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

just how talented is Danny Granger?

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

  • #46
    Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
    That's not talent. Those are all skills.

    Talent is a natural ability. A skill is the possession of an art or craft.
    I think you're picking nits.


    Comment


    • #47
      Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

      Originally posted by Indy View Post
      I think you're picking nits.
      Really? I think I'm discussing the use of the English language - a language where words have meaning.

      Talent is talent - there's a reason why you talk about "raw talent" or "undeveloped talent." But talent alone doesn't make a basketball player - you have to add a skill set.

      IMO, as NBA players go, Danny Granger is not supremely talented. He's talented enough, which is where 85% of NBA players are. From there it's how you utilize that talent which is where he excels. We can look at dozens of examples of more talented players who aren't as good as Danny. For whatever reason, they haven't utilized or taken advantage of their talent as well as he has. Look at Tim Thomas as an example - monster talent, more talented than Granger, but for a variety of reasons he's never come close to achieving what Danny will on the basketball court.

      Usually that comes down to work ethic and also how hard someone plays when they're on the floor.

      Reggie's another great example - another guy who wasn't hugely talented (in NBA terms - as with Danny, compared to most of us he was monstrously talented). But he worked his tail off utilizing screens to get his shot and even became a solid defender, not because he was a talented defender but because he knew his strengths and weaknesses, knew what he wanted to force the opposing player to do and understood how the team defense worked.
      Last edited by DisplacedKnick; 12-30-2008, 08:43 AM.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        What natural abilities are you thinking of?
        Hand-eye coordination, speed, quickness (both hands and feet), ability to process multiple mental inputs that are occurring simultaneously, etc.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

          So those are the NBA talents you think of when you decide how talented you think someone is?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            So those are the NBA talents you think of when you decide how talented you think someone is?
            A few of 'em - I could probably come up with a dozen or more.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

              Talent is a grouping. Skills and athleticism/god-given ability is a sub-grouping. You can't have talent without some skills and some athleticism. The more of each, the better the talent.

              When describing how a player is talented, you list their skills or athletic measurements.

              And BRush, Danny is in the top 25 of FT attempts per game (and there's ten players that are less than 1 ft att/gm more than him). And if you go by his last 7 games at 8.7 attempts, that would put him tied for 6th. You get to the FT by attacking the basket.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                A few of 'em - I could probably come up with a dozen or more.
                Please do because whenever this comes up the specifics never seem to come up fully and every discussion of talent vs skill vs athleticism becomes murky.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

                  Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                  Really? I think I'm discussing the use of the English language - a language where words have meaning.

                  Talent is talent - there's a reason why you talk about "raw talent" or "undeveloped talent." But talent alone doesn't make a basketball player - you have to add a skill set.
                  eh, this seems to be coming down to semantics. What you are referring to here is the dreaded p word, potential. I think Potential is just an abbreviation for Potential Talent.

                  A raw player with good size and athleticism has potential, Danny Granger has talent.

                  I still look at this as Talent meaning the finished product. By your logic, any player who doesn't have supreme athleticism is a mediocre talent... but would you call Larry Bird a mediocre talent? See what Im getting at, its all semantics. A top 10 player of all time can't be a mediocre talent, that just doesen't sound right.

                  Jammal Tinsley had a lot of unrealized potential for example. not unrealized talent. His talent is only a measure of how "good" he was at any given time, at least thats how I look at it.
                  "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                  - ilive4sports

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

                    Talent
                    * endowment: natural abilities or qualities
                    * a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity


                    I take this to mean talent = ability

                    So what's ability?

                    Ability
                    * the quality of being able to perform; a quality that permits or facilitates achievement or accomplishment

                    Okay, so how about able?

                    Able
                    * having the necessary means or skill or know-how or authority to do something

                    So here we reach skills and knowledge.

                    So talent is ability, and to be able to do something is to have the skills or knowledge to do something.

                    This tells me that for the topic of basketball players, it comes down to four things things:

                    1) Someone's physical abilities
                    - How fast they can be
                    - How strong they can be
                    - How well they can jump
                    - How big/tall/long they are
                    - How durable their bodies are
                    - Fill in the blank if you think I'm leaving important things out, but you get the idea

                    Some of these abilities are purely genetic, others can be manipulated (eating right, working out, taking care of your body)

                    2) Someone's intelligence
                    - How fast they can learn/understand
                    - How much they can learn/understand
                    - What they can and cannot learn/understand

                    3) Desire and interest
                    - How badly do they want to do and learn these skills
                    - How interested are they in learning and practicing these skills

                    These first three combine to determine:
                    4) Someone's skills
                    - What they know how to do
                    - What they learn how to do
                    - What they are taught to do
                    - What they practice doing

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

                      Gerald Green is an incredibly "talented" basketball player.

                      He can jump out of the gym. He has an incredible first step. He is extremely fast. His foot quickness is absolutely elite. He's strong. He has great balance. He has optimal coordination. He has thoroughbred stamina.

                      These things all also help lead to him incredibly "skilled."

                      His quickness gives him blow-by-ability. His balance and stop-and-go quickness makes him a fantastic dribbler who can abuse defenders off the bounce. His balance, explosive leaping ability and tremendous muscle memory produce a notably consistent jumpshot, in both form and accuracy. His coordination and footspeed make him a capable defender who can react instantaneously to a dribbler. His stamina allows him to do all these things on both ends of the court for extended stretches without losing much on either end.

                      Yet, for some reason, despite being both more "talented" and more "skilled" (aside from jumpshooting accuracy and probably hand-eye coordination) than the guy picked one spot ahead of him, our own Danny Granger, Gerald Green is an absolute scrub by comparison.

                      Anyone can speculate why this is and some reasons are rather obvious...but if a basketball talent scout saw both of these guys playing by themselves in an empty gym or running through drills without knowing who they were or ever having seen them in game situations before, I think, even today, he would say that Gerald was the better basketball player.

                      He would, of course, be undeniably mistaken -- and that's the difference between talent, skill and "ability."
                      Last edited by JayRedd; 12-30-2008, 10:18 PM.
                      Read my Pacers blog:
                      8points9seconds.com

                      Follow my twitter:

                      @8pts9secs

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

                        That's why I say skill and physical ability are a part of what defines someone's talent.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

                          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                          Gerald Green is an incredibly talented basketball player.

                          He can jump out of the gym. He has an incredible first step. He is extremely fast. His foot quickness is absolutely elite. He's strong. He has great balance. He has optimal coordination. He has thoroughbred stamina.

                          These things all also make him incredibly skilled.

                          His quickness gives him blow-by-ability. His balance and stop-and-go quickness makes him a fantastic dribbler who can abuse defenders off the bounce. His balance, explosive leaping ability and tremendous muscle memory produce a notably consistent jumpshot, in both form and accuracy. His coordination and footspeed make him a capable defender who can react instantaneously to a dribbler. His stamina allows him to do all these things on both ends of the court for extended stretches without losing much on either end.

                          Yet, for some reason, despite being more skilled and talented (aside from jumpshooting accuracy and probably hand-eye coordination) than the guy picked one spot ahead of him, our own Danny Granger, Gerald Green is an absolute scrub by comparison.

                          Anyone can speculate why this is and some reasons are rather obvious...but if a basketball talent scout saw both of these guys playing by themselves in an empty gym or running through drills without knowing who they were or ever having seen them in game situations before, I think, even today, he would say that Gerald was the better basketball player.

                          He would, of course, be undeniably mistaken -- and that's the difference between talent, skill and ability.
                          Now this is a good post!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

                            Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                            eh, this seems to be coming down to semantics. What you are referring to here is the dreaded p word, potential. I think Potential is just an abbreviation for Potential Talent.

                            A raw player with good size and athleticism has potential, Danny Granger has talent.

                            I still look at this as Talent meaning the finished product. By your logic, any player who doesn't have supreme athleticism is a mediocre talent... but would you call Larry Bird a mediocre talent? See what Im getting at, its all semantics. A top 10 player of all time can't be a mediocre talent, that just doesen't sound right.

                            Jammal Tinsley had a lot of unrealized potential for example. not unrealized talent. His talent is only a measure of how "good" he was at any given time, at least thats how I look at it.
                            No - I'm talking about English words as they are defined. Talent is innate and natural. How good a player ultimately ends up being is a factor of his talent and skill set and, IMO, the raw talent is less important than skill set. There's a floor - let's face it, the least talented NBA player in the league would blow most of us away athletically - but there are many players with more raw talent than Danny Granger who aren't nearly as good.
                            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Talent
                              * endowment: natural abilities or qualities
                              * a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity


                              I take this to mean talent = ability

                              So what's ability?

                              Ability
                              * the quality of being able to perform; a quality that permits or facilitates achievement or accomplishment

                              Okay, so how about able?

                              Able
                              * having the necessary means or skill or know-how or authority to do something

                              So here we reach skills and knowledge.

                              So talent is ability, and to be able to do something is to have the skills or knowledge to do something.

                              This tells me that for the topic of basketball players, it comes down to four things things:

                              1) Someone's physical abilities
                              - How fast they can be
                              - How strong they can be
                              - How well they can jump
                              - How big/tall/long they are
                              - How durable their bodies are
                              - Fill in the blank if you think I'm leaving important things out, but you get the idea

                              Some of these abilities are purely genetic, others can be manipulated (eating right, working out, taking care of your body)

                              2) Someone's intelligence
                              - How fast they can learn/understand
                              - How much they can learn/understand
                              - What they can and cannot learn/understand

                              3) Desire and interest
                              - How badly do they want to do and learn these skills
                              - How interested are they in learning and practicing these skills

                              These first three combine to determine:
                              4) Someone's skills
                              - What they know how to do
                              - What they learn how to do
                              - What they are taught to do
                              - What they practice doing
                              Wow - you spent a long time re-defining a simple word. You had it right the first time before you fell all over yourself trying to make a logical inference that doesn't exist.

                              Talent
                              * endowment: natural abilities or qualities
                              * a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity


                              The definition isn't too complicated but keep working at it - I'm sure there's a hundred-page paper in there somewhere by which you can change the meaning of a word.
                              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: just how talented is Danny Granger?

                                You guys are funny
                                *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X