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

Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

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

  • Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

    this article is very complimentary of Danny but I'm surprised he's ranked so low. I would rank him in the early 30s at the very least.

    http://nba.fanhouse.com/2008/08/28/n...granger-no-44/
    Originally posted by AOL Sports
    NBA Top 50: Danny Granger (No. 44)

    Tom ZillerPosted Aug 28th 2008 10:30AM by Tom Ziller (author feed)
    Filed under: Pacers


    FanHouse's Tom Ziller argues his ranking of the top 50 players in the NBA.

    Even on a team lacking tangible bright spots, Danny Granger has gotten a bit lost in translation from the outside perspective. You rarely hear his name mentioned with the Iguodalas and Smiths and Dengs ... but he's certainly in the same class. He's due a contract extension this summer, but there have been only minor rumblings, and it could very well be that the Pacers will let him get to restricted free agency next summer.

    That's a mad gambit, because Granger's a tremendous player who is only getting better.

    He almost looks like Carmelo Anthony's Other, his defensive-minded half. Where 'Melo refuses to pause or stop on offense, Granger does the same defensively, forcing his will upon his attacker rather than the other way around. People don't drive on Granger: he drives them back or into the ground. He gets steals, he gets blocks, he rebounds. He stands his man up. And yes, Indiana has been a mediocre defensive team. But that has a lot more to do with Jamaal Tinsley and Troy Murphy than Granger.

    The great thing: his offense has come around superbly, too. He proved this year that the three-point stroke he showed in 2006-07 was no fluke by hitting for better than 40%. Jim O'Brien's bang-bang system seemed to agree with him, despite the lack of a decent point guard. Granger borrow some aggression for his offensive game, kept his efficiency strong, and ended up a shade under 20 points per night.

    Basically, Granger has positioned himself as a New Wave Shawn Marion, a glue stick for a dynamic roster. As we all know, Marion (already good) became a stunner when Phoenix replaced Stephon Marbury with Steve Nash. How much will T.J. Ford help Granger? I'm betting a little big here, but I truly believe Granger's box scores can get even wilder ... all while offering the best man defense Indiana can offer. For the Pacers to get back on the upswing, Granger is the clear engine, the player who will have the most to say about where Indy ends up in the standings.

  • #2
    Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

    Good find on the article. My only question is how is Tinsley a defensive liability when he is never on the court?
    JOB is a silly man

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

      I wouldn't have been surprised if he wasn't ranked at all with the lack of media coverage the Pacers are getting these days. It would have been nice to see him somewhere in the thrities, because if you asked me to name 43 players better than Granger, I wouldn't be able to name them all (Or maybe I'm just being a homer).
      Never half-a** two things. Whole-a** one thing.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

        If you consider there are 30 NBA teams, and certainly some of those 30 possess 2+ players better than Danny, 44 sounds pretty good.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          If you consider there are 30 NBA teams, and certainly some of those 30 possess 2+ players better than Danny, 44 sounds pretty good.
          I figured I'd say this, since it is rare that it happens:

          I totally and completely agree with Hicks.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

            Originally posted by jhondog28 View Post
            Good find on the article. My only question is how is Tinsley a defensive liability when he is never on the court?
            Because he's a better defender in a suit than he is in a jersey.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

              Wasn't sure whether to start a new thread or put this in here:
              He also ranked T.J. at 45


              FanHouse's Tom Ziller argues his ranking of the top 50 players in the NBA.

              The level of bidding T.J. Ford sparked this summer seems a bit of a sham. Obviously, concerns about his spine should be a factor in considering his services; proper prudence on matters of possibly dire health is key. Thirty missed games two years after a real serious neck injury -- that's unnerving enough for me, too. But Ford has come back from each injury sparkling, and the concept of "injury histories" are mostly overblown. (See: Marcus Camby, Antonio McDyess, Steve Nash.)

              This is to say that when Ford is on the court (often), he is simply spectacular. For a small (demerit) guard who can't shoot (demerit) or defend (demerit), you'd be hard pressed to find a more able lead for your backcourt. Despite playing in an offense ill-suited to his unique skills, Ford tallied a PER above 20 last season ... no small feat. Toronto under Sam Mitchell runs a slow offense, predicated on a surprising amount of isolation, draw-and-kick and high pick-and-roll play. Despite the presence of Bryan Colangelo and his Nash-style point (Ford), this was no Phoenix North.

              So, if under Mitchell Ford could be an excellent offensive player, how will things go in Indiana? Well, Jim O'Brien likes to play fast -- transition offense, defensive gambling, early threes encouraged. Ford loves to gamble and is at his best in the open court (so long as Al Horford's not around). By all indications, Ford is as good a fit for Indiana's up-tempo affair as anyone. I can imagine a team that guns and slips to the rim every time down, with T.J. running the show like a Broadway choreographer.

              The one question, of course: will Ford himself hoist up treys? Setting up Mike Dunleavy and Danny Granger for a transition jack -- that's perfect. Pulling up yourself? No, that won't work. If Ford weren't so damn quick, he'd never get by anyone because every defender in the league would slack off him and let him miss open jumpers all day. But Ford's speed allows him to cross up and get to the rim no matter how soft you guard him. His percentage on close shots was better than ever last year. As he continues to excel at finishing the play himself, that iffy jumper becomes even less necessary.

              But really, the key will be finding those sidekicks. Ford will never be an elite scorer, but Granger can. Funleavy can put in 40 any given night. Brandon Rush, if he develops an NBA three, will be a welcome receiver of Ford's outlets. Every guard on the 2007-08 Pacers shot at least one more three per 36 minutes than Ford did in Toronto. If all goes according to code, every guard on the 2008-09 Pacers will still shoot at least one more three per 36 minutes than Ford.

              If he and O'Brien accept reality, Ford could be an 11-assist per game player. Mix in bonus fast break opportunities on rewarded gambles and maybe some natural, developmental improvement in his jumper for the times he must take a three, and you're looking at an All-Star. Things can go wrong, as they can with every player on this list. Betting on an injury is a fool's game, though. Embrace T.J.'s glorious potential, and don't blink.
              Tags: NBATop50, TJFord
              Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

                Ziller knows his stuff.
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

                  TJ ahead of Redd?
                  I don't think Ford will be an All-star or get 11 assists. I hope he doesn't get the minutes to achieve that. Not that I am knocking Ford. With his past, and with good backups, Ford doesn't need to play 32+ minutes. At least earlier in the season he doesn't.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

                    I know everyone makes a big deal about being an all-satr, but in reality, the NBA All Star Selection is all about popularity, it does not mean you are better than those that didn't get chosen In my opinion.

                    Sorry Intri, I wanted to counter that one point.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

                      Originally posted by USF View Post
                      Funleavy can put in 40 any given night.
                      first of all, he has yet to crack 36.

                      secondly, love the new nickname.
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

                        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                        Ziller knows his stuff.
                        Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Most guys will mention Troy Murphy's above-average defense or something else that will reduce their credibility (on the Pacers, at least), but this dude seems to know what's up.

                        Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                        first of all, he has yet to crack 36.

                        secondly, love the new nickname.
                        I think it's fair to say that, though, because he did hit 36, what, five times in the last three months? Perhaps you would have been satisfied with "any given Knicks game"?


                        Great finds/reads.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

                          Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                          first of all, he has yet to crack 36.

                          secondly, love the new nickname.
                          I thought the same thing about both of those quotes.
                          Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

                            Originally posted by intridcold View Post
                            TJ ahead of Redd?
                            I don't think Ford will be an All-star or get 11 assists. I hope he doesn't get the minutes to achieve that. Not that I am knocking Ford. With his past, and with good backups, Ford doesn't need to play 32+ minutes. At least earlier in the season he doesn't.
                            I totally agree about the # of minutes he gets. Looking at his last 3 seasons....he hasn't averaged anything more then 30 mpg. In the past...most notably last season...due to injuries and lack of depth....I can understand that we were forced to give more minutes to players that would probably have benefitted from limited minutes....but with the addition of Jack, I really hope that we can limit TJ to 28-30mpg. As far as I am concerned.....the less minutes he ( much less anyone else ) plays....the less chance that the player will get injured and the less burnt out he will be by the end of the season. By no means am I suggesting that we cut TJs minutes down to the point where we aren't fully utilizing his skills......I just think that we should give players the # of minutes that does not exceed what they are capable of playing.

                            Not to get OT.....but I really hope that we can employ a 9-man rotation that should limit Granger/Dunleavy to about 37 mpg, TJ/Murphy to about 30 mpg, Rasho/Foster/Jack to about 25 mpg with the remaining minutes split up between the remaining GF or PF/C in the lineup.

                            I haven't watched games....but does JO'B tend to stick with players that are doing well on the court?

                            or

                            Does he pull players regardless of how they are doing if they have reached a limit of minutes played in a game?

                            My suggested 9-man rotation could be considered Egg-timer clock management.....but the assumption is made that IF a player has the "hot hand" that JO'B will stick with him regardless of minutes played. But I get the sense that JO'B would ( more often then not ) stick with the "hot hand".
                            Last edited by CableKC; 08-28-2008, 01:19 PM.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Danny Granger ranked 44th out in the Top 50 (AOL Sports)

                              Originally posted by Gyron View Post
                              I know everyone makes a big deal about being an all-satr, but in reality, the NBA All Star Selection is all about popularity, it does not mean you are better than those that didn't get chosen In my opinion.

                              Sorry Intri, I wanted to counter that one point.

                              I don't want to argue this again about the All-Star game and fairness, etc.

                              But the starting 5 is picked by the fans. No way does Ford get a guard position over (unless injured):

                              Joe Johnson
                              Billups
                              Rip
                              Arenas
                              Butler
                              Wade
                              Carter


                              Those players have the knowability and stats to move past TJ. Even if we are like 3rd in the East I don't see Ford getting a spot. I hope that I am wrong though.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X