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

A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

    Certainly a different perspective... an interesting read at least...

    June 25, 2007

    As Draft Approaches, What’s Not Visible From the Stands

    By STEPHEN DANLEY
    Stephen Danley, who played forward at Penn before graduating this spring, provides his insights into the top players in the National Basketball Association draft, which will be held Thursday.

    General managers give personality tests. They hold individual workouts and measure players. But there is no comparison between watching a player and competing against him.

    There are skills that are nearly impossible to evaluate from the stands. How does a player react when you shade him to the left? Will he overreach and make a bad play after a missed shot? Out on the perimeter, I’ve played with guys who would grab your wrist, pull you in one direction, and cut backdoor for a layup while you were off balance.

    In the post I would often bump a guy going middle, then anticipate his countermove to the base line. When I beat him to that spot, he would either travel or take an off-balance shot. Those are the types of plays that are very tough to evaluate by watching the game. Certain subtleties simply aren’t visible from the stands.

    So this article is intended to highlight those subtleties, specifically among the players I had the opportunity to play against.

    When I started evaluating players before writing this, I realized I was separating them into the guys I’d want on my team and the guys I’d hate to play with.

    Go to any gym in the country and one rule is always the same. Win and stay on. So being picked up for games becomes a rite of passage.

    I remember a summer night at DeMatha every bit as clearly as I remember my first collegiate game. Jerry Stackhouse picked me first over two big men in the Atlantic Coast Conference. I knew he only picked me because I wasn’t going to take the shots he wanted, but I was still so excited that I spent the game running around like Anderson Varejao with a buzz cut and a Red Bull.

    In that spirit, these are the guys I’d pick first if the gym was packed and there was an hour wait to play again if we lost.

    ACIE LAW IV, guard, Texas A & M — When we were preparing to play Texas A. & M. in the tournament, the scouting report pointed out an amazing stat. In the last two minutes of close basketball games, Law outscored the entire opposing team. It wasn’t until we actually played him that I understood what that stat meant. For most of the game Law was content to set up his teammates, trying to involve everyone in the game. Coming down the stretch in the second half he went for the jugular and ran off a couple of quick buckets to put us away. Say what you want about his skills or his quickness, but if you have to win a game, you want this kid on the court.

    GLEN DAVIS, forward, Louisiana State — For the life of me I can’t understand how “Big Baby” has dropped so far down most people’s draft boards. He’s got unbelievable feet, he’s a polished offensive player and he’s an engaging personality from both a marketing standpoint and a teammate’s perspective. He’ll be a fan favorite. I would be completely fine with my Wizards taking him at 16. He’d be an immediate improvement over Brendan Haywood and Etan Thomas offensively. Of course, general managers are worried about his weight, so he may fall to the second round. I’d be even happier if the Wizards could grab him there.

    JEFF GREEN, forward, Georgetown — In the mold of a Scottie Pippen or Lamar Odom, Jeff Green can do it all. Almost. In the Georgetown summer league this past year I found myself facing Jeff in a tip to start the game. Knowing he would almost certainly win a fair jump, I leaned against his hip with my left forearm on the way up. The result was he flailed wildly at the ball, and I calmly tipped it back to my point guard. The game later went to overtime. As we stepped up for the second tip Jeff looked at the ref and said, “Watch Steve, he cheats on the tip.” The ref looked at him incredulously and I quipped back, “Maybe I’m just more athletic than you, Jeff.” I won that tip too. A guy with his passing ability should be fine as long as he has some talent around him, and this past year at Georgetown he showed signs of turning into a player who wanted to take big shots down the stretch. If he turns into that guy, watch out. Either way, he makes you better with his versatility.

    DEMETRIS NICHOLS, forward, Syracuse — Demetris is a perfect example of a guy being overlooked because general managers try to assemble talent, not a basketball team. Team USA now realizes they can’t just toss out a group of All-Stars and win overseas. Good N.B.A. teams are built the same way. In a game where there are five players and just one ball, role-players are at a premium. Just because Nichols is not adept at creating his own shot doesn’t mean he won’t be a valuable basketball player. He uses screens superbly, a la Rip Hamilton or Reggie Miller, and he isn’t afraid to take (and make) big shots. Teams are stockpiling shooters; look at Houston’s pickup of Steve Novak. The difference between Nichols and Novak? Novak can’t guard driftwood (we played together on a team the N.I.T. sent to Europe). Nichols is a long 6-foot-8 player capable of guarding a two or a three.

    •

    As a guy who has always had a little more desire than talent, I take pride in playing basketball the right way. There’s nothing worse than playing pickup with a talented point guard who insists on taking off-balance 3’s, or a physical specimen in the post who just isn’t hungry for boards. In that spirit, the following players will either be out of the league in five years or be signed by the Knicks to franchise-debilitating contracts.

    JOSH McROBERTS, forward, Duke — One of my favorite tests of a player’s mental makeup is to give him an open shot in a pressure situation. An Acie Law or Kevin Durant will stick a dagger in the opposition. Most players will take the open shot, make or miss, without thinking too hard about it. McRoberts is one of those guys who lets it get into his head, and hesitates. You can almost see him thinking, “Why are they leaving me open?” I’d always rather play with a guy who thinks that shot is going down than one who doesn’t.

    BRANDAN WRIGHT, forward, North Carolina — Forecasting Wright’s career is a tough call. Brandan has the talent to be good. When I guarded him in the Dean Dome he displayed great touch around the basket and an effective spin move, and he dropped in hook shots like a kid tossing pennies in a wishing well. Here’s the catch: People are rating him the third best player in the draft, but when we played North Carolina we considered him the third biggest threat on the team. We were more worried about Ty Lawson and Tyler Hansbrough. Wright is an awful shooter and ball-handler. We didn’t bother to chase him outside of eight feet, choosing instead to allow his defender to play off him and sag into the lane. It’s not that I don’t think he’ll be a contributor down the road for somebody, it’s just that in this draft a top-five pick has to be better than a complementary player.

    SEAN WILLIAMS, center, Boston College — Three years ago when we played Boston College, our game plan was not to guard Sean Williams. We wanted to use his defender to help against Craig Smith and Jared Dudley. They finally made an adjustment and started cutting him toward the basket, and he had a dunk coming down the lane. I don’t care how many shots a guy can block — if he doesn’t need to be guarded outside of two feet, under no condition will I spend a first round pick on him.

    DARRYL WATKINS, center, Syracuse — He seems to be a workout wonder, moving up draft boards. “Mookie” certainly passes the eyeball test, but I can’t see him as a productive player. Since when do a handful of good workouts outweigh four years of underachieving? At Syracuse I thought he played lackadaisically and didn’t have an offensive game. Frankly, I’d rather see my team draft another European that no one has heard of.

    Well, there it is. Some guys who play the right way and some talented enigmas who haven’t quite put it together yet. Pick at your own peril, and while you’re at it, Stackhouse wouldn’t be a bad free agent signing either.

    LINK
    This is the darkest timeline.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

    Stong words about Acie Law. That stuff (mental toughness) matters more to me than talent and stats.
    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

    • #3
      Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

      Originally posted by Jay View Post
      Stong words about Acie Law. That stuff (mental toughness) matters more to me than talent and stats.
      Agreed.
      This space for rent.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

        Originally posted by Jay View Post
        Stong words about Acie Law. That stuff (mental toughness) matters more to me than talent and stats.
        Sometimes that works and sometimes not. I'd have said the same thing about Juan Dixon coming out - he constantly hit pressure shots when Maryland won the NCAA's and I was high on him. He's had flashes but he'll never be more than a role player.

        I still like Law though.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

          Ron Artest used to do the same thing. Except he never outscored anybody, he just tried to, especially in the playoffs.
          Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

            Fine, and I'd take Juan Dixon over any of the Pacers roll players for that reason alone.

            In terms I think we can all relate to, Austin Croshere wasn't a guy you needed much during the regular season, when you're playing a bunch of games that don't mean much. But he was a good guy to have on the court during the fourth quarter or during the playoffs because of his mental toughness.
            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

            • #7
              Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

              I'd rely on this guy's opinion, but unfortunately some GM will pass up some of these guys like Acie Law because their arms aren't 1.5 inches longer.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

                He is 100% correct about McRobert's mental toughness or lack there of. The guy has all the talent in the world when it comes to pure basketball talent he might be top 5-10 in this draft, but he doesn't have a heart or if he does it certainly isn't beating.


                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

                  Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                  He is 100% correct about McRobert's mental toughness or lack there of. The guy has all the talent in the world when it comes to pure basketball talent he might be top 5-10 in this draft, but he doesn't have a heart or if he does it certainly isn't beating.

                  Yep, As a Duke fan you could see it this year.He was supposed to come in and be the #1 option but you could tell he wasn't comfortable in that role and was nowhere to be found when big shots were needed. He'll be a descent pro because he skills, maye a David lee type that will come off the bench but thats about it.

                  Also is anybody else shocked that Glen Davis is being talked about as a second round pick. I think he is going to be the steal of the draft.He has great footwork, excellent touch around the basket. He's got the skills to be a high first round talent. Are teams really that scared off by his wieght?

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

                    Originally posted by mike_D View Post
                    Also is anybody else shocked that Glen Davis is being talked about as a second round pick. I think he is going to be the steal of the draft.He has great footwork, excellent touch around the basket. He's got the skills to be a high first round talent. Are teams really that scared off by his wieght?

                    After Mike Sweetney I would be very concerned

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

                      Davis is a risk, but I think he's worth it. But you'd really have to keep on him.
                      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

                        its partially weight and partially height. he did slim down a bit this season. hopefully going from a lottery pick in 2006 to a second rounder in 2007 will motivate him.
                        This is the darkest timeline.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

                          Originally posted by Peskoe97 View Post
                          After Mike Sweetney I would be very concerned
                          He's much more talented then Sweetney ever was on the offensive end.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

                            Good take.

                            I was wondering whether his opinion carried all that much weight considering he plays for Penn, and not many people would be taking them seriously. But, some of the games he played against these guys would have been in March Madnes. And, for the regular season games, character flaws, mental toughness and watching to see who plays their best basketball every time they step on the court would actually probably be even more apparent and dramatic in a "ho-hum" game against a cream-puff like Penn.
                            Read my Pacers blog:
                            8points9seconds.com

                            Follow my twitter:
                            @8pts9secs

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: A Different Look at the Draft (NY Times)

                              Originally posted by Jay View Post
                              Fine, and I'd take Juan Dixon over any of the Pacers roll players for that reason alone.
                              "That... is why you fail."



                              Careful, Jay. Pretty soon you'll have an accuracy rating as low as Unclebuck!

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X