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

Mike Dunleavy Jr.

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

  • #31
    Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    People in Romania have opinions about racism in Indiana? How wild.
    That's exactly what that guy told me: "How could me, a guy from Bucharest, speak in the name of people in Indiana?" Hehe.
    I had no intention to offend any of you, as I feel on this forum like home. Just wanted to point out opinions of some European "NBA forum experts".

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      I strongly disagree and here's why.

      One on one is just about you and the guy in front of you. If you bite the upfake, get beat off the first step, fall off on a jab step to free a guy for the step-back shot, gamble for steals, etc then you are a bad one on one defender.

      But you can still know this and know the defensive system created specifically to help alleviate these problems by complementing players. So you can overplay a guy so when he beats you he must go toward the spot you want him to go, where he will be picked up by a shot blocker, or where he must make a longer pass or take a tougher shot.

      He can get by you just as quickly as ever, but by playing him with the other 9 players in mind you lesson the impact of your one on one mismatch. A smart but slow player takes advantage of the team situations in order to better defend his man than if it was just he and the opponent alone on the court.

      On top of this is of course the ability close spaces, come with help defense and other team defense actions away from the ball. Blocking out a bigger guy so your own big can get the rebound, cutting off the dump off passing lane so your big can go for the shot block, etc. You don't have to be fast to do those things, just aware that they need to be done on the fly.


      And a great one on one defender can be a terrible team defender. You can pick pockets, move your feet in front of a guy and generally be a real nuiscence to him, but totally fail to read plays away from your man. You don't help on switches well, you don't double when it's called for, you don't force teams to space better by closing gaps, you don't deny passing lanes, and so on.

      The man in front of you will suffer but meanwhile you let the rest of your team drown. It's actually typical of selfish players who have a ton of talent and are just worried about looking good for themselves, despite the idea that all defense is about a team attitude. It's not. Flashy players like to show off HIGHLIGHT defense, big blocks and steals, without making the team game more difficult for the opponent. "Wasn't my guy scoring"

      I agree that smarts can lessen the blow of sub-par one-on-one defense. But no amount of smarts can compensate for terrible defense. If a guy can blow by you without altering his path at all you can't funnel him anywhere, and if you have to sprint to close out a guy a quick pump fake/step/pop move will kill you without any chance to help out.

      This is basically my point (and you touched on it in the second half of your post): You can be a great one-on-one defender while being a terrible team defender, but you can't be a great team defender while being a terrible one-on-one defender. A player's one-on-one defense is completely unbound from his team defense, but his team defense is somewhat bound by his one-on-one defense.
      The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
      RSS Feed
      Subscribe via iTunes

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        Time for a quick lesson on Basketball 101 ( only cuz I don't know )

        Can someone explain to me the difference between being a good "one on one" defender and someone that can play good team defense?

        Is it possible to be a good "team defender" but not a good "one on one" defender?

        Do you think that Dunleavy has the Basketball IQ and smarts to be one?

        To be a good team defender...does it require as much Basketball IQ as it does actual physical skills?
        Larry Bird was the first name that popped to mind when I read this. He obviously was by no means a great defender. He had zero foot speed and next to no lateral movement when he was trying to stop someone from scoring. Jordan's 63 in the Playoff game was hilarious on the few times when Bird tried to stay in front of the guy (after Ainge and DJ had both failed miserably). Dominique used to eat Larry's lunch every time they played too.

        Basically, Larry was just not athletic or quick enough to contain anyone.

        But Legend was a guy who's mental comprehension of the game of basketball was so far beyond 99.9% of other players that he could still be a well above average team defender a lot of the time. Don't get me wrong, he was exploited all the time and cost the Cs a ton of points (perhaps even Playoff games), but I imagine that most of his teamates wanted him out on the floor when things mattered---on both ends. And he did make three All Defense teams (all 2nd Team). For further proof, just ask Isiah.

        Reggie, similarly, became a much better defender in his later years. Whether it was just a better understanding of the game, learning "tricks of the trade" or just knowing what the top players in the League were going to do, he got A LOT better from his miserable beginnings without increasing his lateral movement or ability to keep dribblers in front of him with quickness.

        And Jason Kidd is still a good TEAM defender. He can't stay in front of anyone anymore, but still remains in the Top 10 in steals with smarts, and generally helped his team be one of the better statistical defensive squads in the League last year despite starting Vince Carter and no shot blockers.

        For guys whose good one-on-one defense doesn't translate to helping the TEAM, watch guys like Marcus Banks, Ruben Patterson, Andre Igoudala or Jason Richardson. These are guys that genearlly have no trouble staying in front of their man, but just don't understand what they should be doing aside from that.
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

          Flava, I still disagree.
          If a guy can blow by you without altering his path at all you can't funnel him anywhere, and if you have to sprint to close out a guy a quick pump fake/step/pop move will kill you without any chance to help out.
          A smart player doesn't play himself into situations where he will need to rely on his weaker ability. You overplay a guys strong side so much that he has to "blow by" the other way...right to the help defense, and meanwhile you've dropped down to play the dump pass lane for the steal. You were slower but still won the team defensive battle.

          And you only need to sprint out on a close out if you've misplayed in the first place. A good team defender sees this flow and cheats ahead of rotations and stuff, specifically so he can avoid having to rely on speed or hops. A smart and athletic defender will get ahead and then get the steal, while a weak one on one guy simply ensures that he's never hurting the team by being too far out of the play but is incapable of actually making that same steal. It's still great team defense because it's disrupting the offensive flow.

          Reggie, similarly, became a much better defender in his later years. Whether it was just a better understanding of the game, learning "tricks of the trade" or just knowing what the top players in the League were going to do, he got A LOT better from his miserable beginnings without increasing his lateral movement or ability to keep dribblers in front of him with quickness.

          And Jason Kidd is still a good TEAM defender. He can't stay in front of anyone anymore, but still remains in the Top 10 in steals with smarts, and generally helped his team be one of the better statistical defensive squads in the League last year despite starting Vince Carter and no shot blockers.
          2 great examples. Kidd's range between one on one defense and team defense is as wide as any player in the NBA I think.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

            BTW, yes, Dunleavy is very athletic. He attacks the basket similar to Jack when he's on track and while he's not as crafty on the baseline he does create similar situations, and then he's got a wider array of passes he can make.

            Unfortunately his shooting is even more on par with Jackson so far. Pretty awful.


            Murphy is moving better than I thought he would be at this point. He's very fundamentally sound, just like Dunleavy. Both rely on fundamentals a lot more than Al or Jack did/do.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

              Thanks for all of your explanations....I really appreciate the responses.

              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                I love Mike Dunleavy jr., not a great scorer but plays the same all the time
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                  I like him a lot as well. It's really refreshing to have a SG with a good head on his shoulders (on the court) who isn't worthless when he isn't hitting shots, and doesn't force bad shots.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                    Another note on Dunleavy. For those thinking he was taken too high in the draft.......... look at the quality of the players taken after him.

                    1. Yao Ming
                    2. Jay Williams
                    3. Mike Dunleavy
                    4. Drew Gooden
                    5. Nikoloz Tskitishvili
                    6. Dajuan Wagner
                    7. Nene Hilario
                    8. Chris Wilcox
                    9. Amare Stoudemire
                    10. Caron Butler
                    11. Jared Jeffries
                    12. Melvin Ely
                    13. Marcus Haislip
                    14. Fred Jones
                    15. Bostjan Nachbar
                    16. Jiri Welsch
                    17. Juan Dixon
                    18. Curtis Borchardt
                    19. Ryan Humphrey
                    20. Kareem Rush
                    21. Qyntel Woods
                    22. Casey Jacobsen
                    23. Tayshaun Prince
                    24. Nenad Krstic
                    25. Frank Williams
                    26. John Salmons
                    27. Chris Jefferies
                    28. Dan Dickau

                    Nearly half that draft class is out of the league now. I could see maybe 3 or 4 guys that should have been taken ahead of him but he still should have been a mid lottery pick.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                      I agree.....Dunleavy probably ranks as a early teens draft pick when compared to the rest of the list.

                      What really stands out in your list is that of the 28......there are two 1st tier players ( Yao and Amare )....arguably 4 or 5 2nd tier players ( solid starters ) ....and maybe another 4 or 5 3rd tier players ( decent starters / solid roleplayers / backup players ).
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        I agree.....Dunleavy probably ranks as a early teens draft pick when compared to the rest of the list.
                        What?????

                        I see 4 players I'd pick for sure in Yao, Stoudemire, Prince and Butler... and maybe Gooden, Krstic and Nene IF you needed a big guy... Those are the only guys I'd see you'd even possibly think taking over him... so I think he could have been taken from 3-7th out of those players... so how on earth do you get early teens??? who else would you pick before him???
                        "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                          Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                          What?????

                          I see 4 players I'd pick for sure in Yao, Stoudemire, Prince and Butler... and maybe Gooden, Krstic and Nene IF you needed a big guy... Those are the only guys I'd see you'd even possibly think taking over him... so I think he could have been taken from 3-7th out of those players... so how on earth do you get early teens??? who else would you pick before him???
                          I'm not him but...

                          Jared Jeffries, Juan Dixon, Jay Will (injusy aside obviously) and Chris Wilcox.
                          STARBURY

                          08 and Beyond

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                            Juan Dixon and Chris Jeffries ... are you kidding?

                            There's no way I would take those two over MDJ.

                            Regards,

                            Mourning
                            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                              Juan Dixon has no business on that list. I'd say Jeffries is a wash, and Wilcox seems like he'll be a better player someday, but it's been 5 years, and I'm still waiting

                              The guys I'd take over Dun right now are: Yao, Amare, Drew Gooden, Nene if not for his contract, Butler, Prince, and Krstic. That puts him as 8th on my list, you could go as low as 9th if you include Wilcox. That's not bad being drafted 3rd and valued 9th 5 years later. Of course, a lot of bad things happened for that to take place, including a career-ending motorcycle accident and a case of Colonitis. Had those two things not happened, I think they'd both be higher than Dun.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                                I love watching DunDun play (so far). His hustle and energy reminds me of a kid named Don Buse who played for the Pacers years ago. DunDun will NEVER be the defensive player Buse was...but he seems to be just as heady and high energy as BooBoo.
                                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X