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

Why do NBA teams need a star?

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

  • Why do NBA teams need a star?

    I'll start by taking the time to write something about myself since a lot of the questions I'm going to ask in this thread come from my personal experience.

    I was born in Greece circa 1990. I played basketball for 10 years (6 to 16) in my home team's academy (GS Peristeri, one of Alphonso Ford's teams). Despite injuring my knee at 18 and basically erasing my chances of playing professional basketball (I was never tall enough for my position either) I never stopped watching basketball. So, watching a lot of European basketball one thing became a clear to me as I was growing up. That a coach who can rally his team behind him and have them play unselfishly as a unit while bringing high defensive intensity can win over a star-studded team. I've watched this happen a lot of times both in the Euroleague and in the Eurobasket.

    This year I started watching the NBA regularly. And I keep hearing the following phrase:

    "NBA teams need the star quality"

    Why is that?

    Is it because a star player will attract more fans and thus provide extra cash for the franchise?

    Is it because a star player will attract better FAs and thus make the franchise better?

    Is it because a star player will get more star calls come playoff time?

    Is it because a star player will force the opposing team's defense collapse to him thus giving his teammates higher percentage looks?

    So, answer these two questions fellow PDers:

    1) Why does an NBA team need a star on their roster?

    2) What do teams like the Pacers, the Sixers and the Nuggets miss out by not having a star?
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

  • #2
    Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

    NBA playoff basketball is insanely intense. You learn every single detail about the team you're playing against. You become capable of taking away a lot of things from that team, but a star player changes that, they're able to beat your changes and adjustments. In the playoffs games are close and the last few possessions decide most games. That's when a star becomes most important. That guy will get the last bucket, or draw 3 defenders to get a lesser player a wide open shot.

    If this is your first year watching NBA basketball, you'll see what I mean in a couple of months.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

      Is it because a star player will attract more fans and thus provide extra cash for the franchise?

      Yes

      Is it because a star player will attract better FAs and thus make the franchise better?

      Yes
      Is it because a star player will get more star calls come playoff time?

      Is it because a star player will force the opposing team's defense collapse to him thus giving his teammates higher percentage looks?

      Sometimes

      So, answer these two questions fellow PDers:

      1) Why does an NBA team need a star on their roster?

      2) What do teams like the Pacers, the Sixers and the Nuggets miss out by not having a star?

      Detroit really is the only NBA team in recent years that was able to get a championship without the ELITE star player. An Elite player also is able to get that score in crunch time. NBA ball really comes down many times to an ISO play in the final seconds. The old just get it in my hands and get out of the way is true.
      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

        Is it because a star player will get more star calls come playoff time?


        Until they hold everyone to the same standards this is why. Granted there are other reasons, but I have yet to see a star player dominate like some do without help from the refs (even including Reggie).

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

          How many teams have won an NBA title without a star? Not many...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

            The reason the stars in the NBA are more important than the stars in the Euroleague is simply because the NBA stars are much better players. They are good enough to beat whatever defensive scheme is designed to take them away.
            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

            -Lance Stephenson

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

              The true star players are just incredible to watch night in and night out. There's a reason (beyond the hype from the NBA/ESPN/TNT) that they draw in fans in every city that show up in to play. They're just phenomenal basketball players and usually they also have some fun flashy qualities to their play on top of it all. That makes for exciting viewing if you care remotely about basketball.

              I think if the Pacers had been blessed with some of these players being in Indy in their prime, our fan base would better understand and appreciate this fact. Our best players tend to be a notch below superstars / 'true stars' (like the LeBrons, Dwights, Kobes, Chris Pauls).

              We only get it in bits and pieces. Reggie could make superstar shots in big games. Jamaal Tinsley was the best dribbler I've ever seen and was also a great passer. JO at one time could make some monster dunks (particularly his first year here).

              But otherwise it's been more "solid play" less "spectacular plays". Danny Granger is a very good player, but not really flashy or (usually) explosive. When he is most "star-like" is when he's REALLY hot offensively, makes a terrific block (particularly when someone is driving on him), or hits a clutch bucket (which he occasionally does).

              Roy Hibbert is about as unflashy as an all-star player can be.

              Of our current group, the guys I see with the most "flash" are Paul George and Lance Stephenson. Paul can do a little bit of everything, and occasionally surprises you with a nice pass, and of course in open court he has some great dunks (though I always am more impressed with power dunkers than open court dunkers; the thing I always miss about Fred Jones), and he can get alley-oops, which are also fun.

              But both he and Lance show flashes of potential in their one-on-one shot-creation moves. If either of them gets consistently good at hitting their self-created shots off of nice ballhandling, those are some crowd-getting moves right there.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

                Originally posted by RWB View Post
                An Elite player also is able to get that score in crunch time. NBA ball really comes down many times to an ISO play in the final seconds. The old just get it in my hands and get out of the way is true[/B].
                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                They are good enough to beat whatever defensive scheme is designed to take them away.
                I'd attribute both of these points in the fact that the NBA does not use Zone defense as much as it is used in European ball.

                Anyway, I didn't ask the question in order to draw a comparison between American and European basketball. I fully understand that the NBA is a different league and that it takes different things in order to win here. That's why I asked this question in the first place

                So, yeah I understand what most of you are saying. I still believe that a well-designed play is going to beat an ISO in crunch time. But if your coach is not a great X and O guy then you are going to need a guy that uses his creativity to take over so I do understand the other side as well.

                EDIT:


                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                But otherwise it's been more "solid play" less "spectacular plays". Danny Granger is a very good player, but not really flashy or (usually) explosive. When he is most "star-like" is when he's REALLY hot offensively, makes a terrific block (particularly when someone is driving on him), or hits a clutch bucket (which he occasionally does).

                Roy Hibbert is about as unflashy as an all-star player can be.
                By the way, that's one of the reasons I love and support the Pacers
                Last edited by Nuntius; 02-24-2012, 01:03 PM.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

                  The NBA needs star players because it was "rescued" by casual fans following stars (Bird, Magic, Jordan, etc.) and therefore decided that stars were the only way to appeal to anyone. No league will ever have enough TRUE stars to go around, meaning someone gets the PR (and attendance) shaft (or gets somewhat embarrassed by having a borderline player hyped as a star who really isn't one).

                  I have said often that the NBA could be improved by using stars as leverage to get fans interested in their local team and the game as a whole, rather than hyping 10 guys a year and letting everything else go.

                  My feeling? If star players making great isolation moves to the basket is what you're in the game for, forget all this "team" garbage and form the National H-O-R-S-E Association. All the highlights, none of the pesky rules.

                  Does a team HAVE to have a star in order to win? One star doesn't cut it, now the saying is that you have to have 2 or maybe even 3. Essentially what that means is that you have to have some of the top players PLAYING TOGETHER AS A TEAM - which is what the d**n Heat are managing to do this year. I'd say the rules have begun skewing toward giving the star offensive players an advantage for quite some time, so there's a vicious cycle.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Re: Why do NBA teams need a star?

                    I think this is a good question. I firmly believe the answer is you don't need a star to win. But you do need better players than the other team.

                    To elaborate: if you have a star player and the other team doesn't, obviously your top player is better than their top player, which puts you ahead of them from a skill standpoint, provided the rest of your players are roughly evenly matched. I know this is almost a tautology, but I think it's why we see teams with star players usually being the ones that win championships--including the star, their team IS simply better.

                    So there's nothing magical or overly complicated about having a star player...they're just really good, and they contribute significantly to making the TEAM overall better than its opposition. I firmly believe this can be overcome by building an entire team of non-stars that is stronger from top to bottom, but that's easier said than done.

                    P.S. Sorry I don't post here often, just don't see the games as often as I'd like to make informed comments....

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X