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

EARL CLARK

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

  • #31
    Re: EARL CLARK

    I like Clark's talent and ability.

    What worries me is what people say about his lack of focus and work ethic.

    I don't buy into what some are saying that this is a weak draft you the Pacers can afford to gamble. This might be a weak draft but you just don't pick a guy because he has size and skill. If he don't have a good head on his shoulders he will never amount to anything on the court.

    I don't expect Clark to be a star. If he did develop into a Lamar Odom type player that would be great but I don't have a lot of confidence in that happening based on what everyone says about Clark.

    There should be better options with the Pacers pick.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: EARL CLARK

      Originally posted by d_c View Post
      You can't simply use college stats to analyze a guy's pro potential.

      Example: John Hollinger said last season that, based on looking at his college stats, Anthony Randoplph was a sure fire bust and he even questioned whether Randolph should've even been drafted at all in the 1st round.



      Then what happened during the year? Just on a per 48 minutes basis, Randolph actually had one of the most statistically impressive rookie years of all time (it's true).

      http://48minutes.net/2009/04/03/digg...eresting-list/

      (Of course stat head Hollinger never went on the acknowledge this)
      I wonder who else looks really good on a per 48 basis. Also the data is skewed because of the minutes those other plays played versus the minutes he played (18 vs 36 for the others). I doubt he can really triple is production given that many minutes, plus the team he played on with it's pace also skews the data. If we adjust it for pace I wonder what it looks like.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: EARL CLARK

        Originally posted by flox View Post
        I wonder who else looks really good on a per 48 basis. Also the data is skewed because of the minutes those other plays played versus the minutes he played (18 vs 36 for the others). I doubt he can really triple is production given that many minutes, plus the team he played on with it's pace also skews the data. If we adjust it for pace I wonder what it looks like.
        Of course I would never evaluate a player soley based on his 48 minute stats. It's really not a good reflection of a player's actual effectiveness.

        But I think using a player's college stats as an indicator of his NBA potential can be equally misleading. How the player was used, his position, the pace his team played at, his matchups, his teammates and his role can all be totally different in the NBA.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: EARL CLARK

          Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
          Who else do we have at the 3?
          As melli suggested, Granger is and should be handling the majority of our SF minutes for the next 2 seasons.....add in that Dunleavy will probably eat into some of those minutes as well.....you have to wonder what position he will be playing.

          I would have no problem if Clark was more of a Tweener Forward that was more of a PF that could ( with experience ) be a backup SF....but from what I have read, Clark is a SF that could ( with experience and a lot of effort ) learn to be a backup PF. I'd prefer to stay away from that. Also....from all of the posts that I have read here.....despite many of it being mere opinion...I'm not getting warm fuzzies about him.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: EARL CLARK

            Originally posted by d_c View Post
            Of course I would never evaluate a player soley based on his 48 minute stats. It's really not a good reflection of a player's actual effectiveness.

            But I think using a player's college stats as an indicator of his NBA potential can be equally misleading. How the player was used, his position, the pace his team played at, his matchups, his teammates and his role can all be totally different in the NBA.
            If you just look at his production in the last 2 months....when he finally played consistent minutes....he averaged 26mpg/23 games/11ppg/8.3rpg/1.6bpg/49% FG%. Not bad for a rookie....especially when Nellie essentially gave him starting minutes in the last 8 games.

            But still, in regards to Clark......from what I have read.....I would prefer to draft either Lawson ( assuming that we move Ford ) or a GF ( like Henderson or TWill ) before going after Clark.
            Last edited by CableKC; 06-02-2009, 07:29 PM.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: EARL CLARK

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              I was with you up through here. Saying we'd be like Orlando without Howard would make us almost as good as the Lakers without Kobe and a tiny bit better than the Cavs without LeBron.
              Hahaha I only meant similar in style of play. 4 out 1 in, perimeter oriented, but with size causing difficult match ups. Not on their level. At least not for a while. We'd need a stud down low first. Did not mean to imply we'll win 50 games next year.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: EARL CLARK

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                As melli suggested, Granger is and should be handling the majority of our SF minutes for the next 12 seasons.....
                Fixed.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: EARL CLARK

                  My God... It's amazing how a few people can make an unfounded assumption about someone's character based on a few observations, and how those assumptions can spread like wildfire. All this talk about Earl not having any work ethic is RIDICULOUS. I've watched this kid for three years. He gives everything he has and has a good head on his shoulders.

                  One reason that causes people to take a Carl-Lewis-sized leap of faith and assume he has no work ethic is that he looks like he doesn't care when he is on the court. This is true... It looks like he doesn't care, but that is just his nature. Just because he isnt screaming in his teammates face or pounding his chest after a good play does not mean he doesnt care. Earl is a VERY reserved and quiet person. He doesnt wear his emotion on his sleeve, but that does not mean he doesnt have any emotion.

                  Take a look at this play, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTvwMyAbp8k. Now that was a huge, momentum-changing play being that U of L was down to a huge conference opponent, at home, and they were making a run to take the game over. Earl has a clear path to really make a highlight-reel play, but he casually puts the ball through the bucket and sort of saunters back for defense. Others would've hung on the rim, yelled at the crowd, and perhaps pumped his fist a few times for effect. Does this mean one has a good work ethic and the other doesnt? In that same clip, look at who's in the huddle with hands on his knees, right in Pitino's face, intently listening for the coach's next instructions. That is a man who knows there is a lot of basketball left to be played and one dunk does not mean his work is done. That's the kind of guy I want in my huddle.

                  Even after what is probably the biggest posterization in UofL history (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF1EPPgzvBY), especially considering who it was on, Earl shows the most amount of emotion he'll ever show, which is minuscule compared to what you or me wouldve done after that kind of throwdown. I mean, all he does is pose for half a second, clench his fists a little bit, and then runs back on D like on any old play.

                  And obviously showing a few youtube clips doesnt do justice, at least not the same as watching him for the last three years. Im just providing a little more than simply my word.

                  I guess another reason it looks like hes not trying is the way he plays. He's such a fluid athlete and doesnt do any exaggerated, unnecessary motions that it just looks like hes not trying. I guess it's his fault for making it look too easy. Maybe if he flapped his arms more, or perhaps if he did a Manu Ginobili-esque flail after being touched by so much as a pinky, it would look like he's giving 110%. Give me a break. I sympathize with that because I play the same way. My idiot coach will tell me to try more when I knew I was giving it my all. I almost had to purposely grunt or maybe exaggerate a bump from a defender to outwardly show my coach I was giving my all.

                  Also, Earl has a tendency to float on the perimeter and settle for jump shots rather than do what he should be doing, which is attacking the bucket and going inside. This is a knock on his basketball IQ and style of play, NOT his work ethic.

                  Lastly, using numbers against Earl, saying that just because he didnt put up big enough numbers that match his talent, is the MOST ridiculous thing to say. Earl played in a VERY balanced system that was run to the T the way Pitino wanted it to be run. That meant if you took one bad shot you were coming out. If Earl played for any other team that focuses on one or two offensive threats to do all the heavy-lifting, he wouldve averaged 18+.

                  In summary, Earl is a great kid who will do all he can to put himself in a position to succeed. That being said, I am wary of drafting him because of the high risk in his reaching his potential, but NOT because of anything to do with his attitude or work ethic.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: EARL CLARK

                    I agree, if it's clear he doesn't have the desire to be great, he won't be taken. That's part of the background check I talked about. To hear Clark explain it, Pitino doesn't have a go to guy, so scoring was relatively balanced. And his lack of "fire" on the court is mistaken for a lack of desire. He's just calm and collected. That's not a bad thing, not everyone is KG. But given who is there on the board, I think he has a lot of upside, while also being proven to be successful in college. Just seems like a pretty good pick at 13, assuming he interviews with the Pacers well. But if they really believe they can get a sure fire PG of the future, then they should do it by all means. I just don't think Lawson will be that good, and it really depends on who else is there. If we're looking to get another pick, maybe we can take Maynor or some other PG that slips. Or maybe Clark slips to the late pick. That's the fun of the draft. But anyone at 13 is going to have some kind of flaws, I agree.

                    People were concerned about Rush's lack of "fire" and his inability to take over despite his athletic abilities. Seems to be a similar situation to me. Rush has the work ethic. Clark would have to do the same.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: EARL CLARK

                      Well said UncleReg.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: EARL CLARK

                        @UncleReg

                        I've heard that Clark has been openly criticized in the media by Rick Pitino (His lack of focus being the reason). I've also heard that he has small hands and that's one of the reasons he isn't great around the rim. Are these true at all?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: EARL CLARK

                          Originally posted by Placebo View Post
                          @UncleReg

                          I've heard that Clark has been openly criticized in the media by Rick Pitino (His lack of focus being the reason). I've also heard that he has small hands and that's one of the reasons he isn't great around the rim. Are these true at all?
                          Lack of focus? Yes. Weak work ethic? No. Earl is high maintenance in that he needs to constantly be told where to be, what to do. He's trying his best out there, and he's always working to be the best he can be. He just needs much guidance on the court. Maybe in a more free-flowing open-court offense he will thrive. But at times he struggled in Pitino's extremely disciplined offensive system.


                          He does have small hands, which is why he tends to lose the ball when driving. This will most likely continue to be a problem for him as there is no getting around that.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: EARL CLARK

                            Originally posted by d_c View Post
                            You can't simply use college stats to analyze a guy's pro potential.
                            I wasn't.

                            I was paying more attention to his 'passive' play and other criticisms of his game.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: EARL CLARK

                              Reminds me mostly of guys like Bynum - talented enough, could be a nice mismatch for you, but ultimately isn't smart enough as a player to make good on it.

                              Clark was supposed to be the superstar at Louisville. He wasn't overshadowed by greater talent, he was overshadowed by better players. Not just TWill, but both freshman centers too. Heck, even guys like Sosa had more impact at times.

                              Earl Clark should have NEVER been outplayed by Sosa at any point in any game. And TWill shouldn't have been the go to guy the team leaned on. And Clark shouldn't have been a weaker inside player than TWill.

                              I became a TWill fan while scouting Clark. I will say this though, I like Clark more now than I did last season. He's lanky and smooth, almost Odom-like in his skill set. But he's not a game controller, he just doesn't show the smarts for it. Unless that makes a huge turnaround it's going to limit him to 8th man status in the league.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: EARL CLARK

                                Originally posted by UncleReg View Post
                                Take a look at this play, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTvwMyAbp8k. Now that was a huge, momentum-changing play being that U of L was down to a huge conference opponent, at home, and they were making a run to take the game over. Earl has a clear path to really make a highlight-reel play, but he casually puts the ball through the bucket and sort of saunters back for defense.
                                Of course, the impressive thing in that clip is the amazing pass by Twill. Very few NBA players at any position could make that pass.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X