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

What are we wanting from Rush.

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

  • #46
    Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

    I want him to be more aggressive taking more outside shots and going hard to the basket. I want him to be as aggressive on offense as he is on defense.

    I do not want to be making excuses for him at this time next year and I want him to find his role in the offense.

    I want him to pick up the slack when the team is behind and no one else seems to be able to take charge. In other words some times he has to be the go-to guy and not fade into the background.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

      Originally posted by IndyPacer View Post
      BTW, why is it OK for most players in this league to play shoddy defense as long as they score, but when they are a pro on defense but have limited offense they should be traded? I am so sick of seeing defense marginalized.
      This is a great question, but I think there are a few legitimate arguments why this is (and perhaps should be) the case.

      First, basketball is a game that heavily favors the offense. How many other games have one team scoring on nearly 50% of their possessions? The other team is going to score in bunches, and you have to keep up. I think defense is huge, but this isn't a sport where you can lock down on D and get a few points off turnovers and win the game. This also means that the noticeable marginal returns on playing hard defense are pretty low. In this league if you are a defensive specialist that can hold a star to less that 40% shooting you are pretty much a stud. That doesn't translate into a huge difference on the scoreboard, especially if the other team had viable second options.

      Second, the same dudes play offense and defense. There are no "defensive positions" like in a lot of field sports or complete lineup substitutions. That means there is no division of labor and that stamina is a zero sum game.

      If other games are 50% O and 50% D, AND have those guys split up, you can easily have guys that are 90%+ D and 10% O. In basketball, it is more like 35% D and 65% O and the same guys run both ways. Having one dimensional players is going to hurt bad after one or two.

      Third, defense is "easy." At least that is the common perception. You have to be a decent athlete with enough length and a lot of heart to be a great defensive player. We've seen a number of offensive stars knuckle up and become pretty damn good defensive players as well. Not so much in the other direction.

      Hell, look at Chuck's comments about DJones. DJones is an athletic freak by human standards. That, plus his grit makes a good defender. But he doesn't have whatever nebulous talent that requires good offense.

      Think about the inverse. Does anyone think that Monta Ellis or Amare or any other athletic and talented offensive star can't be a pretty good defender in this league? I think they can, and maybe its a myth (or Jordan's fault) but it certainly feels that way.

      Don't take this as an endorsement that basketball does not need defense, or that Rush's defense isn't valuable: that isn't my point at all. Its just not nearly valuable enough to ignore the offense of Rush where (1) we already have another defensive SG, (2) we have other talented wings that need some burn, and (3) he has gotten ample opportunity to develop his game, and somehow seems to take a step back every time he takes a step forward.

      Anyway, I know there are some compelling arguments the other way, so lets hear them!
      Last edited by judicata; 08-20-2010, 11:41 PM. Reason: formatting

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

        Think I'd like to see him come off the bench as a 6th man til he consistently has big nights.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

          Originally posted by judicata View Post
          This is a great question, but I think there are a few legitimate arguments why this is (and perhaps should be) the case.

          First, basketball is a game that heavily favors the offense. How many other games have one team scoring on nearly 50% of their possessions? The other team is going to score in bunches, and you have to keep up. I think defense is huge, but this isn't a sport where you can lock down on D and get a few points off turnovers and win the game. This also means that the noticeable marginal returns on playing hard defense are pretty low. In this league if you are a defensive specialist that can hold a star to less that 40% shooting you are pretty much a stud. That doesn't translate into a huge difference on the scoreboard, especially if the other team had viable second options.

          Second, the same dudes play offense and defense. There are no "defensive positions" like in a lot of field sports or complete lineup substitutions. That means there is no division of labor and that stamina is a zero sum game.

          If other games are 50% O and 50% D, AND have those guys split up, you can easily have guys that are 90%+ D and 10% O. In basketball, it is more like 35% D and 65% O and the same guys run both ways. Having one dimensional players is going to hurt bad after one or two.

          Third, defense is "easy." At least that is the common perception. You have to be a decent athlete with enough length and a lot of heart to be a great defensive player. We've seen a number of offensive stars knuckle up and become pretty damn good defensive players as well. Not so much in the other direction.

          Hell, look at Chuck's comments about DJones. DJones is an athletic freak by human standards. That, plus his grit makes a good defender. But he doesn't have whatever nebulous talent that requires good offense.

          Think about the inverse. Does anyone think that Monta Ellis or Amare or any other athletic and talented offensive star can't be a pretty good defender in this league? I think they can, and maybe its a myth (or Jordan's fault) but it certainly feels that way.

          Don't take this as an endorsement that basketball does not need defense, or that Rush's defense isn't valuable: that isn't my point at all. Its just not nearly valuable enough to ignore the offense of Rush where (1) we already have another defensive SG, (2) we have other talented wings that need some burn, and (3) he has gotten ample opportunity to develop his game, and somehow seems to take a step back every time he takes a step forward.

          Anyway, I know there are some compelling arguments the other way, so lets hear them!
          To be just another good defender just takes effort, but to be an extremely good defender takes more than physical skills. The great defenders know what the other player is going to do before the other player does it, that isn't something that can be taught. At the same time there is a similar difference between the great shooters and scorers from your everyday good shooter and scorer.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

            Originally posted by KennerLeaguer View Post
            Can we wait for a season with Collison as a starter before claiming that? My goodness some of you already have the kid in the Hall of Fame. Slow down.
            it was a response to someone who said brandon was best player on team i said danny grannger then he said danny didnt play good enoght D i was just proving a point that rush wasnt the best

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
              it was a response to someone who said brandon was best player on team i said danny grannger then he said danny didnt play good enoght D i was just proving a point that rush wasnt the best
              Ok, whatever was going on in your head wasn't the same as what was written down.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

                Someone on the team will get more rebounds this upcoming season. From what I've seen these past two years, I wouldn't be surprised if Brandon averaged six a game. What I want from him is more good shot attempts, that's all. I think and hope Collison will provide these.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

                  There are a lot of fair comments in this thread. The only thing I see missing is recognition that Brandon is a workhorse. With 2491 minutes last year, he played the most minutes of any Pacer and was 25th among NBA guards for total minutes. That part of his game deserves respect.

                  I hope he stays healthy while improving on the aspects already mentioned.
                  And I won't be here to see the day
                  It all dries up and blows away
                  I'd hang around just to see
                  But they never had much use for me
                  In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

                    Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                    darren collison is the best "ALL AROUND" player best defense offensve combo if thats what your talking about and best passer
                    I'd like to see Collison play a lot more to verify this. However, Collison, no matter what he does, is always going to have defensive limitations due to his size.

                    The fantastic thing about Rush is that he has virtually no physical limitations when guarding other SG's.

                    Originally posted by judicata View Post
                    Third, defense is "easy." At least that is the common perception. You have to be a decent athlete with enough length and a lot of heart to be a great defensive player. We've seen a number of offensive stars knuckle up and become pretty damn good defensive players as well. Not so much in the other direction.

                    Think about the inverse. Does anyone think that Monta Ellis or Amare or any other athletic and talented offensive star can't be a pretty good defender in this league? I think they can, and maybe its a myth (or Jordan's fault) but it certainly feels that way.
                    Watch Ray Allen in the playoffs for complete verification of what you're saying here.

                    Originally posted by judicata View Post
                    Don't take this as an endorsement that basketball does not need defense, or that Rush's defense isn't valuable: that isn't my point at all. Its just not nearly valuable enough to ignore the offense of Rush where (1) we already have another defensive SG, (2) we have other talented wings that need some burn, and (3) he has gotten ample opportunity to develop his game, and somehow seems to take a step back every time he takes a step forward.

                    Anyway, I know there are some compelling arguments the other way, so lets hear them!
                    1. Rush's offense and defense are better than D. Jones. The only offensive weapon that Jones has is aggression. He's often a ball-stopper and a black hole.

                    2. Who? A healthy Dunleavy deserves minutes over Rush, but we haven't see that in 2.5 years. Paul George is a 20 year old who didn't score a ton at Fresno State. Lance Stephenson may or may not be on the team next season. Rush has been, by far, the 2nd best wing player on the team over the last 2 seasons.

                    3. I can't really argue with this other than to say that Rush seems content being something other than what most Pacers fans really want him to be (and, to a certain extent, what the Pacers need him to be). Everybody wants him to be Pippen-SG or Reggie-2, but he's more content to be Bruce Bowen or Eric Snow-SG.

                    I believe that Rush will take a step forward this year as long as Ford is not on the court much. He plays terribly with Ford, for whatever reason. The player pair stats aren't available for last season, but in '08-'09 the Rush-Ford combo was one of the worst on the team.

                    What I really want from Rush is for him to develop a mean streak. I'm fine with him playing excellent defense, shooting 40% from the arc, and averaging 12 ppg. I don't care about his stats at all. I would like him to trip Kobe in the playoffs, stick his foot under guys as they take jumpers, and "accidentally" punch guys in the nuts while fighting through picks. Great defensive players aren't just guys who are physically and mentally capable, they are also guys who are either intimidating (Ron Artest) or extremely annoying (Bruce Bowen).

                    Sadly, what I want from Rush might be just as unrealistic as what everybody else wants.

                    Also, I'll gladly sign on for more and better free throw shooting.
                    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                    - Salman Rushdie

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

                      CONSISTANCY & AGRESSIVENESS.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

                        Originally posted by focused444 View Post
                        As my former squad leader told me in Iraq "If you're going to make a mistake do it at full speed without hesitation."

                        I personally think Brandon's biggest problem is his apprehensiveness. Everyone makes mistakes. I want to see him be more decisive, come out of his shell, and be confident in his actions on the offensive end. When I see him make mistakes due to hesitation it irks me way more than a full speed mistake.

                        I may be reading to much into this as he is still young. Chicago J wrote, in another thread I can't recall, they said the same of a young Reggie being shy once upon a time.
                        I think a real good pg (crossed fingers) gets him the ball in the right position and often on the move, where he doesn't have to think, he just uses those wonderfully fast twitch muscles of his and gets it up. Get it to him on the run, in the paint and he'll get to the line a lot more.
                        he's NOT a throw it to him, create his own shot guy.
                        Not yet anyway.
                        He HAS the outside shot to make them play him tight AND the quicks to get around them when they do.
                        He's just got to do it more consistantly.
                        He really WAS doing that a lot more at the end of the season when the team was playing very well.
                        He seems to thrive when the whole team is playing well.


                        PS - Brandon shot better 3% last year than Reggies career avg.
                        Last edited by MLB007; 08-21-2010, 09:45 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

                          Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                          The fantastic thing about Rush is that he has virtually no physical limitations when guarding other SG's.
                          ...and he's big enough to hold his own with a lot of 3's.



                          1. Rush's offense and defense are better than D. Jones. The only offensive weapon that Jones has is aggression. He's often a ball-stopper and a black hole.
                          Agreed. Rush is just an all around better player than Dahntay. Dahntay is a nice, tenacious 15 minute garbage guy, but he's a poor offensive player, and only an average or slightly better defender.

                          2. Who? A healthy Dunleavy deserves minutes over Rush, but we haven't see that in 2.5 years. Paul George is a 20 year old who didn't score a ton at Fresno State. Lance Stephenson may or may not be on the team next season. Rush has been, by far, the 2nd best wing player on the team over the last 2 seasons.
                          I think Rush has already passed Dunleavy - at least what I expect out of Dunleavy going forward - and George will have to make a huge leap to get there. It seems to me that Rush has pretty much locked up the starting 2 (small wing) slot, and he's not going to be challenged (assuming he avoids the aforementioned pooping.)

                          However, I'm not sure that Rush has reached the level that Daniels or even Jack played on a consistent basis yet. He should surpass both, and he should have done it by now.

                          3. I can't really argue with this other than to say that Rush seems content being something other than what most Pacers fans really want him to be (and, to a certain extent, what the Pacers need him to be). Everybody wants him to be Pippen-SG or Reggie-2, but he's more content to be Bruce Bowen or Eric Snow-SG.
                          I think this oversimplifies the argument a bit, much like the guys earlier who were explaining dissatisfaction with Rush away by saying defense was undervalued and that fans were shallow.

                          I never expected Reggie or Pippen, and I don't expect Bowen or Snow. He simply will never be good enough for the first two, and he doesn't have the mental make up for the last two.

                          My problem with Rush is that he sometimes seems to be content with having no responsibility, whatsoever. I can never quite put my finger on it, but, with rare exception, I'm always left thinking that Brandon was less than he should have been in any game. This is certainly more pronounced on offense, but it's true on defense, as well. He is a natural defender, but not a lock down guy, and he still is iffy in his team rotations.

                          Overall, I would certainly keep Rush over guys like Murphy, Dunleavy, Dahntay, and some others, because the player he is is better than the players they are. However, I tend to both respect and trust Rush less than guys like that, because I believe those guys are as good as they can make themselves, while I think Rush is considerably less than he can be.

                          I believe that Rush will take a step forward this year as long as Ford is not on the court much. He plays terribly with Ford, for whatever reason. The player pair stats aren't available for last season, but in '08-'09 the Rush-Ford combo was one of the worst on the team.
                          Side note: I hate 82games.com. It was fascinating at first, but they're too tight with their data, and it's too processed. Hoopdata, Basketball Value, and Basketball-Reference all are much more user friendly, and have plenty of great information.

                          It's interesting you comment on this, because I just got done with a Play-by-play mapping. Here's a taste as it relates to Rush:

                          With Watson @ Point: 1250 minutes, eFG .560, TS% .576, Per 36 minute stats: 12.8 pp36, 4.9 rp36, 1.5 ap36

                          With Price @ Point: 480 minutes, eFG .496, TS% .502, Per 36 minute stats: 10.0 pp36, 5.0 rp36, 2.2 ap36

                          With Ford @ Point: 739 minutes, eFG .435, TS% .441, Per 36 minute stats: 9.3 pp36, 5.2 rp36, 1.5 ap36

                          (He played about 21 minutes with Diener or somebody else at the point.)

                          What I really want from Rush is for him to develop a mean streak. I'm fine with him playing excellent defense, shooting 40% from the arc, and averaging 12 ppg. I don't care about his stats at all. I would like him to trip Kobe in the playoffs, stick his foot under guys as they take jumpers, and "accidentally" punch guys in the nuts while fighting through picks. Great defensive players aren't just guys who are physically and mentally capable, they are also guys who are either intimidating (Ron Artest) or extremely annoying (Bruce Bowen).

                          Sadly, what I want from Rush might be just as unrealistic as what everybody else wants.
                          Sadly, I don't see this coming, either. I had said in another thread that as he became less important, he became more useful. I think he'll always underachieve, and therefore, he'll always be cheap, so I'm can live with the underachieving because it's still OK basketball.

                          Also, I'll gladly sign on for more and better free throw shooting.
                          Yeah, his FT numbers are ****ing embarrassing.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

                            I'd be ecstatic with one addition to his game: drawing more fouls.

                            He drives me nuts just like McKey did. He doesn't realize how good he is and he likely never will.

                            Still, he's a consistently great defender, very close to lock down. He's also a very good rebounder at his position. He fills a greater need than almost any player on our team.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

                              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                              there is an article i forget where at that said he was top 5 defender and he has one of the greatest efficy ratings
                              http://ilevy.wordpress.com/2010/07/0...sh-an-apology/

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: What are we wanting from Rush.

                                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                                My problem with Rush is that he sometimes seems to be content with having no responsibility, whatsoever. I can never quite put my finger on it, but, with rare exception, I'm always left thinking that Brandon was less than he should have been in any game. This is certainly more pronounced on offense, but it's true on defense, as well. He is a natural defender, but not a lock down guy, and he still is iffy in his team rotations..
                                I think you are describing a classic underachiever.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X