-
https://www.inquisitr.com/6494723/nb...three-team-blo
Sorry if this has already been discussed. But, this article suggest the Pacers be involved as the 3rd team sending Simmons to GS.
Pacers sending out Justin Holiday to GS Brogdon and Warren and I believe a 1st to Philly.
Pacers receive Wiseman, Wiggins and Moody.
Not sure what the Pacers would do with 5 Bigs lol, but would consider it.Last edited by rimrattler; 08-07-2021, 03:10 PM.Leave a comment:
-
Again, all points are not alike. Sabonis gets more of his points assisted. We've seen Sabonis get his fair share of double teams inside, but Embiid gets them 15 feet out. I'm not arguing Sabonis vs. Embiid on offense anymore. Sabonis is a much much better passer, and is more deliberate in his actual playmaking, and that's it. By the way, this isn't a slight. Embiid is the most dominant two way big man in the NBA, when available.Leave a comment:
-
If true, then maybe teams need to rethink how they play Domas in the paint.
To be honest, I'm not sure how points are calculated. NBA stats also has a Points in the Paint stat which has Embiid at 10.3 and Domas at 13.0.Paint Touches FGM FGA FG% Points Embiid 5.3 1.7 2.8 62% 5.5 Sabonis 9.0 3.3 4.8 69% 8.2 Leave a comment:
-
Embiid isn't a chucker. He's actually a significantly better shooter than Domas, if we're going by the most recent season we've had, and the mid range difference between them last season was too embarrassing for me to post. Sabonis is also assisted far more, meaning that he isn't able/asked to create his own as much.
I've had enough Joel Embiid talk for the day. He's better tham Sabonis on offense, but still F him and the 6ers. F Ben Simmons too. I hate Philly, and hope we can still get Thybulle over here soon enough so that he forgets all the darkness he's learned in that dump of a city.Leave a comment:
-
Honestly, TJ probably wouldn't even need to have the same usage rate as Durant to score as much or more than Durant. That wouldn't mean TJ is better or even as good as Durant, though, as Durant effects that game in many more ways than TJ is capable of. This is most obvious when you look at their assist numbers, Durant is usually around 5 apg while TJ is like 1.5. TJ is just really good at one thing, and could potentially match Durant in that one thing, but to be on Durant's level you need to be good at more than a one trick pony.
As for Domas vs Embiid, if you points produced (i.e. points scored + assists) Domas is actually more productive. Assuming each assist is worth 2.3 points, Domas on average contributed 35.71ppg to Embiids 34.94ppg. So it is arguable that Domas is already a more effective offensive player than Embiid if you are not looking purely at raw points scored. The real difference here is that Embiid draws many more fouls, partially because he shoots more, but also mostly because NBA refs are very gullible.Last edited by Eleazar; 08-06-2021, 08:40 PM.Leave a comment:
-
-
Kinda funny you used most recent 3pt % when talking about spacing in another thread, and in this one ignore that Embiid shot 37% from deep last year (you know, his close to MVP season) and 39% from deep in the playoffs, and Simmons still managed to F it up. Anyway, Simmons' lack of offensive ability in half court is the main reason Embiid has to float around and take those dumb shots in past seasons anywau, and him and other teammates have hinted on it before. Domas has shown that he's more okay taking those shots, but has a long way to go before being a threat I think. Maybe not though, if he can tweak his shot some, it might be pretty nice. He does have great touch, though he isn't a very good FT shooter.
Something else I will never understand: people that see FGA inside, and think they mean they should have the same rate of fouls drawn. If you don't think Embiid and Sabonis get played much differently in the paint, then there is no conversation to have.Leave a comment:
-
-
Gordon played his role in the Portland series. He was a guy. You could've put a wide variety of guys next to Jokic, and they advance. I'm not sure how you watched the series and felt Gordon did much to replace Murray. Porter Jr played great lolLeave a comment:
-
Oh you just keep making this easy for me don't you.
KD is actually an efficient player whose long-term efficiency blows Embiid out of the water lol. If you have Warren the same usage, he still wouldn't exceed KD's scoring so no (~24ppg) he wouldn't. Nice try.
Also, in addition to having a usage rate of 30%, KD still manages to provide 6apg which gives him added value as opposed to Embiid's 3apg. KD does more, on less. Embiid's usage rate is far higher than KD... so ya gonna tell me you think Embiid is better offensively than KD? Didn't think so.
Embiid is in "chucker" territory in line with Westbrook.
Embiid has e highest usage rate in the NBA. Do you really think that makes him the best scorer? Hint: he's not.
Westbrook had a usage rate over 40% a couple of years ago. Does that make him the most talented scorer in the NBA? I think we'd all recognize guys like Curry take far better advantage of their opportunities.
Having the highest usage rate doesn't make a player "the best scorer" lol.
****
Here's a bonus:
It's not good when you're the highest usage player in the league...
... And almost 9 ppg behind the 2021 league scoring leader. Oh the truth hurts!
****
Embiid is the definition of high volume, he only gets those numbers bc he's high volume. The end. Bye bye.Last edited by OneMoreYear; 08-06-2021, 08:03 PM.Leave a comment:
-
-
Exactly my point boffo.
Embiid's numbers are higher ONLY bc his usage rate is through the roof. He's a worse shooter. He shoots 3x as many FTs as Sabonis.
Embiid had t highest ,3pt % of his career last year but it's a major, major outlier as without that his avg lifetime is closer to 30%. Over his career Embiid is below avg from both 2 & 3pt territory, a high volume/low efficiency shooter on the level of a Russell Westbrook.
If Sabonis' usage rate (21%) matches Embiid's (35%), he scores more than Embiid. That's a glaring red flag.Last edited by OneMoreYear; 08-06-2021, 07:03 PM.Leave a comment:
-
Sabonis also plays 6 more minutes a game.
Per 36 for both players
Sabo - 20.3 points 12 rebounds 6.7 assist 1.2 steals 0.5 blocks
Joel - 33.3 points 12.2 rebounds 3.3 assist 1.1 steals 1.6 blocks plus Joel shot 38 percent for three and 85% from the free throw line. Sabo has a better 2 point field goal % but it’s 58-54% between the two.Last edited by Motion Offense; 08-06-2021, 06:44 PM.Leave a comment:
-
Ben Simmons must be a pretty dull person if he can’t have fun in Portland or Toronto.Leave a comment:
- If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
- 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:
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6And I would put the pasted article in quotes like this.
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.
all rights reserved Nije Dei Ltd
Powered by vBulletin® Version 6.0.8
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. All rights reserved.
All times are GMT-5. This page was generated at 04:26 PM.
Leave a comment: