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

SI top 100 NBA players

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by mattie View Post

    Wage nailed it— I wasn't necessarily putting you into that group btw. I don't think you tear down players at all.

    I saw the "hoosiers appreciate bbiq" and went on a rant on the Pacers fan base as a whole.

    Also, I do agree that George Hill was generally liked. I'd say the majority of fans liked him. But there are two things I find extremely odd, is that there WAS a portion of the fan base that flat out did not like him, and secondly based on who he is, he should be the most beloved Pacers ever outside of Reggie.

    I mean, an Indiana guy, late 1st rounder, wears his love for Indiana on his sleeve, plays bothsides of the court, is the definition of fundamental, I mean he plays basketball like Coach Gene Hackman is in his ear every moment he's on the court. So the fact that he wasn't absolutely beloved as an alltimer, much less people actually didn't like him just blows my mind.
    I like Hill's game and appreciate all that you say about it here. But had he expressed what you describe of him being "an Indiana guy" instead of not wanting to come to Indy because, in his words, it is a "hating city" I would agree with you on all counts. But this is documented fact. He didn't want to come to Indiana and had offensive words to say about its residents until the Pacers poured millions into his bank account and he suddenly became "the hometown hero". It's just a farce.
    Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

    Comment


    • #77
      BTW, Hill and Myles Turner have not been roundly criticized by most people. I even have hope for Myles...just with some skepticism. Hill is a flat out good player and I've never said anything to the contrary. I'm not a Hill fan because he ripped on my city and he whined when my favorite player took the ball out of his hands the last time the Pacers made the ECF.

      Edit: Oh, and you know all those people who cheer for Lance? Most of them feel the same way to some extent. So it's true Hill isn't beloved in Indiana and I've stated the reasons. People are free to disagree with those reasons. Perhaps his inconsistent aggressiveness doesn't help his cause and that might be viewed as a lack of heart by some fans.



      Last edited by BlueNGold; 09-23-2018, 08:15 AM.
      Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by mattie View Post
        I wasn't being contrarian, or insulting, however I am critical of the way our Pacers fans (note, for some reason on the Colts side the fans are way more supportive currently) are today to some extent......

        That said, I will roll my eyes if anyone says we appreciate the "put your head down and play" style of basketball. That's absurd. Paul George, who's from a small town, was NEVER a top tier prospect as was erroneously said prior, was the definition of put your head down and play. He's low key. He literally will play in the smallest city in the NBA, because he wants to compete, he's anti super team, which many of his critiques claim to appreciate.

        But if our fan base really appreciates that, then why is literally every word PG has ever said picked a part, taken at face value instead of attempting to understand his actual point of view. (not saying there is anything wrong with legitimate disappointment he left).

        This is a common way Pacers fans view many players. Already Jimmy Butler is being ripped up one side and down the other as if he's a selfish, me- first player. Except interesting fact that just came out: KAT said he didn't want to play with Butler! Yet here we are ripping Butler in every way possible, when he's the definition of hard work and effort, a second rounder who built a career from nothing.

        Yes. I'm critical of Pacers fans. If what I'm saying is NOT true? Then stop finding away to hate on NBA players, and our own players — there's a far difference from being critical of a players weaknesses, and literally tearing them down and bringing wild accusations about a players IQ (inherently a racist accusation, whether you want to be in denial or honest with yourself), or such baseless claims that a player is "soft", "me firsT" "selfish" or the many accusations that Pacers fans lob at players at every opportunity.

        But again, if we supposedly appreciate "substance" then PLEASE ask yourself why our fan base literally ripped the most low key, "Hoosier" basketball player of all time. A local. Indy born and raised. IUPUI, a small D1 college. Not a big time recruit. Late 1st round pick. Built himself into Mr Fundimental. Wears tattoos of Indiana all over him. Refers to himself as Indiana. One time, he criticized his own hometown, as I and everyone else who's ever lived here has done before as well, because they tried to EXPLOIT his fame for money. Naturally he was upset. Some fans used that as an excuse to literally hate him. That's ridiculous!

        Yet he was absolutely brutally criticized. I'm fairly confident if he made more 1 handed passes, had a better crossover, and went for a higher assist count, fans would have appreciated him. But we appreciate "substance?" No we don't.

        If you want to be THAT type of fan base? Then, in the kindest words possible, stop "hating." Stop saying Paul George was selfish. He wasn't. He just wanted to win. Stop saying he didn't "try" that's untrue and we know it. Stop saying Roy Hibbert sucked. He was really good, for a moment, even tho the league passed him by. Stop finding a reason to tear down a players character.
        SAY IT AGAIN FOR THOSE IN THE BACK WHO MAY NOT HAVE HEARD YOU!!

        This hits home for me on so many levels it’s not even funny

        Comment


        • #79
          I totally disagree that Paul has been criticized or picked on until he became a turncoat. He did knock up a stripper and get catfished and essentially was immature...so he got a bit of heat over that. But that's earned stuff guys. Paul George was not mistreated in any way by fans. They just reacted to what he did.

          As for him mailing it in that last year, absolutely. Let's all get back to reality and take a look at the effort stats his last year compared to prior years. You will see a distinct drop off. He was increasingly becoming disinterested in what the Pacers were doing and it showed statistically. That's not to say I blame him but yes he mailed it in...although the guy was getting paid and he shouldn't done that really. Same thing happened with the great DWest. Love that guy but facts are facts.

          Edit: So here are his effort stats. Essentially down anywhere from 5% to 25% depending on the stat. Note that he actually played MORE minutes his last season yet numbers are down across the board. BTW, per minute his scoring was also down slightly but scoring really isn't what I'm talking about. Lots of guys want to score whether or not the team wins.

          Assists: Down from 4.1 to 3.3
          Steals: Down from 1.9 to 1.6
          Rebounds: Down from 7 to 6.6
          FTA (i.e. getting fouled): Down 6.5 to 5
          Games (yes that is effort): Down 81 to 75.


          Last edited by BlueNGold; 09-23-2018, 12:40 PM.
          Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post

            SAY IT AGAIN FOR THOSE IN THE BACK WHO MAY NOT HAVE HEARD YOU!!

            This hits home for me on so many levels it’s not even funny
            I need you as an editor. Your edited version of my post was so much better than my original lmao

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by mattie View Post

              Yes. I'm critical of Pacers fans. If what I'm saying is NOT true? Then stop finding away to hate on NBA players, and our own players — there's a far difference from being critical of a players weaknesses, and literally tearing them down and bringing wild accusations about a players IQ (inherently a racist accusation, whether you want to be in denial or honest with yourself),
              What, and I ask this with genuine sincerity, would you like us to call that particular attribute/set of attributes?

              I'm willing to hear the charges of inherent racism in the term (though I myself am skeptical - I've lived around basketball for around half my life now and heard coaches/players from myriad backgrounds apply the term to players from myriad backgrounds, but I digress) because, among other reasons, I'm not married to the term, but what "basketball IQ" is meant to describe is an important attribute in someone's game that we really can't just ignore.

              Basketball IQ, as I've heard it used, refers to a sort of instinctual understanding of the game of basketball (including things like situational awareness, court vision, quick-twitch decision-making, court positioning etc.) and has very, very little to do with any conventional measure of intelligence and more to do with ingrained patterns of habit etc.

              The person who's got the most of these qualities? LeBron James, by a country mile. His preternatural feel for the game is what takes him from "world-class athlete, perennial All-Star" to "possibly the greatest basketball player ever." SImilarly, guys like JR Smith (but I thought we were up!) don't seem to have a similar feel for/understanding of the game, and that limits their ceilings. Lance Stephenson as he is now is a borderline starter. Lance with LeBron's feel for the game? I feel confident in saying he'd be a superstar.

              I sense I've started to ramble, but I guess the tl;dr here is "is there any terminology that you'd like to suggest as a non-racialized stand-in for BBIQ, or should we just never talk about it?"

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by iogyhufi View Post

                What, and I ask this with genuine sincerity, would you like us to call that particular attribute/set of attributes?

                I'm willing to hear the charges of inherent racism in the term (though I myself am skeptical - I've lived around basketball for around half my life now and heard coaches/players from myriad backgrounds apply the term to players from myriad backgrounds, but I digress) because, among other reasons, I'm not married to the term, but what "basketball IQ" is meant to describe is an important attribute in someone's game that we really can't just ignore.

                Basketball IQ, as I've heard it used, refers to a sort of instinctual understanding of the game of basketball (including things like situational awareness, court vision, quick-twitch decision-making, court positioning etc.) and has very, very little to do with any conventional measure of intelligence and more to do with ingrained patterns of habit etc.

                The person who's got the most of these qualities? LeBron James, by a country mile. His preternatural feel for the game is what takes him from "world-class athlete, perennial All-Star" to "possibly the greatest basketball player ever." SImilarly, guys like JR Smith (but I thought we were up!) don't seem to have a similar feel for/understanding of the game, and that limits their ceilings. Lance Stephenson as he is now is a borderline starter. Lance with LeBron's feel for the game? I feel confident in saying he'd be a superstar.

                I sense I've started to ramble, but I guess the tl;dr here is "is there any terminology that you'd like to suggest as a non-racialized stand-in for BBIQ, or should we just never talk about it?"
                I actually have zero issues with the term and I agree with what you said: "Basketball IQ, as I've heard it used, refers to a sort of instinctual understanding of the game of basketball (including things like situational awareness, court vision, quick-twitch decision-making, court positioning etc.) and has very, very little to do with any conventional measure of intelligence and more to do with ingrained patterns of habit etc.". What I do have a problem is white people whether on forums, twitter, facebook, instagram or in person cannot WAIT to refer to black players as "low bbiq"

                There are multiple posters on this very board who do this constantly. I agree with what you said. If someone had a conversation and referred to JR Smith as "low bbiq" and "LBJ is a genius" both phrases are correct.

                But that's not what happens. What really happens is white players are CONSTANTLY referred to as high BBIQ. Bogdonavich on this very board has been referred to as a "high bbiq" player multiple times. (The same guy that literally did one of the dumbest basketball plays I have EVER seen)

                By the way, this happens in the media as well. White players are ALWAYS "high bbiq". Always. I think you can talk about basketball for hours and hours and hours without EVER using the term, and if you do use the term? I'd be extremely careful. That is, if you care. The people that throw the term around do not care. And they consistently are the usual suspects: Conservative, white, HATE player movement, always side with owners, and they refer to basketball players as selfish, greedy, and every other stereotype. It is blatant and predictable, and while I've heard Nate McMillan use the term, he uses the term to refer to guys who really do play smart basketball. Oblivious media members and commentators are not so discerning.

                Frankly, I try to NEVER use the term. I don't ever want to contribute to the number one argument that white supremacy was built on: The racist lie about intelligence.

                Edit: BTW, LBJ made it quite clear he wanted to play with smart basketball players after the finals. I don't ever recall him using the term. There are plenty of more nuanced ways to talk basketball, and refer to players abilities than just saying "low bbiq." Further, I'd argue even if you did use the term, as long as you were hyper-aware of our own bias', you could successfully use the term as long as you were careful.

                Most people aren't careful however. And since they love throwing the phrase around, their motivations are clear.
                Last edited by mattie; 09-24-2018, 09:05 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  By the way, the best well meaning people on the planet can be either gullible, unaware, or or just plain oblivious to the connotations of that phrase. Playing "smart" basketball has always been a part of the game. So yes that phrase persists, and even if the coaches, and players may correctly use the word— that doesn't change the fact that white sports fans cannot wait to call Steve Nash "high BBIQ" and LeBron James as a "athletic freak." There is truth to both statements, but there is something incredibly sinister that is being insinuated. (esp since Steve Nash relied on quickness and ball handling to create, while LBJ literally relies on exceptional intelligence despite his superior athleticism).

                  Our country has 400 years of racism, white supremacy, genocide, and colonization we have never truly come to terms with: It only takes a modicum of empathy to remain hyper-aware of words, meanings and connotations.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Oh and I'm not authority either. I only called out one common them: People excessively using the term, and additionally using the term in a specific way. It's blatantly obvious. I'm not trying to police anyone's language, and I'm certainly not the one that should be making any sort of proclamation. Or whatever. anywho.

                    I like basketball.

                    Oladipo = GOAT.

                    TIA.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by mattie View Post

                      I atually have zero issues with the term. What I do have a problem is white people whether on forums, twitter, facebook, instagram or in person cannot WAIT to refer to black players as "low bbiq"

                      There are multiple posters on this very board who do this constantly. I agree with what you said. If someone had a conversation and referred to JR Smith as "low bbiq" and "LBJ is a genius" both phrases are correct.

                      But that's not what happens. What really happens is white players are CONSTANTLY referred to as high BBIQ. Bogdonavich on this very board has been referred to as a "high bbiq" player multiple times. (The same guy that literally did one of the dumbest basketball plays I have EVER seen)

                      By the way, this happens in the media as well. White players are ALWAYS "high bbiq". Always. I think you can talk about basketball for hours and hours and hours without EVER using the term, and if you do use the term? I'd be extremely careful. That is, if you care. The people that throw the term around do not care. And they consistently are the usual suspects: Conservative, white, HATE player movement, always side with owners, and they refer to basketball players as selfish, greedy, and every other stereotype. It is blatant and predictable, and while I've heard Nate McMillan use the term, he uses the term to refer to guys who really do play smart basketball. Oblivious media members and commentators are not so discerning.

                      Frankly, I try to NEVER use the term. I don't ever want to contribute to the number one argument that white supremacy was built on: The racist lie about intelligence.
                      I do agree with what you are saying partially. But I also think some people label some players as “having a high basketball IQ”, because they might lack a certain level of athleticism and have made up for it by honing skills such as passing, hustle, taking charges, etc. even black players such as Tim Duncan and Borris Diaw have been labeled as “High IQ” players. Racism is alive and real, no doubt. But we have to be careful how we label people too.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Handoverfist View Post
                        I do agree with what you are saying partially. But I also think some people label some players as “having a high basketball IQ”, because they might lack a certain level of athleticism and have made up for it by honing skills such as passing, hustle, taking charges, etc. even black players such as Tim Duncan and Borris Diaw have been labeled as “High IQ” players. Racism is alive and real, no doubt. But we have to be careful how we label people too.
                        Yup, very true.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Handoverfist View Post
                          I do agree with what you are saying partially. But I also think some people label some players as “having a high basketball IQ”, because they might lack a certain level of athleticism and have made up for it by honing skills such as passing, hustle, taking charges, etc. even black players such as Tim Duncan and Borris Diaw have been labeled as “High IQ” players. Racism is alive and real, no doubt. But we have to be careful how we label people too.
                          Excellent post. There are physical and mental aspects to the game. While I agree with Mattie on many levels with his latest set of posts, there are indeed valid reasons why some people use the term. I don't really like the term but do acknowledge there is reality to the term. For example, it is true that some people make it in the NBA due to sheer physical attributes (e.g. JaVale McGee) and others like Steve Nash make it in the NBA because they are extremely gifted and skilled at the fundamentals of the game. How good would McGee be if he had Nash's size and athleticism? He wouldn't be any good at all. Imagine if Steve Nash had McGee's "basketball IQ"?

                          BTW, "basketball IQ" is actually very unrelated to sheer intelligence. It's more instinct than that. I would argue that Lance was born to play basketball and his BBall IQ is off the charts. He sees the entire floor. He knows where guys are going to be, before they get there. He can "feel" the moment. All of this is instinct and emotion, not intelligence. Larry Bird's "game" had nothing to do with his intelligence and all about gifts that are more instinctual. You see this all the time in basketball. Guys play the game without really thinking and it is a natural process. Dare I say it's actually more physical than it really is mental.

                          But sure, I get the idea that it may offend some people so I really don't use it much.
                          Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by mattie View Post

                            I actually have zero issues with the term and I agree with what you said: "Basketball IQ, as I've heard it used, refers to a sort of instinctual understanding of the game of basketball (including things like situational awareness, court vision, quick-twitch decision-making, court positioning etc.) and has very, very little to do with any conventional measure of intelligence and more to do with ingrained patterns of habit etc.". What I do have a problem is white people whether on forums, twitter, facebook, instagram or in person cannot WAIT to refer to black players as "low bbiq"

                            There are multiple posters on this very board who do this constantly. I agree with what you said. If someone had a conversation and referred to JR Smith as "low bbiq" and "LBJ is a genius" both phrases are correct.

                            But that's not what happens. What really happens is white players are CONSTANTLY referred to as high BBIQ. Bogdonavich on this very board has been referred to as a "high bbiq" player multiple times. (The same guy that literally did one of the dumbest basketball plays I have EVER seen)

                            By the way, this happens in the media as well. White players are ALWAYS "high bbiq". Always. I think you can talk about basketball for hours and hours and hours without EVER using the term, and if you do use the term? I'd be extremely careful. That is, if you care. The people that throw the term around do not care. And they consistently are the usual suspects: Conservative, white, HATE player movement, always side with owners, and they refer to basketball players as selfish, greedy, and every other stereotype. It is blatant and predictable, and while I've heard Nate McMillan use the term, he uses the term to refer to guys who really do play smart basketball. Oblivious media members and commentators are not so discerning.

                            Frankly, I try to NEVER use the term. I don't ever want to contribute to the number one argument that white supremacy was built on: The racist lie about intelligence.

                            Edit: BTW, LBJ made it quite clear he wanted to play with smart basketball players after the finals. I don't ever recall him using the term. There are plenty of more nuanced ways to talk basketball, and refer to players abilities than just saying "low bbiq." Further, I'd argue even if you did use the term, as long as you were hyper-aware of our own bias', you could successfully use the term as long as you were careful.

                            Most people aren't careful however. And since they love throwing the phrase around, their motivations are clear.
                            I said the same thing on another board about bbiq. I said that Bojan made that dumb play and was labeled as just a dumb mistake but if Lance would have done that he would have been called just dumb. I really think that there is a double standard when it comes to that particular term.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              People unfairly ripped JO for a lot of things that weren't even remotely true. He was a tough 2-way player that loved playing for Indiana and was great towards the fans off the court. He helped the team re-establish their dominance in the East and was the clear leader on that 61-win team, which he lead to the ECF. He even played through a serious injury on 2 different occasions to help the team advance in the playoffs but people still call him soft and said he couldn't deliver. Ron Artest, with all his issues was probably more revered by Pacers fans and he ultimately stabbed them in the back. Personally, I think people started viewing him negatively the moment he started rocking the cornrows and tattoos. Despite it all, JO still has nothing but great things to say about his time with the Pacers but people on this board still have negative things to say about him.

                              We all love Reggie for obvious reasons but despite the fact that he played the game the right way, he was brash, cocky, and at times flashy. He danced like Michael Jackson during pre-game introductions early in his career. His favorite nickname was "Hollywood". He would bait players into technical, flagrant fouls, and even ejections. He hit a 3-pointer and bowed to the crowed. He ran through from the court to the locker room yelling "Choke Artists" after the "8 points, 9 seconds" game.

                              If Lance could hit 40% of his 3s and 90% of his free throws, he'd be on Reggie's level of fan love but he doesn't, which is what makes the attraction a little harder to understand for those that don't realize how entertaining and likable Lance is. Lance really loves the fans. He's always been able to make a connection with them and he has some of the funniest post shot celebrations in the entire NBA. If you like the players on your team to just hit a big shot and stoically head back down the court, you'll never like Lance Stephenson. If you don't follow him on Instagram, you won't understand that his mystique goes beyond the game of basketball.





                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by tnasty4l View Post

                                I said the same thing on another board about bbiq. I said that Bojan made that dumb play and was labeled as just a dumb mistake but if Lance would have done that he would have been called just dumb. I really think that there is a double standard when it comes to that particular term.
                                Well then, if you think Bojan is dumb, then you are a xenophobe

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X