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

Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

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

  • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

    I watched a lot of Golden State games last season. Rush performed very well for them and was most definitely a consistent 3 point threat and as a defender. He was almost always in at crunch time, that right there says a lot about how well he played.
    "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

    Comment


    • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

      Originally posted by Hoop View Post
      I watched a lot of Golden State games last season. Rush performed very well for them and was most definitely a consistent 3 point threat and as a defender. He was almost always in at crunch time, that right there says a lot about how well he played.
      Crunch time? Golden State didn't have any meaningful crunch time. They were 13th out of 15 teams in their conference. OTOH, the Pacers were 3rd in their conference and had several bench players as good as Rush.

      Seriously, I don't get this hand-wringing over Brandon Smokin' Rush. Collison was a better bench player and he's gone too. Dahntay Jones is basically Rush's equal bringing different things to the court. Both are good backups and both are gone. I suppose he's better than Barbosa, but that's not saying much. We probably should have kept DJ who I think is a better player overall. Certainly DJ doesn't fall asleep out there.

      Comment


      • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Crunch time? Golden State didn't have any meaningful crunch time. They were 13th out of 15 teams in their conference. OTOH, the Pacers were 3rd in their conference and had several bench players as good as Rush.

        Seriously, I don't get this hand-wringing over Brandon Smokin' Rush. Collison was a better bench player and he's gone too. Dahntay Jones is basically Rush's equal bringing different things to the court. Both are good backups and both are gone. I suppose he's better than Barbosa, but that's not saying much. We probably should have kept DJ who I think is a better player overall. Certainly DJ doesn't fall asleep out there.
        Yes they did, GS lost so many last second games that I'm not sure if it was some kind of record, by the way Rush was huge for GS last year, he is their main defensive guy, he usually guards the Lebron's and Wade's of the NBA, call me crazy but the Pacers need a guy like him at this moment.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Yes they did, GS lost so many last second games that I'm not sure if it was some kind of record, by the way Rush was huge for GS last year, he is their main defensive guy, he usually guards the Lebron's and Wade's of the NBA, call me crazy but the Pacers need a guy like him at this moment.
          Amen!!

          Comment


          • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Crunch time? Golden State didn't have any meaningful crunch time. They were 13th out of 15 teams in their conference. OTOH, the Pacers were 3rd in their conference and had several bench players as good as Rush.

            Seriously, I don't get this hand-wringing over Brandon Smokin' Rush. Collison was a better bench player and he's gone too. Dahntay Jones is basically Rush's equal bringing different things to the court. Both are good backups and both are gone. I suppose he's better than Barbosa, but that's not saying much. We probably should have kept DJ who I think is a better player overall. Certainly DJ doesn't fall asleep out there.
            If you haven't noticed just about every NBA game comes down to the 4th quarter, so yes even bad teams like Golden State have plenty of games with crunch time. The bad teams just seem to lose most of them.

            No hand ringing here, just saying Rush is a consistent 3 pt shooter and solid player. He blew his chance here and won't ever be invited back. I have no problem with that. Doesn't mean I don't like him as a player.
            "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

            Comment


            • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

              I have nothing personal against Brandon Rush, and he may be doing well in GS, a change of scenery was probably good for the guy.. and CALI is probably a good location for Brandon in the grand scheme of things. My expectations of Rush lowered considerably after the first 5 games of the season he was suspended and came back to basically go back to his normal ways after a few good games. OBrien problem had a considerable amount to do with Rush's overall lack of development (JOB is a good scapegoat for any scenario). Rush would have been a find backup sg/sf, however ... Bird wanted him gone and he was very difficult to trade at least to the point where Memphis nixed a deal b/c he was included.

              In his time w/ GS he may have improved, a 4% increase suggests so, nevertheless his time here in Indiana he was not a consistent 3 pt shooter. The best way to resolve this is with a game log of his career here with the Pacers.

              I am not going to go to the detail this evening but i will try to check it out soon. sorry, ive seen that guy play 90% of his games as a Pacer, and I am not going to let his 3pt % mislead me.

              it will be interesting to see the games where rush actually hit some 3's that meant much to the outcome of the game. his third year here is the season he came off the bench, so his #s should have improved against the other teams second unit.

              if someone who can embed rush game log of at least his third season i would greatly appreciate it.. i can only provide the link. if possible pls include the opponent and final score, along with minutes played .. and free throws missed.

              my hunch is rush had his best games against weak opponents (2nd units of nonplayoff temas) and blowouts.

              sorry fellas, if brandon rush is consistent 3 pt threat than the league has some really bad shooters. rush was never consistent with antthing he did, not even defense.

              Comment


              • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                Yes they did, GS lost so many last second games that I'm not sure if it was some kind of record, by the way Rush was huge for GS last year, he is their main defensive guy, he usually guards the Lebron's and Wade's of the NBA, call me crazy but the Pacers need a guy like him at this moment.
                Rush was huge for a bad team. He was a bench player no better than Dahntay Jones for the Indiana Pacers and he wasn't as good as Collison. I don't get the love. Brandon had his head up his arse half the time all spaced out. When he wasn't spaced out, yes, he was a great defender. But that was half the time. He's not a crunch time player by any stretch and I cannot remember any games of relevance for him in Indiana. Lance Stephenson is younger than Rush was his rookie year and will probably far surpass him. Then you have George Hill who will get backup minutes at the 2. The Pacers simply don't need Brandon Rush. What you all value in Brandon isn't real. He doesn't play good defense for more than stretches and from one game to the next he vanished completely and was the definition of inconsistent. I could not be more happy the team moved on...

                Comment


                • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                  Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                  sorry, ive seen that guy play 90% of his games as a Pacer, and I am not going to let his 3pt % mislead me.
                  Here lies the problem. You think your perception is more accurate than what happened.

                  When a guy shoots 40%+ from 3 point range, 3 out of 4 seasons, and the only one he didn't was his rookie year .... he looks pretty consistent to anyone not letting their own personal perceptions get in the way. I don't care what the stats say in the game logs. Unless you can tell me who he was guarding and who was/wasn't on the floor at his position, it's meaningless.

                  It really is just that simple. On any given season only 20-30 NBA players shoot 40% from 3 point range with enough shots to qualify for the leader board. Rush has done it 3 seasons in a row.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                    Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                    Here lies the problem. You think your perception is more accurate than what happened.

                    When a guy shoots 40%+ from 3 point range, 3 out of 4 seasons, and the only one he didn't was his rookie year .... he looks pretty consistent to anyone not letting their own personal perceptions get in the way. I don't care what the stats say in the game logs. Unless you can tell me who he was guarding and who was/wasn't on the floor at his position, it's meaningless.

                    It really is just that simple. On any given season only 20-30 NBA players shoot 40% from 3 point range with enough shots to qualify for the leader board. Rush has done it 3 seasons in a row.
                    no, my perception is accurate, the problem is some disagree with it.

                    let me ask, was robert horry a 3pt threat, many would say yes. now was horry consistent.. maybe. i dont remember him being an excellent 3 pt shooter, but whne the game was on the line there are very few i would choose to shoot the game winner than him. either way he still was not consistent.. and by consistent i mean excellent.

                    because here is the thing.. consistency means more than just a good shooter. i can go out in my driveway and knock down 30 3's in a row.. does that make me a consistent shooter??? well it depends, can i hit shots when the D is in my face, can i hit 3's vs weak and strong opponents, can i hit when it matters most or just when the game is a blowout.

                    to be truly a good 3 pt shooter, a player has to be consistent. hitting wide open 3's does not make me a consistently good shooter, its when someone is gaurding me and it matters most its what makes somone consistent. its the reason ray allen at 36% is a better shooter than rush at 45%.

                    and just think about this.. the difference between 45 and 36% is 9 threes per every 100. if an nba player shoots 300 threes in a season and makes 21 3's more than a 33% shooter, it puts him in the 40% group. just 21 's threes difference correct??

                    so if those 21 3's are against a second unit or come in a blowout victory or because an elite player draws the defense and kicks it to the player for a wide open corner three.. than just 21 of those gets you to 40%.

                    point is.. rush's % does not make him a consistent 3% threat.. not like a ray allen player who the defense constantly focuses on. if allen got rush's looks, he would shoot over 50%.. whereas if rush had ray allen type focus of defenses than were looking at a 30% shooter at best for rush.

                    ray allen is a consistent 3% threat.. rush is no where near his level. is rush a good stand still 3pt shooter.. sure maybe.. but in no way is "consistent and threat" words i would use to describe rush's ability as a shooter.

                    again.. %'s are very decieving sometimes, and those extra 21-28 3's a season are not going to mislead me into believeing rush was ever a consistent 3 pt shooter.

                    theres a chance im wrong on this one.. but having watched rush play.. there were times when he would be on.. maybe 1 in 5 games.. but over the duration of an entire season.. no rush was not a consistent 3 pt shooter for the blue and gold.

                    if someone who knows how to embed a game log on here could supply one that would be fantastic.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                      Did you know Antonio and Dale aren’t actually brothers?

                      Comment


                      • Who cares?

                        Hes gone.

                        At what point do we finally move on from Josh/BRush threads?
                        Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat



                          So we've created a new criteria for judging shooters. We'll judge them based on the shots they never took, and assume we know the outcome to create our own personally bias filled end result!!

                          One of the silliest things I've ever heard in my life.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                            Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                            One of the silliest things I've ever heard in my life.
                            Without a hint of exaggeration, this is literally one of the 5 most illogical and asinine arguments I've ever seen.
                            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                            -Lance Stephenson

                            Comment


                            • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                              To even further layer on top, there is literally 0% chance that Rush willingly comes back to Indy. He wanted a change of scenery. He said it to me directly. His future here in Indy was as a part of the bench mob, and that destiny was cast for him via a combination of his behavior and JOB's. He wanted a fresh opportunity to create a new outcome for his career.

                              I wish him the best of luck in his future exploits, but for all concerned, it's best that he moved on. He clearly is a comparably great outside shooter, and good defender... there's a shot that he'll find the right match for his skills on some team during his time in the NBA.

                              Not all team transactions are purely basketball related. Players are humans, not bags of statistics.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                                to be truly a good 3 pt shooter, a player has to be consistent. hitting wide open 3's does not make me a consistently good shooter
                                I want NO part of this argument..but if you read this part out loud, it truly does not make any sense. You don't think having the ability to hit wide open 3's makes a player a consistent 3pt shooter?

                                This may just be my opinion but not all great 3pt shooters have the ability to make a move, and pull up to hit a 3, nor do they need to have the ability to roam off various screens before they launch a J from 3.

                                Some players just drift into the corner and/or wing to provide spacing for other players to operate, and then are counted on to knock down open 3's due to the opportunities created by their teammates. They aren't less efficient fust because they are shooting 3's within a spot up situation.

                                In fact, one could argue that they are MORE efficient simply because they don't know how many opportunities they are going to get to shoot. When you're working off screens, you know if you're open, you're getting the ball. When you're working in an iso or pick and roll situation, you know when you're open, you can shoot the 3.

                                But when you're spotting up, you don't know whether or not you're man is going to leave you open nor do you know whether or not someone will pass you the ball. It takes a lot of concentration to stand in one place catch and shoot. If everyone could do it, everyone would be 40% 3-pt shooters. But the league average is closer to 33-35% for a reason.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X