Tweet
Originally posted by owl
View Post
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.
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
-
LOL. You are so right...and he looks to be in pain. He has no idea how to swim either. The kid was born with magnificent length and should take up beach volley ball. I bet that's his real calling. -
I agree , but remember Domas has real trouble with fouls, and if he is our main C he gets much more minutes..and a greater chance to foul out, plus we need Turners rim protection
Sittin on top of the world!Comment
-
Honest question Peck as a I value your opinion and I know you were right there during this era. Do you see any parallels with Myles and Smits and how he struggled? Myles is much younger but I think the seasons in the league are the same, but it seems like the situations are similar.Originally posted by Peck View Post
Any thoughts on this?Comment
-
As someone who spent much of the summer post about an expected leap, I have to say right now Sabots is clearly better. I still have hope that he can reach his potential, but it appears at best thats a couple years away.Comment
-
definite similarities IMHO, but whats not as similar is the difference in the way the game is played nowOriginally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
The irony is Smits would have been lethal in today's game (yes he would struggle on D , but he can block a few shots and his jumper ended up being money ..always remember vs Orlando in the play offs
)
Sittin on top of the world!Comment
-
The biggest issue is Myles is not focussing on a couple things. He's trying to do too much. He wants to do everything all the time, pass, score, block, shoot, drive, defend in space. As soon as something staggers his plan he has like a hesitation. He is thinking way too much.
Sabonis on the other hand goes out there and is just making quick decisions. He might get fouls, he might not block, he might get turnovers, but it works out more often because he is aggressively making quick choices rebounding, defending, passing and scoring. As soon as he gets the ball he does what he wants to do.Comment
-
I watched just about every game Rik Smits played in. Myles is similar to Rik in that neither could find a rebound. They both struggled early in their careers, although Rik's was moreso due to his feet not his game. Otherwise, they have both started at C for the Indiana Pacers and are nothing alike.Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
definite similarities IMHO, but whats not as similar is the difference in the way the game is played now
The irony is Smits would have been lethal in today's game (yes he would struggle on D , but he can block a few shots and his jumper ended up being money ..always remember vs Orlando in the play offs )
Here are just some of the differences:
1) Myles is a shot-blocker. Rik wasn't that good at blocking shots and the only reason anyone would mistake him for a shot-blocker is that he was the size of an aircraft carrier in the paint and contended shots. But it wasn't the same.
2) Rik was a space eater. He dominated the paint physically with his size. It wasn't that he was musclebound...he was just gigantic. To this day he is under rated in terms of physicality by people who never watched him or because he wasn't blocking shots and cleaning glass (DD did that for him) Myles is a pencil and pretty soft one at that. He gets dominated in the paint and while young and potentially improving in that area, Rik was never owned physically in the paint like that. He had to contend with monsters and the only player who really put him on his heels was Shaq who weighed about 100 lbs more than anyone.
3) Myles, while not that coordinated, is fairly mobile. Rik had feet of stone and could barely play at times because of it.
4) Rik was a reliable, dead-eye midrange shooter. Rik had a hook shot he pulled out sometimes. Rik would on occasion throw it down with a massive windmill. Rik played with force. Myles is none of this. Myles has a nice fadeaway midrange/post shot. Some think he's Dirk or something but that's another story. Myles is a decent shooter for an NBA player. Rik was an exceptional shooter.
5) Rik had to be double teamed. Now this was later in his career after he became a veteran. Myles isn't really guarded at all. Very big difference in terms of role and threat on the team.
6) Rik sat due to fouls and his feet often hurt him. Myles sits because there are better players on the bench waiting to get in.
7) Rik was an all-star but had the league not been filled with great C's in the 90's, Rik would have been a perennial all-star. Myles? Myles is just trying to hang onto his starting spot on the middling Pacers.
8) Rik had great court awareness, how to setup in the post and pass out of it, how to get an open look on the baseline, etc. Myles plays more like a rookie than he does Rik Smits.
9) Rik was a #2 lottery pick. There were great expectations coming into the league. Myles was picked at #11.Comment
-
-
Smits was a total beast before the feet trouble. In the 95 postseason, he averaged 20/7 on 55% shooting as the Pacers got within a game of The Finals. He outplayed Ewing in the semis, then held his own against a beast Shaq and the Magic. Everyone remembers Game 1 in 95 against NY for the 8 points in 8 seconds, but Smits had 34 that game and was killing NY.
Smits was holding his own against some of the best centers of all time in a much more competitive era for big men. He’d have a field day in today’s NBA. He’d probably comfortably average over 20 PPG year in and year out if healthy.
We will be lucky if Turner is ever half as good as Smits was in his prime because right now he’s nowhere close.Comment
-
I loved Smits but he would have trouble with the speed of today's game. He was like a giant version of Pau Gasol though..so while Pau is done in his prime he is a comparable. Myles not so much. Myles isn't half the ball player at this stage.Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
Comment
-
Some people are old enough to remember this...but like I said Rik had to be double teamed in his prime...unless a big-time star C like Hakeem or Ewing was guarding him. He was still able to score but they could defend him. But there were a number of teams that had centers that couldn't come close to guarding him. It was pathetic. He immediately and easily scored on these guys. I don't think we ever had a Pacer that lethal in the paint and that includes JO..except for a couple years when JO was playing near MVP basketball. There's a reason Shaq heaped praise on Rik and it's truly because he had HOF ability on offense. It's a shame he was a poor defender/rebounder. If he had at least been decent he was a lock for the HOF.Comment
-
I was honestly shocked when he got that deal. Did they think giving him the money was going to boost his confidence or something? The fluff started when they trotted him out to talk to the crowd before the home opener."The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" DanzigComment
-
There are some similarities between Smits & Turner and honestly the solution that made Rik Smits palatable as an NBA center would also very much be an answer for Myles Turner. However unless we have improved the cloning process immensely there is no way to play Dale Davis next to Myles. Although I have no doubt that even at 49 Dale would still outrebound him.Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
However what I would like to do is to take you in the way back time machine and give you the player that Myles always reminds me of. James Edwards, yes Buddha for those of you from Detroit. People tend to forget that Big James played his most productive (statistic wise anyway) seasons with the indiana Pacers. He was a 7'!" (legitimately that tall to) center who was at best mediocre at rebounding. He used to drive me insane because he did not have any idea at that point in his career on how to use leverage and strength to get rebounds. Like Myles he was almost always going for the block and was often times out of position to rebound. Now as frustrated as I was with James he eventually grew into his body (this was back in the day that centers did not really develop until their late 20's) and went on to have an almost 20 year career in the NBA including being a part of the Bad Boys in Detroit. I say all of that to say that it is still very possible and actually probable that Myles will have a very long productive NBA career. However it is also very possible that while he has a long and successful career it may not be the all star level career that many (including myself) thought he would have after his rookie season.
I think a couple of things have gone wrong in Myles career and I really believe that we would all be looking at him differently than we are right now if these few things hadn't occurred.
1. He came into the NBA in the wrong era. When he came in is when the whole Pace & Space craze was skyrocketing and it was decided that Myles was the prototypical new age center. The only problem with this is that in reality he isn't . He can block shots and rim protect but other than that nothing about his game screams center, even in this new era. Think about all of the very effective new age centers and what do they all have in common? They typically are very athletic/quick and jump very high. While Myles is not slow or flat footed he really isn't all that athletic or quick for someone his age. It's also been said his ability to shoot three's and spread the floor is part of it, well he's not exactly setting the world on fire from deep and I really question how often it truly does open up the floor. Now to his credit our offensive schemes need some work and maybe someday he will get his 3 point % up over 30% (right now getting it up to 20% seems like a miracle). So this is my very long winded way of saying that we should never have tried to make Myles a center, he would have been much better off playing the stretch 4 (God I had that term).
2. Ian Mahinmi getting injured and signing a ridiculous contract with Washington. Don't get me wrong, we dodged a bullet here but just imagine how different life would be here in Pacer land with our feelings towards Myles if he were playing alongside a 6'10" player who was a good rebounder, physical defender and also a quick on his feet to rotate whenever Myles would go for the block. Mahinmi would have been perfect next to Myles as this would have also allowed Myles to work the outside game (not just the three but 12' & beyond). Nobody would be upset if he were only grabbing 5 or 6 rebounds a game because Ian would easily grab 8 or more every game and would be down low battling for tough rebounds. This would have taken tons of pressure off of Myles over the past few years. While I am one of his larger critics I will also tell you that a lot of Myles problems right now are that he is under tremendous pressure to produce. He's not dumb, he's also on social media all of the time and he see's and hears what people are saying about his putrid rebounding. I think that just has started an entire chain reaction to now it is impacting his shooting.
3. Being paired up with Thad Young & Bojan Bogdanovic. Myles is a poor rebounder, I'll address this more in a minute, but Thad Young & Bogy are also typically a below average rebounders as well. Thus we start games off praying that our 6'4" shooting guard can go get rebounds. Our starting unit IMO is just to finesse and this is one of the reasons I was disappointed we did not try and keep Trevor Booker. He wouldn't have started but he could have given us another player who would go in and do the dirty work. As it stands now we replace the finesse Thad Young with the monster Domas Sabonis but then replace the finesse Myles Turner with the more finesse T J Leaf. To quote Isiah Thomas from back in the day we need some dogs on our squad.
4. This one could easily be listed as number one but for this talk I'll put it down here. Domas Sabonis is outplaying him almost every single night in almost every single category but one (blocked shots). This in some ways has nothing to do with Turner, Domas is just really that good. I mean honestly I believe he has elevated himself into the upper tier of NBA centers and right now I believe he is the 2nd best center in the east behind Embiid. I would also listen to arguments for Horford but beyond that? Not really. So you can see where it frustrates some of us to no end believing (right or wrong) that the guy who is the second best center in the entire East can't even start and get the majority of minutes on his own team. Well that frustration leads to talking and blogging and twittering and etc. to the point it becomes an online war. Well it has gotten so bad this year that even Myles most ardent defenders are backing way off and only a couple of them are still adamant that the roles should continue as is. Again this leads to very public newspaper article questioning roles and saying we might need to explore a trade. As I sated above, Myles isn't dumb and he doesn't live in a bubble. He see's and knows this and I think it is also playing into his very obvious funk right now.
Now let's talk about his rebounding. It's putrid. He's playing 26.6 minutes per game and he is grabbing 4.8 rebounds. There is just no excuse for that. I'm sorry there isn't. We can talk about blocking out for his team mates, out of position because of rotating on defense or whatever and yes some of this is true I will grant you that. However it's not every play and it's not every night. Now here is the question that really has never been addressed that I know of. Why is he so bad at it. Well I don't have a real answer for this because I'm not smart enough to know but I will say this. The past few games I have purposely tried to watch him rebound whenever I can and my thought is this. Often times he rebounds like he is blocking a shot. In other words unless the ball comes off squarely to him and he is directly under it what I've seen is that instead of going up and securing the rebound with his shoulders squared up and two hands on the ball he looks to me like he always stretches out with one arm raised (either right or left depending on what side of the rim he is on) and in doing so he often bats at the ball and not able to grab it. Now I'm not talking tipping the ball like Foster used to do (drove me crazy when he did it to) but literally having it bounce off of his fingers. This also leads to him being stretched out and off balance, thus I've seen guards move him in the air (illegally a lot but rarely called). I can only assume that this is because Myles never was forced to be a rebounder in high school or college and that he often was able to get his boards by just being taller than everyone else.
I hope that this was a mostly dispassionate response to Myles Turner. I admit to my Domas bias here but not because I dislike Myles. I honestly simply think that highly of Domas and right now Myles is in the way. Nuntius asked me the other day why I was doubtful that the combo of Turner & Sabonis would work. I don't have real answer for that other than to say I question the lack of athleticism between the two of them, however with the way that Thad has played this year I don't really see either of them being much of a let down.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
Personally I think Myles is being misused as a starting 5 and would be better suited rotating with Thad at the 4. O'Quinn is quite suitable as backup for Domas at the 5. Myles has a good enough outside shot that I could see him being be a very good "stretch" 4.
Don't expect a Cliff Robinson to be a David Robinson.Comment
-
Myles is almost 7 ft tall and would be way too slow to defend most PFs in the league right now. It would also be a waste of his length. If anyone can play PF it might be Sabonis but definitely not a good idea for turnerOriginally posted by RamBo_Lamar View PostLifelong pacers fanComment
Comment