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

Kemba - How Realistic?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
    My fear is that we would be paying 30 million dollars for the next Stuckey, Monta, Tyreke. Iím not talking about him being at that level, but him showing up and never reaching the levels he had in the past. I would expect him to get here and average 18 and 6 with crummy percentages and mediocre defense. 30 million for that would be handicapping our team, big-time.
    When were Stuckey, Monta, and Tyreke NBA All-Stars? Each of those players were also coming off injuries and in some instances surgeries. Not a good comparison.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by docpaul View Post
      He's pretty awesome. He's also almost 29.

      He's going to want a 4 year max. That'd take him into age 33.

      Love him for 1-3 years. But he does not fit our time window.

      I think they have to look elsewhere. The bottom line is, our core, signed long-term guys are 26 and 23.

      Starting to recognize now that, gulp, they either figure out a way for Turner and Sabonis to start together, or one of them will have to go with other pieces to find a young piece with all-star potential. I don't think one exists in free agency, unless you think overpaying for Rozier is gonna get it done... or if you think that Rubio is the reclamation project of choice.

      The better "fits" are guards like Jrue Holiday (whose contract duration is appropriate for his shelf life) or Jamal Murray (who might be gettable with the rise of Monte Morris - and Sabonis paired with Jokic would be sick).
      Yes, our window starts next season. I see no reason to think we need to wait until Domas and Myles are 29 to make moves to try and win a championship.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post

        When were Stuckey, Monta, and Tyreke NBA All-Stars? Each of those players were also coming off injuries and in some instances surgeries. Not a good comparison.
        Not a good comparison because I wasnít comparing them.

        Here, letís try this. Name a veteran free agent that the Pacers have signed in the past that exceeded their previous level of play. Free agents come here to cash in and move on

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

          Not a good comparison because I wasnít comparing them.

          Here, letís try this. Name a veteran free agent that the Pacers have signed in the past that exceeded their previous level of play. Free agents come here to cash in and move on
          I canít. Can you name one theyíve signed that was actually in their prime and not coming off an injury or surgery?

          Comment


          • #50
            Really not seeing the hype around him beyond scoring more points and will be a hell of a lot more expensive....

            https://herosports.com/nba/player-co...s-kemba-walker

            If we're going to chase down a new PG, I rather it be a PG who's at or above 6'3" with some long arms to play in the passing lanes.


            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

            Comment


            • #51
              Does anybody think Rondo would be helpful?
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." óKevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                Does anybody think Rondo would be helpful?
                It would be better than resigning DC or (God forbid) starting Cojo, but not much more.

                My preferred last ditch option would be Rubio.

                My preference:

                Brogdon
                Kemba
                Dragic
                Rubio

                Edit: I realize now you didnít say necessarily mean as a starter...if he wants to be the old vet presence and is willing to come off the bench for 20 minutes max a night I wouldnít mind at all...but would he?

                Last edited by SaintLouisan; 04-22-2019, 08:32 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                  Really not seeing the hype around him beyond scoring more points and will be a hell of a lot more expensive....

                  https://herosports.com/nba/player-co...s-kemba-walker

                  If we're going to chase down a new PG, I rather it be a PG who's at or above 6'3" with some long arms to play in the passing lanes.
                  Really interesting comparison. I agree he's not a top tier star without risk, but we surely are not getting anyone like that without somehow getting incredibly lucky in the draft. We need a volume scorer who can penetrate and create for himself and teammates off the dribble, and to me he's one of the best potential options who can provide those qualities.

                  Of course, I would much rather pay half as much to bring in a Rozier or Brogdan, as others have suggested. However, there's just as much risk or more with candidates of that caliber. Everyone keeps saying we need to make a splash by aquiring another star. This very well be our most realistic chance.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                    This is a false statement. Of the top 6 teams in 3PA, the Pacers had a more efficient offense than 4 of them. Statistically there is almost no correlation between taking more 3's and having a better offense. The Spurs had a top 10 offense, but took about as many 3's as the Pacers. The Pacers were about average in terms of offensive efficiency despite taking so few 3's, and would have been on a similar level to the Spurs if they just made their free throws.

                    You only want to take as many 3's as is efficient for your team. The best way to maximize efficiency is to maximize the amount of shots made. If in order to take more 3's you end up taking more bad shots you would be better off taking more mid-range 2's as they are a higher percentage shot. For example, you would be better off shooting 37% from 3 on 25 shots and 40% from mid-range on 5 shots, than to shoot 35% from 3 on 30 shots. The only time taking more 3's automatically results in better offense is when you are making those 3's.

                    It is always best to design a system around the strengths of your players. If that strength is taking long 2's you will be better off taking long 2's than 3's. One of the few things i have applauded Nate about when it comes to our offense is taking mid-range 2's. The 10ft to 3pt. line range is a strength of Oladipo, Collison, and CoJo. All three are fairly efficient from that range. So letting them take those quality mid-range shots over chucking 3's is the right call. Going forward I hope Oladipo, unless he drastically improves his 3 point shot, is more selective when he takes 3's, and focuses more on getting to his spot in the mid-range. He'll be a more efficient player by doing so.
                    Obviously you can't just chuck contested shots up there, you have to get good shots and make them. I'm just saying that if you have the shooters, I don't see much downside to running an offense geared toward getting a lot of 3's up in todays NBA. The truly elite offenses in the league spread the floor and shoot lots of 3's - I don't see how that's a false statement. 4 out of the top 5 offenses in the league are top 10 in 3pt attempt rate (GS/Bucks/Raptors/Harden). Of course all those teams have elite offensive players taking some of those shots and breaking down defenses to get shooters open looks. That's why I'm all in on Kemba.

                    Your Spurs comparison is good, they do seem to play a lot like us. It's proof that an offense can still do well with a low 3 and free throw rate - an offense based heavily around the mid range game. That said, the Spurs had to play damn near perfect offensively just to crack the top 10 with that style of play. They were 2nd overall FG% - 1st in 3P% - 1st in FT% - 2nd in TO%. THose are ridiculous stats!! Looking at those stats you'd think the Spurs had the best offense in the league but they finished 7th. I look at the Spurs this year and think that's about the cap for what a midrange heavy offense can do in this league.




                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Can someone just ask Kemba.
                      https://soundcloud.com/geoclipse

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by GizzyStardust View Post

                        Really interesting comparison. I agree he's not a top tier star without risk, but we surely are not getting anyone like that without somehow getting incredibly lucky in the draft. We need a volume scorer who can penetrate and create for himself and teammates off the dribble, and to me he's one of the best potential options who can provide those qualities.

                        Of course, I would much rather pay half as much to bring in a Rozier or Brogdan, as others have suggested. However, there's just as much risk or more with candidates of that caliber. Everyone keeps saying we need to make a splash by aquiring another star. This very well be our most realistic chance.
                        Honestly, I don't really see a point in bringing Walker here if Nate's coaching style is more of a "all hands on deck" where anyone could end up being the leading scorer for the game. If we're not going to get a bigger guard with a longer wingspan, then I rather stick with our short guard of Darren Collison who has a much better shooting percentage and assist/turnover ratio.

                        I believe "big" guards (Ball, Simmons, D'Angelo) are the future, and I want get ahead of the trend with a big guard of our own.


                        Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Kemba's team finished with a worse winning percent than the Oladipo- less Pacers (50%). How good could he possibly be?
                          Lifelong pacers fan

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I wanted Dinwiddie so badly but Brooklyn locked him up. Wonder if he could still be had?


                            Name-calling signature removed

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              For me DC simply isnít aggressive enough. His ratio is beautiful but I want a PG who is perceived as a threat.


                              Name-calling signature removed

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Banta View Post
                                For me DC simply isnít aggressive enough. His ratio is beautiful but I want a PG who is perceived as a threat.
                                Then you give the ball to Oladipo. Hell, if Bojan continues to work on his dribble drive during the offseason, you could give him the ball too. Collison does a better job of getting the ball to players in the right spot to hit their shot. Collison has better shooting percentage than Walker. Kemba is better at taking people off the dribble and forcing the defense to collapse, but....it's not translating to his assist/turnover. I like to keep mistakes down to a minimum.

                                Truthfully, I'm surprised that no one has chimed in with the "he's putting up great stats on a losing team" comment....I don't like this idea of chasing an all-star for the sake of chasing an all-star. That feels more like a PR/GM move.
                                Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 04-23-2019, 09:07 AM.


                                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X