korver's is 44%. So it doesn't matter what type of shot they're taking, nor where they're taking them from, can you agree that Roy is a better shooter than Korver? Or does location and distance suddenly have merit?
                              weaksauce
                              Danger Zone

                              Comment


                              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                                Ok...the love fest may officially be over. I need more information on this, but not a big fan of this.

                                Lance has 9M/yr and his ex is asking for 12K/month to support his two kids. If he's actually fighting this...smh...this thread might as well be closed.

                                http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...icle-1.2348119
                                Source: NY Daily News

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X