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

{RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

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

  • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

    There are more aspects than 3 point shooting that can make someone effective off ball though.
    I admit Ellis isn't exactly good at running around screens and stuff like that, and can make some headscratching decisions, but in general he is smart player with good vision.
    I believe if we can get some bigs with 3 point range, it opens up a lot of possibilities for players like Monta and Stuckey: the lanes open up for their driving inside and the overall treat from downtown gets to respectable heights even with both Stuckey and Ellis on the court.

    Brad Stevens isn't only a great coach but players like Olynyk and Jerebko, even Sullinger with his long 2s contribute to making them a top 10 offense even when they have ballhandling guards with worse 3 point shooting than ours: Turner (.159), Smart (.288), they don't even have a ballhandling guard within the proximity of George Hill.

    The closest one is Bradley: (.373) Compared with Hill's (.433) that's a huge difference: .060
    So to say that you have to have a very good 3 point shot as a guard to play off ball isn't necesarily true nowadays IMO with the emergence of bigs with 3 point range.

    No doubt we will try to develop Turner into a decent one and no doubt it is the main reason why Bird has invested so much time and some money in a not so skilled big as Shayne.

    Comment


    • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

      Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post
      There are more aspects than 3 point shooting that can make someone effective off ball though.
      Agreed. Cutting to the basket, screening and generally moving off the ball can make you effective off the ball even if you aren't a terrific shooter. But shooting does help amplify all of that.

      Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post
      I admit Ellis isn't exactly good at running around screens and stuff like that, and can make some headscratching decisions, but in general he is smart player with good vision.
      He is definitely a smart player with good vision but the best way he can utilize that vision is for him to handle the ball.

      Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post
      I believe if we can get some bigs with 3 point range, it opens up a lot of possibilities for players like Monta and Stuckey: the lanes open up for their driving inside and the overall treat from downtown gets to respectable heights even with both Stuckey and Ellis on the court.
      Yes, bigs with 3 point range will help open up driving lanes for players like Monta and Stuckey. That's absolutely true. But to take advantage of those lanes Monta and Stuckey would need to have the ball in their hands.

      And if we were to add another ball-dominant guard in Teague (or any other ball-dominant PG that has been mentioned in PD these past few years) then the time that Monta and Stuckey will actually have the ball in their hands will only get reduced.

      Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post
      Brad Stevens isn't only a great coach but players like Olynyk and Jerebko, even Sullinger with his long 2s contribute to making them a top 10 offense even when they have ballhandling guards with worse 3 point shooting than ours: Turner (.159), Smart (.288), they don't even have a ballhandling guard within the proximity of George Hill.

      The closest one is Bradley: (.373) Compared with Hill's (.433) that's a huge difference: .060
      So to say that you have to have a very good 3 point shot as a guard to play off ball isn't necesarily true nowadays IMO with the emergence of bigs with 3 point range.
      I absolutely agree that the Celtics are helped by their outside-shooting bigs. But their perimeter players aren't as ball-dominant as ours are either. They have no player that is as ball-dominant as PG is. Sure, Isaiah Thomas is ball-dominant but his running mates at the perimeter aren't.

      Avery Bradley rarely creates for himself or others. He is mostly the one finishing the play whether that requires a shot at the rim, a 16 footer or a 3. 74.5% of his baskets have been assisted -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2016/

      Jae Crowder is even more of a finisher than Bradley. 83.2% of his baskets have been assisted -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2016/

      Yes, Evan Turner and Marcus Smart are ball-dominant but they're not starters. They only play 27 MPG which is 2 minutes more than Stuckey does.

      Let's see how our perimeter players measure up when it comes to % of Assisted baskets.

      Monta Ellis: 31.2% -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2016/

      Rodney Stuckey: 38.7% -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2016/

      Paul George: 43.8% -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2016/

      George Hill: 50.9% -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2016/

      CJ Miles: 67.2% -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...shooting/2016/

      Only CJ Miles can straight up claim that he isn't ball-dominant. Even George Hill who's least ball-dominant of our guards still creates half of his baskets on his own.

      So, yes, you don't have to have a great 3 point shot as a guard to play off the ball. The Celtics as a whole are obviously doing a much better job at playing off the ball even though their shooters are worse than ours.


      Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post
      No doubt we will try to develop Turner into a decent one and no doubt it is the main reason why Bird has invested so much time and some money in a not so skilled big as Shayne.
      We agree on this. We do have to do something about that % of Assisted baskets, though. It indicates that we have too many players that are trying to create on their own instead of applying a system that can net you open shots through player and ball movement.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
        And that bolded part is a big problem. We have too many ball-dominant players but none of them is what one would call a great ball-handler. That's something that we definitely need to work on.
        Not only are they not only elite ball handlers, not one of them is an elite set up other players guy. Monta is probably the best with Paul with some occasional flashes (as well as Hill). Again, this sound a lot like you're saying we need someone more in the pure point guard mold, which I'd wholeheartedly agree with.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

          But are there any current excellent teams that have nobody at all that's ball dominant based on how Nuntius is describing it hear? I suppose the Spurs are the poster chile for the ultimate team-movement offense. Yet Parker was clearly a dominant ball handler and iso player when they needed hoops, at least until recently if not until now.

          I think the idea that the Pacers can't try to emulate the Spurs offensively is kind of bogus. Vogel needs to design an offense more like there's and hold the players to playing it (if we're really committed to a free-flowing, team offense). You also have players who want to buy in to playing it. I'm not sure PG, Monta and Stuckey would buy it, let alone be capable of executing it.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

            Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
            Not only are they not only elite ball handlers, not one of them is an elite set up other players guy. Monta is probably the best with Paul with some occasional flashes (as well as Hill). Again, this sound a lot like you're saying we need someone more in the pure point guard mold, which I'd wholeheartedly agree with.
            Do pure point guards still exist, though? Most modern guards are able to both score and pass.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

              On this topic at the draft this June? I would revisit the Teague move. I'd offer George Hill + Stuckey + the 20th pick to the Hawks in exchange for Jeff Teague and the 22nd pick. We get a pure point guard who better fits our roster and both teams swap picks. Which at this stage would be Denzel Valentine for Malik Beasley. The Stuckey move frees up cap space to add a bench wing who's more of a pure shooter from distance.

              Comment


              • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                Grimp, I've always wondered, would you trade George Hill for Jeff Teague?

                Comment


                • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                  Come the summer, either G. Hill or CJ Miles will be moved. It just makes sense as the Pacers will look for more bigs and pure PGs.

                  Comment


                  • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                    Originally posted by eldubious View Post
                    Come the summer, either G. Hill or CJ Miles will be moved. It just makes sense as the Pacers will look for more bigs and pure PGs.
                    Why not Stuckey?
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                      Comment


                      • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                        Not surprising one bit.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                          There you go. CJ Miles for Teague probably would have gotten the job done.

                          Comment


                          • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            Yes, Evan Turner and Marcus Smart are ball-dominant but they're not starters
                            Ya and Jerebko and Olynyk are also both bench players. Their starting bigs don't have so much range but their 1-2-3 starters have enough range. It's about finding the right balance and we sure can learn a few things from the Celtics when it comes to finding the right balance.
                            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            Yes, bigs with 3 point range will help open up driving lanes for players like Monta and Stuckey. That's absolutely true. But to take advantage of those lanes Monta and Stuckey would need to have the ball in their hands.
                            But that can happen in posting up or cutting. The player making the pass would still hold the ball longer than they have to do when those lanes open more up.
                            The Pacers will always be more of an iso team than a moving without the ball team. They just don't have the players to change that.

                            I for one love the fact that it is now Hill who has been setting up his teammates for the majority of time in the last few games with Ellis playing more off ball.
                            I wish they would switch more often. It gives Ellis time to focus on other things like defense and it keeps the mind fresh. If we had Miles starting at SG, we wouldn't have that option.

                            Comment


                            • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                              Grimp, I've always wondered, would you trade George Hill for Jeff Teague?
                              Sure. Hill is a good player but his days as starting point guard have to end if we're really gonna be a serious contender.

                              Comment


                              • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                                Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                                Sure. Hill is a good player but his days as starting point guard have to end if we're really gonna be a serious contender.
                                You understand that it is possible to not make GH the Pacers Starting PG after this season, still keep him on the Team by moving him to the Sixth Man spot ( while coming off the bench ) and still be a serious contender?
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X