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

ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

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

  • #91
    Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

    You know who's got great numbers on a winning team that we should totally grass-is-greener trade for?!?!

    Gerald Green.



    Bulls title PGs
    BJ Armstrong
    Ron Harper - shot 49.5% eFG and was 4 ast, 4 reb per 36 for a team that won 72 games. The next year was similar 52% eFG and 4-4, but both of these seasons involved the shorter 3pt arc where everyone's 3PA and 3P% were higher.

    Hill this season
    52.5% eFG, 4.4, 3.8 reb ast - basically identical or better than what Harper or BJ provided. And Harper was such a stopper that in 1998 Phil Jackson chose to move him off Jax and put Pippen on him instead.



    There is no such thing as a full superstar team, not even in Miami where they gimp along with Chalmers and whatever PF they can find to put out there. Many of the greatest teams had several guys playing big minutes of similar or lesser skill compared to Hill. Later people will recall this team by thinking of Paul, Lance and Roy, a little West and then some Hill, Scola and Granger. Think of the 1998 Bulls - Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Kukoc, some Harper, and barely Longley and Kerr and really no one else that you easily remember as being an impact player from that team. This is what great teams look like. They don't look like 5 all-stars let alone 8.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      We have the best record in the NBA and are coming off of Game 7 of the ECF's. I can't think of a better time to trade for a new starting point guard....
      But we must prepare...prepare for the Second Coming...

      conform or be cast out...

      But seriously, while I don't think GH is the quickest defender in the history of mankind (especially when trying to stay in front of Paul, Westbrook and Nelson) is a pretty gritty defender who doesn't get a lot of help from our Cs. And his effort to fight over picks is superior to Lance's by a large multiple.

      Since Roy is unable to recover AT ALL when more than 4 ft from the rim. The high PnR makes Hill look bad. A guy will always do better when the other defender forces the ballhandler to go up and wider while still recovering back to his guy. Foster was the best, Hans was good and West and Scola do a servicable job. Roy knows better. The game would be over by the time Roy recovered. And things wouldn't be any different for any other PG we bring in.

      Imagine trying to fight over that pick (of a guy who weighs more than 100 lbs than you) a few dozen times a game and Roy just sinks away. pretty tough.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

        Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
        this so much. they would set the screen, and rather than hill fighting through it, roy would step out to challenge thomas, while Hill would switch onto the screener. This is clearly a defensive system thing, as we have seen all year, the perimeter defenders funnel guys into Roy, it usually works well. That little mid range jumper isn't the greatest shot over Roy. Thomas had some success with it and when Roy challenged it harder, he would miss, but often it lead to a offensive rebound. So Roy usually just challenged it a bit.
        Teams have intentionally tried to put Roy into no man's land, and when you add in road foul issues they've been able to really neutralize him. West and Scola have struggled to help him very much lately, especially protecting the DEF REB. They are trying to force Roy away from the rim, either he follows the big man pick which leaves him away from the rim or he's caught trying to defend the dribble attack. What we just saw was a ton of teams satisfied with driving hard then pulling up around the FT line. If Roy leans out to defend - OREB as you say, and if he falls back then they've been hitting a lot of them.

        What the Pacers need to do is move the wing defender on the side the big moves to out to defend him as he comes off the PnR, let Hill/CJ follow the PG roll with some hedge help from Roy, and then let Roy retreat to defend the rim more against a PG drive or the wing that's been left if he tries to come to the lane for a pass.

        That choice means giving up some corner 3 looks because Roy won't get out there in time and the wing won't be able to recover. I suppose you could hedge help rather than fully committing to coming to help on the big, especially if you don't think his shot is a threat from out on top. That would allow for better recovery to the corner.

        It's all about matchups because if it's West helping off a PF that can't hit deep corner shots then this works great. If it's Paul or Danny leaving a deadly 3pt SF then you are in trouble and have a tough choice.


        Frankly Thorton especially outshot his talent level, and even Chuck Em was very hot by his standards. We saw him miss tons of open jumpers here in Indy, and he's been wildly up and down the last month in Phoenix. You'd hate to overreact to solve a "hot shooter" problem.

        Thornton went 16/27 and 9/12 from 3. Both are the highest FG%/3P% of his career when taking more than 20 FGA and more than 10 3PA (8 total times). He's only score 42 one other time and that involved a bunch of made FTs rather than making tons of FG/3P shots. Say what you will about Hill, but he wasn't the main/only guy out there with Thornton and I'm pretty sure Thornton has faced plenty of weaker backcourts during his full 5 year career. His numbers weren't just about the Pacers, they were an outlier for him in many ways and partially due to the loss of Cousins and Gay just prior to the game.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

          Frankly Thorton especially outshot his talent level, and even Chuck Em was very hot by his standards. We saw him miss tons of open jumpers here in Indy, and he's been wildly up and down the last month in Phoenix. You'd hate to overreact to solve a "hot shooter" problem.

          Thornton went 16/27 and 9/12 from 3. Both are the highest FG%/3P% of his career when taking more than 20 FGA and more than 10 3PA (8 total times). He's only score 42 one other time and that involved a bunch of made FTs rather than making tons of FG/3P shots. Say what you will about Hill, but he wasn't the main/only guy out there with Thornton and I'm pretty sure Thornton has faced plenty of weaker backcourts during his full 5 year career. His numbers weren't just about the Pacers, they were an outlier for him in many ways and partially due to the loss of Cousins and Gay just prior to the game.
          Regardless of teams getting hot on the Pacers the offenisve efficiency is a real problem and I am not sure how to fix it but I do know that sacraficing the defensive efficiency is not that way to do it.

          Being ranked 18th which was barely better than last year is a cause for concern though.
          http://thesportsquotient.com/eric/nb...championships/
          Last edited by Gamble1; 01-29-2014, 05:30 PM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

            Yeah, the trip had me so busy that I'm just now settling in and looking at advanced stats and some DVR footage, but something I just noticed was how awful the Pacers shooting was in the 4th in Denver when they had a real shot to win the game still. Down 10 starting the quarter and they go 6-19 from 2...and the big thing that stood out to me was how much their blown possessions turned into track meets going the other way.

            Score the ball better, protect it a bit better and the defense will benefit from being able to set up more often. I bet they gave up at least 20 points to Denver just on garbage offense quickly taken the other way. At times Denver tried like hell to ruin the game with missed shots, but the Pacers just threw up junk. Paul, West, Scola and Granger really stood out on that count. In the 4th Paul went 1-5 and West went 0-5, the go-to scorers giving you a 1-10 when you are trying to comeback and win.

            Put 5 more in for a 6-10 and that's 10 points, plus you probably remove 4 points at least that went the other way after bad misses. You win the game right there.


            There is a reason my wife threw the BAMF sign away after that game. That's my boy but ugh...

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Yeah, the trip had me so busy that I'm just now settling in and looking at advanced stats and some DVR footage, but something I just noticed was how awful the Pacers shooting was in the 4th in Denver when they had a real shot to win the game still. Down 10 starting the quarter and they go 6-19 from 2...and the big thing that stood out to me was how much their blown possessions turned into track meets going the other way.

              Score the ball better, protect it a bit better and the defense will benefit from being able to set up more often. I bet they gave up at least 20 points to Denver just on garbage offense quickly taken the other way. At times Denver tried like hell to ruin the game with missed shots, but the Pacers just threw up junk. Paul, West, Scola and Granger really stood out on that count. In the 4th Paul went 1-5 and West went 0-5, the go-to scorers giving you a 1-10 when you are trying to comeback and win.

              Put 5 more in for a 6-10 and that's 10 points, plus you probably remove 4 points at least that went the other way after bad misses. You win the game right there.

              There is a reason my wife threw the BAMF sign away after that game. That's my boy but ugh...
              Okay…you could go to SacTown and Phoenix….but couldn't stop by Oakland to see the Ws play the Pacers?

              I am offended that you'd just bypass OakTown and miss a chance at me buying you a brew-ski
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                There is no such thing as a full superstar team, not even in Miami where they gimp along with Chalmers and whatever PF they can find to put out there.
                No doubt.

                The only question for me is if we can afford to keep everybody, because we're as close to a superstar team as possible.

                Given the choice to keep 4 of our 5 current starters, who would you choose to lose?

                I've never been of the opinion that Hill isn't good enough to keep. But he might be too good for us to afford... if we want to keep Lance.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

                  Superstar team? I'm seeing one superstar (and he's not done becoming one yet), a great defensive center with a dash of offense, and .... ? How are we a superstar team?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    No doubt.

                    The only question for me is if we can afford to keep everybody, because we're as close to a superstar team as possible.

                    Given the choice to keep 4 of our 5 current starters, who would you choose to lose?

                    I've never been of the opinion that Hill isn't good enough to keep. But he might be too good for us to afford... if we want to keep Lance.
                    This. It's not about whether or not he's productive; he is. It's about whether or not his $8M per year salary could be more efficiently spent (i.e. Lance and a MLE-level PG versus Hill and a SG replacement).

                    Comment


                    • Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

                      Ok so we trade George Hill bring in Lowry and then let him walk this offseason, we give Lance his ransom, which we might be able to do anyway, and then what? We're a starter short with David West on the bad side of 30 and you think PG won't remember you trading away half of the G2 zone? I mean this trade makes literally no sense unless your goal is to see if you can destroy the culture Bird has built.


                      Comment


                      • Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        you think PG won't remember you trading away half of the G2 zone?
                        While I agree with your general statement, I really hope PG isn't so attached to the rest of the team as to get upset when shakeups happen so we can, well, afford to keep paying him.
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          While I agree with your general statement, I really hope PG isn't so attached to the rest of the team as to get upset when shakeups happen so we can, well, afford to keep paying him.
                          PG is a human being, and it's clear he and Hill have bonded. They are neighbors and they share a fan section. Let me just put it this way, do you consider Lowry a big enough upgrade over Hill for 30-some games to risk it? I don't.


                          Comment


                          • Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Ok so we trade George Hill bring in Lowry and then let him walk this offseason, we give Lance his ransom, which we might be able to do anyway, and then what? We're a starter short with David West on the bad side of 30 and you think PG won't remember you trading away half of the G2 zone? I mean this trade makes literally no sense unless your goal is to see if you can destroy the culture Bird has built.

                            I'd rather trade Granger and Solo for Gasol and Nick Young. Gasol's expiring takes care of Lance.

                            Comment


                            • Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

                              Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                              I'd rather trade Granger and Solo for Gasol and Nick Young. Gasol's expiring takes care of Lance.
                              1) No it doesn't because you're giving up Granger's expiring. All you're doing is swapping two expirings (with zero 2014 value) and saving $100K (and losing two years) with Young. It does nothing to "take care of Lance".

                              2) It takes away valuable depth at a needed position and gives us more depth where we're just 'okay'.

                              3) It doesn't work anyway; too much money coming back.

                              Comment


                              • Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

                                Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                                I'd rather trade Granger and Solo for Gasol and Nick Young. Gasol's expiring takes care of Lance.
                                Plus, is Gasol going to be okay with coming off the bench? Where does that leave Scola? Seems like just a bad chemistry trade.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X