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

An open honest discussion about...

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

  • #61
    Re: An open honest discussion about...

    Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
    I don't mean to ignore you're excellent research, but this line made me laugh and I think it's at the crux of people having a problem with Jeff.

    How exactly do they work off each other? I mean really. JO shoots, Jeff grabs the rebound. That's not working off each other. That's playing horse in the backyard where the opther guy does all the shooting. That's a pretty one-dimensional relationship.

    And that's the problem.

    We make Jeff do ALL the dirty work, to the point that others don't try as hard as they should/could. (Again, I refer you to my earlier post)
    Yeah, because driving through a double team for the make and the foul is a cakewalk and Jeff just refuses to do it because it's not challenging enough.

    This argument is silly. You are just spinning with semantics rather than actually saying something different. This is like "it's not teamwork, Santana pitches and Mauer catches it, Mauer does all the dirty work and it makes Santana a lazy baseball player."

    See how silly that sounds. ROLES. Positions. You get a role because you are good at it. Then you pair another player who is good at something else. That's called a team.

    Cripes, when you play a team-based first person shooter you get specialists and the challenge is to win by combining your different strengths, not to all do the same thing (Isiah) equally average.


    Yes, Reggie was LAZY because he made Dale do all the dirty work while he just chucked them up from the outside. And don't get me started on Steve Nash, he NEVER works hard and never plays team ball. Rebounds? He doesn't even know what one looks like.

    Come on.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: An open honest discussion about...

      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
      *edited for content*



      He had a great game tonight. He even made a tough putback and didn't seem rushed at all.

      Didn't someone see him during the offseason working out in Conseco? And didn't that person say he hit 15 mid range jumpers in a row?
      I didn't see him make 15 in a row, I thought that was a Star or Pacers.com report. I did post a photo of him working on his offense on the practice court though.


      Nice to see my favorite troll ripping into some other people who dare question Foster...and note that Mr. No-Slant "randomly" tossed Jackson under the bus for missing a couple of bunnies as part of his defense of Jeff.

      This should put perspective on how my thread went about Jeff missing so many putbacks and layups.



      For the record I like Foster's impact more than critics like Peck. I almost made Peck's head explode when I called Jeff a "Dale Davis type", meaning I thought Isiah got more credit for the rebuild than deserved since the team basically replaced Dale/Rik with Jeff/JO. I think the stats show that Jeff/JO are a better rebounding pair and probably a better scoring combo as well (though JO does that all by himself basically).

      Most of my debates come from the fact that I like players like Foster, Jack and Granger almost the same. I think Jeff impacts the game a bit more than Jackson, but each have their positives and negatives. Danny hasn't become a smart enough player yet, for example, and that hurts his overall impact just like Jackson's terrible breakaways and streaky play hurt him, or Jeff's misses and blah screens limit his impact a little.

      But all 3 make the team better and I like to see them on the court. I also love Tinsley, but hate Mel Mel the Abuser of course.



      Goldfoot - in previous year's Jeff has shot decent for an inside big, but the last month or so this year he's been awful. And while not every shot is from 1 foot, when I pulled the shot charts for the "Foster's shooting" thread it was like 31 of 35 FGAs came from 1-2 feet.

      So in essense Jeff is basically taking every shot, or 90% of them from at the rim. Expecting 60% of those to go down at least is not unacceptable. Just go look at the leaders in FG%. It's not a bunch of guards or mid-range shooters (look at the unqualified list).

      Inside power guys who only shoot on rebounds or inside setups for layups and dunks typically shoot 55-60% and fail to qualify for FG% leader because they don't pick up enough FGAs over the season.


      It's not a "get that guy outta there" flaw, but it is troublesome. Even Jeff acknowledged it after the Atlanta game.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: An open honest discussion about...

        Nice to see my favorite troll ripping into some other people who dare question Foster...and note that Mr. No-Slant "randomly" tossed Jackson under the bus for missing a couple of bunnies as part of his defense of Jeff.

        This should put perspective on how my thread went about Jeff missing so many putbacks and layups.

        Look, if you want to play this game, leave me out of it. I sent you a PM awhile ago saying that I would be less caustic and more objective when it came to your posts, and I also told you I would refrain from replying to your posts and I have, until now, when you proceeded to take a cheap shot at me. I never addressed you in this thread, but you felt the need to bring me into it to somehow justify a previous thread of yours. Now who is the TROLL?

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: An open honest discussion about...

          Originally posted by Peck View Post

          7. Again another differance I have with U.B. I love defense as much as he does. Ok that is wrong I'm not sure that there is anyone who loves defense as much as he does, but I just feel that you cannot be a one dimensional player unless you really truely are a special player at what you do.
          OK, here is a big pet peeve of mine and it is much larger than Jeff Foster. How come when a player is only a defensive or only a rebounding specialist they are said to be one dimensional. But when a player is only an offensive player no one says he is one dimensional - and no one ever says the one dimensional offensive player shouldn't be on the floor, in fact they are often allstars and thought of as one of the best players in the game. I've never understood or liked that.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: An open honest discussion about...

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            Ok, I'm game.

            Let's read that persons post history. Now that you have done that I will now ask you to please produce the false accusations that I have written & I'm not even sure I know what you are talking about when you say "thread-related rebuttal".

            Look, this is exactly what we are talking about in the "my fellow Pacers digest" thread.

            Neither of you is attacking my ideas, your attacking me.

            I have no problem with that & in fact when I was younger I would be more than happy to return serve. But we are trying to make a change here.

            So in that light please let me address both of you.

            1. I was not making any false praise about Jeff Foster. What I said was what I meant.

            2. Yes, for about 2 years I had a problem & frankly I thought it was Jeff Foster. But when Dale Davis came home & he & Jeff played together at the same time I found out that Jeff was not my problem. In fact I really liked watching Dale & Jeff play together. It was the one time in his career that Dale wasn't the 5th option on the floor.

            3. I do NOT consider Jeff to be spectacular at the things he does do, however I feel he is very good at them & in this day & age of weak big men Jeff can achieve good to great things.

            4. No, I don't think Jeff would have survived the 90's. But then again very few of today's big men could.

            5. Uncle Buck & I have always adamantly disagreed over who is the better compliment to J.O. I have always contended that Brad Miller was placed on earth by God himself to be the second big man on the floor with Jermaine. I feel that Satan himself influenced Walsh/Bird/Simons whoever when they decided that he was not worth the money he was asking. (Please do not try & dispute this here this thread is not about Brad other than in this part & it is to try & explain why I have always thought Brad was the better person to pair with J.O.)

            6. For all of things Jeff does really well, offense can not be considered one of them. Honest to God when was the last time anyone can remember him making anything other than a layup or a dunk or a tip in during a game.

            I'm not asking that the guy step back to the 15' line & face up (Like Brad could). I just think it would be nice if the guy could hit a 3' jumper.

            7. Again another differance I have with U.B. I love defense as much as he does. Ok that is wrong I'm not sure that there is anyone who loves defense as much as he does, but I just feel that you cannot be a one dimensional player unless you really truely are a special player at what you do.

            Bruce Bowen is a special defender.

            Ben Wallace is a special rebounder/defender.

            Both of them can get by with this.

            Jeff is not in thier league & if you say he is... well, let's just say we'll agree to disagree.

            My first post was never intended to be nor did it say that Jeff Foster should be benched, traded or horsewhipped.

            I said that since he is going to start I wanted to know why he could not improve his offense even a little. I then asked for people who know what they are talking about to explain to me why Jeff was as bad as he is at offense.

            I got some really good answers, I think if you go back & put away your hatred for what I wrote for a min. you will see some good ideas as well.

            So in an effort to place us all back on an even keel allow me to issue this olive branch of peace to both of you.

            Jeff Foster is a good player. He has outstanding rebounding instincts & I love that his attitude is beyond reproach.

            Other than what I percieve as a lack of offensive skills I have no real problems with Jeff or his game.
            I don't hate what you said in your intial post, I totally disagreed with it, and I don't understand how you made the leap from HONEST DISCUSSSION to I hate what you wrote. When I said that it was slanted, I did not mean that you slanted it because that You don't like Foster, but that you put up an arguement with a preconcieved outcome, that Foster hurts more than he helps. I'm not trying to be a hard asss here, but if you would go back to your initial post in this thread and read it with an open mind, you will see what I am saying.



            Neither of you is attacking my ideas, your attacking me.

            I totally disagree that I am attacking you and not your ideas. You wrote the thread for all to make an honest discussion on and that is just what I have done. I am attacking your idea that Foster hurts more than he helps this team, and that is all. You say that is not what you meant, but your intial post says otherwise.

            I appreciate the offer of an olive branch, but I don't feel it is necessary because having different opinions on players does not mean we hate each other, quite the contrary. What kind of forum would this be if everyone agreed all of the time?

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: An open honest discussion about...

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Yeah, because driving through a double team for the make and the foul is a cakewalk and Jeff just refuses to do it because it's not challenging enough.

              This argument is silly. You are just spinning with semantics rather than actually saying something different. This is like "it's not teamwork, Santana pitches and Mauer catches it, Mauer does all the dirty work and it makes Santana a lazy baseball player."

              See how silly that sounds. ROLES. Positions. You get a role because you are good at it. Then you pair another player who is good at something else. That's called a team.

              Cripes, when you play a team-based first person shooter you get specialists and the challenge is to win by combining your different strengths, not to all do the same thing (Isiah) equally average.


              Yes, Reggie was LAZY because he made Dale do all the dirty work while he just chucked them up from the outside. And don't get me started on Steve Nash, he NEVER works hard and never plays team ball. Rebounds? He doesn't even know what one looks like.

              Come on.
              All I'm saying is that I thought we were supposed to have ateam of basketball players. A player is supposed to be able to rebound and shoot and pass and play D....your strange analogy of a pitcher and catcher, quite frankly struck me as literally comparing appples to oranges. Comparing a pitcher and catcher to..well, I think you probably can see that once you re-read what you wrote.

              I'm not quite sure where your venom is coming from. If I offended you somehow, let me know what I did. You are WAY twisting what I wrote and what I said for some reason.
              You're throwing out these comparision to baseball and video games and ignoring the fact that I was simply saying that we need a well rounded player, who happens to have a speciality.

              I'm not sure how old you are, but a perfect example that comes to my mind is the Wes Unseld/Elvin Hayes combo with the old Washington Bullets. Wes's role was to rebound, but he could score when needed. Elvin's job was to score, but he could pound the glass when neeed. Specialists, who could do something else. Those guy worked off each other.

              Hell, I said I think Jeff is probably the most rounded player on the team, if he could just develop a shot. Pretty high praise.

              I just don't understand your antagonistic, somewhat condescending tone. I
              Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: An open honest discussion about...

                Originally posted by ALF68 View Post
                I don't hate what you said in your intial post, I totally disagreed with it, and I don't understand how you made the leap from HONEST DISCUSSSION to I hate what you wrote. When I said that it was slanted, I did not mean that you slanted it because that You don't like Foster, but that you put up an arguement with a preconcieved outcome, that Foster hurts more than he helps. I'm not trying to be a hard asss here, but if you would go back to your initial post in this thread and read it with an open mind, you will see what I am saying.



                Neither of you is attacking my ideas, your attacking me.

                I totally disagree that I am attacking you and not your ideas. You wrote the thread for all to make an honest discussion on and that is just what I have done. I am attacking your idea that Foster hurts more than he helps this team, and that is all. You say that is not what you meant, but your intial post says otherwise.

                I appreciate the offer of an olive branch, but I don't feel it is necessary because having different opinions on players does not mean we hate each other, quite the contrary. What kind of forum would this be if everyone agreed all of the time?

                First off, my apologies. When imawhat wrote what he wrote I thought he was talking to me.

                So therefore I took what he said & combined it with what you said & got the wrong conclusion.

                Now that you've explained my slant was meant that I came at this from a pre-concieved notion I understand better what you were writing.

                In fact I agree with you.

                The way I did write that came to a conclusion instead of asking a question (which actually was my point) so in essance I screwed that up.

                Sorry about that.

                Also, I 100% agree with you about disagreeing about players but everybody being cool with it.

                That is the entire point of a forum, IMO.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: An open honest discussion about...

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  First off, my apologies. When imawhat wrote what he wrote I thought he was talking to me.

                  So therefore I took what he said & combined it with what you said & got the wrong conclusion.

                  Now that you've explained my slant was meant that I came at this from a pre-concieved notion I understand better what you were writing.

                  In fact I agree with you.

                  The way I did write that came to a conclusion instead of asking a question (which actually was my point) so in essance I screwed that up.

                  Sorry about that.

                  Also, I 100% agree with you about disagreeing about players but everybody being cool with it.

                  That is the entire point of a forum, IMO.
                  Peck, this post proves why I respect you. You are willing to try to understand posters rationale, when sometimes they don't always present their arguement in a clear manner. I should have been less combative with you in trying to get my points across, and for this I am sorry. What is really funny about this whole debate is that, Foster would not be my favorite Pacer if I was forced to have one.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: An open honest discussion about...

                    edit - Scott, before reading this let me just say that this is probably a silly misunderstanding, and even before Peck made his reply I was going to make this edit. I just thought my post had timed out and had to reopen Zilla to see that it hadn't, and Peck got in during that time.

                    I stand by the point I'm making, that at least in your original post it suggested that there is dirty work and that Jeff does it while others don't, and not just JO. I also think you strongly implied that building a structure of specialist who only do some things well is not teamwork, when in fact it is the very definition of teamwork.

                    5 Jordans would get outrebounded all night long by 5 Wilts for example. No matter how good a player is, there are some aspects he is better at, and its not bad development or bad coaching to build on that. It's what all teams do in fact.


                    And now, the original, less, errr, friendly version of this same response....

                    I just don't understand your antagonistic, somewhat condescending tone.
                    Because this is extremely loaded...
                    How exactly do they work off each other? I mean really. JO shoots, Jeff grabs the rebound. That's not working off each other. That's playing horse in the backyard where the other guy does all the shooting. That's a pretty one-dimensional relationship.

                    And that's the problem.

                    We make Jeff do ALL the dirty work, to the point that others don't try as hard as they should/could. (Again, I refer you to my earlier post)
                    It suggests that Jeff is doing something that JO isn't, that what Jeff does requires something more than JO is giving. Horse where the other guy does all the shooting? Suggests a feeling that Jeff is getting the short end of the stick, left out as the unsung hero to JO's ball hogging.

                    Again, reverse it and listen...

                    "All Jeff has to do is wait for rebounds to fall into his lap as JO gets double teamed. JO is the one forced to make all the shots that Jeff can't make as well as taking all the fouls too. That's not working off each other, that's leaving JO to deal with double teams all by himself while Jeff stands and watches. That's a pretty one-dimensional relationship.

                    And that's the problem.

                    We make JO do all the offensive dirty work to the point that others don't try as hard as they should/could."


                    The point I'm making is that you have placed MORE VALUE in rebounding away from the ball than scoring the ball. That's your premise. After you make that leap then sure Jeff is doing "all the dirty work"...but because YOU defined what Jeff does as the dirty work and what JO does as apparently easy work or low effort.

                    And anyone else that does more of what JO does and less of what Jeff does is also not doing the dirty work and part of the problem.


                    I want to see some support that what Jeff does is actually all the dirty work and that taking charges, running screens, defending SFs or SGs, bringing the ball up through double teams/traps, etc IS NOT difficult or dirty work.

                    I mean if dirty work suggests only effort, then this is wrong. And if it suggests "goes unnoticed" then give me a huge break. Jeff gets as much praise as any player on the team does. And rebounding is one of the 3 main stats people look at to determine a players value typically.

                    The dude gets noticed for his rebounding effort.

                    What DOES NOT get noticed is if he sets a weaker screen than someone else might, or doesn't defend the PnR as well as he could, and so on. The same list of unnoticed stuff that applies to all the players.


                    I hate having to take a stance that even suggests I don't love what Foster brings, especially this season. My feelings are quite the opposite...they just happen to apply to more players than Jeff.



                    What I really don't get is in your response you seem to be putting the fault back on Jeff for not being able to shoot. But that doesn't fit with the post of yours that I quoted. You didn't say it was horse where all the other guy COULD DO was rebound because he couldn't make shots. That's an entirely different view than being asked to "do all the dirty work".


                    Pitcher-catcher is not apples-oranges. It's another "one dimensional relationship" that happens to perfectly illustrate TEAMWORK. Suggesting that everyone should be able to do everything in order to perform as a team is what I'm attacking there. That's just ridiculous and there are a myriad examples from all points of life to back me on that.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: An open honest discussion about...

                      However Scott's point that he was making in his response to you was that he didn't understand the need for you to make such a snide remark to him.

                      I don't think that was your intention nor do I think you meant anything by it, but it did come across that way.

                      Also, Scott is a well articulated man so I don't have to make his point for him. But because I know his past views on this I can say that what he was trying to say about Jeff was not so much a slam at J.O. but at the team in general for their development of Jeff over the years.

                      In other words in his opinion they never helped Jeff develop his game on the offensive end because he was told to focus on doing the traditional big man stuff.

                      Now as to you calling me a critic of Jeff's?

                      Well,...



                      I think over this season I have not been nearly as critical of him as you have been but hey keep those flags of disention flying. I enjoy your criticisms of players.

                      Look I make no hidden fact about it, up until about a year & a half ago I thought Jeff Foster was my problem. I've changed my mind on that.

                      Also, not that every thread I talk about needs to speak about Dale Davis but, well, ahem, since he was mentioned.

                      Another writer said it best.

                      Dale Davis set the standard for tough big men at this position on this team. Jeff Foster is nothing like Dale Davis other than the fact that they both played for the Indiana Pacers & neither could shoot free throws very well.

                      Dale Davis as an old man came back & replaced Jeff Foster as the starter for this team.

                      Dale is just an all around better player.

                      Please spare me some statistical analysis that you are going to try. Your stats. won't refute that Dale Davis was the starter on this team every year he was here minus his rookie year. He even had stiff competition for the starting spot from Tony.

                      Jeff is the starter by default & even the biggest Foster fan can not dispute the fact that Brad Miller started over Jeff & would have as long as he was here. Big Smooth started over Jeff & he was pretty much a fossil. That when Dale came back he started over Jeff & no it was not because Jeff was injured. That this season they started Al over Jeff (or Danny, pick you choice).

                      So in other words every year he has been here other than that one year where they won 61 games, they have tried to put someone else in the position.

                      Now btw none of this is Jeff's fault, nor is any of what I'm saying take anything away from his ability as a player. In fact it says a lot less about another big man on our team that we are forced to play Jeff like this.

                      So in closing while Jeff has his abilities I don't see how questioning why no one is working with him on offense is a bad thing.


                      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: An open honest discussion about...

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        However Scott's point that he was making in his response to you was that he didn't understand the need for you to make such a snide remark to him.

                        I don't think that was your intention nor do I think you meant anything by it, but it did come across that way.

                        Also, Scott is a well articulated man so I don't have to make his point for him. But because I know his past views on this I can say that what he was trying to say about Jeff was not so much a slam at J.O. but at the team in general for their development of Jeff over the years.

                        In other words in his opinion they never helped Jeff develop his game on the offensive end because he was told to focus on doing the traditional big man stuff.

                        Now as to you calling me a critic of Jeff's?

                        Well,...



                        I think over this season I have not been nearly as critical of him as you have been but hey keep those flags of disention flying. I enjoy your criticisms of players.

                        Look I make no hidden fact about it, up until about a year & a half ago I thought Jeff Foster was my problem. I've changed my mind on that.

                        Also, not that every thread I talk about needs to speak about Dale Davis but, well, ahem, since he was mentioned.

                        Another writer said it best.

                        Dale Davis set the standard for tough big men at this position on this team. Jeff Foster is nothing like Dale Davis other than the fact that they both played for the Indiana Pacers & neither could shoot free throws very well.

                        Dale Davis as an old man came back & replaced Jeff Foster as the starter for this team.

                        Dale is just an all around better player.

                        Please spare me some statistical analysis that you are going to try. Your stats. won't refute that Dale Davis was the starter on this team every year he was here minus his rookie year. He even had stiff competition for the starting spot from Tony.

                        Jeff is the starter by default & even the biggest Foster fan can not dispute the fact that Brad Miller started over Jeff & would have as long as he was here. Big Smooth started over Jeff & he was pretty much a fossil. That when Dale came back he started over Jeff & no it was not because Jeff was injured. That this season they started Al over Jeff (or Danny, pick you choice).

                        So in other words every year he has been here other than that one year where they won 61 games, they have tried to put someone else in the position.

                        Now btw none of this is Jeff's fault, nor is any of what I'm saying take anything away from his ability as a player. In fact it says a lot less about another big man on our team that we are forced to play Jeff like this.

                        So in closing while Jeff has his abilities I don't see how questioning why no one is working with him on offense is a bad thing.



                        So in other words every year he has been here other than that one year where they won 61 games, they have tried to put someone else in the position.


                        I think that you have inadvertently proven my point about Jeff, with your above statement . Don't you think that by always going back to Jeff as a starter, after trying to replace him, speaks to his value. Jeff makes the team better and that is why he is starting, irregardless of his offensive limitations.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: An open honest discussion about...

                          Peck, you'll note that I edited that post now. As I said, I had thought about it and planned to even before you posted, ie I didn't have to be prodded to agree with you that it's a good idea to smooth this over.

                          I mean if you are gonna try to play nice with "others" (you got more strength than I do with that one) then I can too with a regular.



                          When I said critic I didn't mean I don't criticize Jeff, but rather that I love his game and have no problems that he has some holes in his game as all players do. In fact what got lost over and over in the shooting thread was that I was pointing out that even by his standards it was abnormal.

                          The guy doesn't normally go 35% on a season. He was in a noticeable funk on short shots and I pointed it out. I wasn't even really trying to be critical of him. Frustrated that he was missing those, sure, but not in a "get him outta there" way.

                          It was a "WTF is going on" type of comment.

                          Then our buddy jumped in to attack me for being anti-Foster (why would he stop now) and the whole thread turned into Jeff is good vs Jeff needs to be benched.


                          Dale was an all-around better player. See, I didn't say he wasn't. We agreed at the party I think that he clearly set better screens and it showed when he returned and Reggie's game improved dramatically (on catch and shoots).

                          I just said that Jeff was Dale-like, a rebound specialist with limited offense to compliment the scoring big he played next to.

                          My point with that was always simply that people saw the team losing all this talent, when in fact the main missing ingrediant was just Jax. And when they got pass-first Tinsley for year 2 of Isiah's stay I didn't see any reason why they shouldn't be better than .500. Tins even then was no Jax, but he was worlds better about moving the ball around instead of fixing nails in the floor like Best was.

                          So when I say Jeff is "Dale like" it means that he is a hard-nosed rebounding type and provided that same bump that Dale did when he finally arrived. It doesn't mean he is as strong, blocks shots like Dale did, has the hands Dale had or even the limited turn around jumper that Dale developed.


                          So in other words every year he has been here other than that one year where they won 61 games, they have tried to put someone else in the position.
                          Hmmm, coincidence?

                          But honestly, this year proves it just as well as that does. They tried Danny over Foster, but since Jeff moved into the starting lineup the team is much better. IMMEDIATELY they started games much better rather than falling into big 1st quarter holes.

                          I said this at the PD party and I think you said "what about Toronto", but that was before Jeff was starting actually. Maybe you didn't say that, but just in case I wanted to clear it up.

                          Go look at the 3-5 games before Jeff started and then the 3-5 after. Especially look at the game where the main core all started, either before with Danny (ie Jack also) and after with Jeff (not when JO is out, etc).

                          So Isiah and Rick may have looked elsewhere for center play, but that is often because Jeff is UNDERSIZED for center and JO is a "PF". Dale played for Jeff but then Jeff was also struggling with injury that year.

                          And maybe that choice was also just flat-out a mistake made by seeing his limitations more than his impact.


                          I HATE when locals think Jeff is the end-all, be-all solution to the problem. But that doesn't mean I don't think he makes a big difference.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: An open honest discussion about...

                            I disagree.

                            They try to replace him all the time with substandard players. And when it doesn't work out, they go back to their comfort zone. They recognize that he has some value, but he's being put in over his head as an NBA starter. They won't trade him because they'd like to use him with the second unit when they can finally upgrade that position.

                            Since they won't hire a big man coach, its no wonder everything they've tried - other than an aging Dale Davis who didn't want to put up with the rest of the post-Reggie shenanigans - doesn't work out.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: An open honest discussion about...

                              Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                              I disagree.

                              They try to replace him all the time with substandard players. And when it doesn't work out, they go back to their comfort zone. They recognize that he has some value, but he's being put in over his head as an NBA starter. They won't trade him because they'd like to use him with the second unit when they can finally upgrade that position.

                              Since they won't hire a big man coach, its no wonder everything they've tried - other than an aging Dale Davis who didn't want to put up with the rest of the post-Reggie shenanigans - doesn't work out.
                              .

                              I have said this in a previous post, Hell yes there are better centers than Jeff, but the Pacers are not going to go out and spend the money for one of them. So, why keep up the Jeff is nothing more that a second stringer approach? As for the reasons that they don't trade Foster, well on second thought I better leave that alone.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: An open honest discussion about...

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                let me ask a couple of questions about Jeff's poor contributions on offense

                                1) Is pick setting a part of offense.

                                2) Is offensive rebounding a part of offense.

                                3) Is other teams game planning for Jeff's offensive rebounding - is that part of the offense - does that in some direct and indirect way help the Pacers offense.


                                One thing that I always bugs me is when people say stuff like this,

                                That might be true to an extent, teams certainly back off of Jeff when he's outside of 12 feet- but I've never seen a team purposely leave Jeff wide open inside of 12 feet because they know as soon as the Pacers shoot they have to block Jeff out or he'll get the rebound. I've seen when teams don't do it, Jeff gets every rebound, the other coach calls a timeout and an adjustment is made and as least one player is then assigned to block Jeff out. Last year in the Nets series I saw at times two guys blocking Jeff out
                                I agree with this post 100%. Also, with your previous post. I could list numerous things that Jeff does well besides rebounding but what good would that do? They've been listed dozens of times and we still get a lame thread like this.

                                Before the season began of the year of the brawl, Jeff was practicing his outside shot in the off-season. He actually was getting pretty good at it but RC never called his number or let him shoot anyway. Jeff is shooting virtually the same as JO and AL (within 1 or 2 pct points) from the field. I know, Al and JO shoot from a longer range but does it really matter? They are still misses. Also, from the FT line, Jeff is shooting a respectable 68% or just a couple points lower than Al or Jax's career ft shooting pct.

                                It completely baffles me that so much is made of 2 misses a game by Jeff. Doesn't the 7 or 8 missed shots that JO, Al, Jax and Tinsley average a game mean much more? Lets talk about, how much better we would fare if each of those players missed 2 less shots a game.

                                If Jeff was allowed to shoot from a 8-12 foot range, there's no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, that he could shoot almost as well as anyone on the team. Hell, how can he become proficient when his number is never called or he's got orders not to shoot when he's wide open. If he can hit a 15 ft at a 70% clip, there is no reason he couldn't hit a wide open 15 ft jumper at a 50% clip.


                                Outside of JO, Jeff is the mvp on the team. That's right. Counting all the picks and screens he sets and the tip-outs to retain the ball, he is indeed very valuable. They don't keep stats on picks set, tip-outs, saves from out of bounds and floor burns but they all go toward an increased output.

                                If Jeff was playing for the Bob Cats or another lesser team, he would be much better offensively.

                                Be grateful that we have such a player on our team who is willing to do the dirty work. If he wasn't here, who would replace what he does for the team? No one, because everyone else is too offensive orientated to only shoot 4 times a game.
                                .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X