Tweet
aa
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
Last edited by sweabs; 08-08-2010, 04:46 PM. -
Re: Take a step back. . .
This is probably the most well thought out thing you've said in months.
Way to put it into perspective.
-
Re: Take a step back. . .
To be fair, I would have to think that every single draft pick yesterday has only made their respective teams better and not worse. Not bashing your take, because it was a nice post, but there should be a higher standard for a draft pick than simply not making your team worse.Originally posted by sweabs View PostComment
-
-
Re: Take a step back. . .
Good post. Hopefully it will help a lot of people put things in perspective.
Like others have said, he doesn't address any of our glaring needs, but I'm fine with Hansbrough. I think he can be a valuable big man off the bench for years to come. At least we know what we're getting. Even if you're a person that hates the pick, I think you can at least admit that we're getting someone who will contribute positively to the team.
But I wouldn't call this a successful offseason if after this, all we did was re-sign Jack and fill the bench with training camp invitees and cheap, veteran bench warmers. Treading water is not enough.
I'm not saying the Pacers need to make a trade for trade's sake. But they need to do something. Ford should definitely be shopped heavily, either for a backup wing or big man.
There is a bit of redundancy in Hansbrough, Foster, and McRoberts coming off the bench. All of them basically bring the same high energy boost off the bench. There's nothing wrong with that, mind you, but do we really need three of them? Let's see if we can parlay one of them for something else we need. Foster is obviously the only candidate. McRoberts would probably only be a throw-in in a trade.
Anyway, like sweabs said, everyone needs to calm down. The offseason is just beginning.Last edited by Aw Heck; 06-26-2009, 10:07 AM.Comment
-
Re: Take a step back. . .
Very well, written Sweabs. I agree with all this 100%. We all have to wait and see on what Tyler will do for us. Good job Mr. Bird! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on him!
Comment
-
Re: Take a step back. . .
The standard is to make your team better, not the status quo, as you stated above.Originally posted by d_c View Post
TH does that immediately and probably into the future. Many players drafted last night
did not do that, at least immediately, but are projected 2-3 years down the road.
Sweabs point is valid.{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-Comment
-
Re: Take a step back. . .
Realistically there are going to be no earth shaking trades this year that is going to make
the Pacers contenders. However after next year when Dun and Troy are in their last
year then some significant moves can be made. Until then you build up your core.{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-Comment
-
Re: Take a step back. . .
Nice work! I enjoyed reading it!Passion, Pride, Playoffs, PacersComment
-
Re: Take a step back. . .
Nice work Sweabs.
I don't understand some people's reaction to this pick. I think if you were to tell some of the naysayers the following scenario (without mentioning the players' name) they would be thrilled.
It is, by most accounts, a weak draft year.
The Pacers have the 13th pick.
The player they select has these credentials:
Four time All-American
Player of the year (in a year with a no-so-weak-draft)
Started for an NCAA champion
Set a record for career points in a major conference
Set a record for career points for a major college
Ranks 12th in NCAA D1 for career points
Shot 54% for his career
Averaged 20 ppg for his career
Is a hard working, hard nosed player with no questions about his character
With that resume in mind, almost everyone would be thrilled that the Pacers were able to acquire this player............until you tell them his name is Tyler Hansbrough.
I just don't get it.
People get too hung up on vague terms like "upside" and "potential", and seem very willing to risk someone else's money on those terms.
Personally, I really like what the Pacers have done with their selections last year and this year, and I expect we will see more on the trade front as the summer goes along.Comment
-
Re: Take a step back. . .
Well, to be fair, people also get too caught up on the equally nebulous and equally unquantifiable terms like "heart" and "tough" and "winner."Originally posted by Tom White View Post
I was not happy with the pick. It had little or nothing to do with it not being sexy. I have a bias, and it is certainly possible that it is unfair in this case, but I watch players at the college level and think (broadly) "College Game" or "NBA Game." In Hansbrough's case, I just saw "College Game." As Jose mentioned earlier, there are a number of other posters here who I highly respect for their talent evals who have the similar misgivings. (Though, none of those guys think that he'll completely bust (not make it through his rookie contract), while I am afraid that it's a distant possibility.)
Hansbrough will be an interesting case study. There have been few, if any college players who have had a career as successful or decorated as he has.
He also had successful workouts and decent-to-good measurables. Yet, there is still a collection of very good basketball minds (I do not include myself) who harbor persistent doubts about him. If he should fail, it would really undermine any relevance college performance would have on pro performance. If he should succeed, it would severely weaken the position held by those who discount college performance entirely.
After my initial angry reaction, I had to honestly admit that there was no one who went later that I desperately wanted. It was really more a function of not thinking Hansbrough was going to help us, in either the short or the long term.
All that being said, I now ardently hope that he does prove the doubters, including me, wrong. I also take it as an article of faith that all of the Pacer fans who are being critical or doubtful of him now share my hope. We all want our newest Pacer to be very successful.
So, now we look to get our roster in order, and I am hopeful of more moves this off-season. I'd like to re-sign Jack, perhaps add an inexpensive ($2-4mm) FA (probably at wing), and I anxiously await the Summer League, and seeing our newest Pacers perform.
There are plenty of valid reasons to be concerned about Hansbrough, but there are also plenty of valid reasons to be excited. I'm more concerned than excited at the moment, but...he's a Pacer now, so I welcome him and wish him nothing but success.Comment
-
Re: Take a step back. . .
I was livid when Tyler was picked last night as I am known to be a reactionary. I also know myself well enough that with a little time I come back to earth and look at it in a clearer view. I still liked other players better that were available, but Bird did address the need of PF. It remains to be seen if Tyler can be the player many others feel he can be.... I truly hope so. It's not so much I didn't like Tyler as I felt #13 was too high to draft him. If Bird had gotten the 18-23 pick and had drafted him then I wouldn't have gone ballistic. It's just I had such high hopes when seeing Johnson and Holiday still on the board at 13, and then to only hear Bird choose Tyler.
After picking Tyler, then seeing Minnie take Lawson as their 3rd PG, I truly thought there was going to be a trade of some sort to get Lawson. Some Euros and other picks, not deemed to have been previously in the 1st round, pushed numerous players we had discussed as possible picks into the 2nd round. It got me rev'd up about possibly getting one to the point I wanted a trade even moreso. No trades coming really began to build my frustration when Houston who didn't even have a draft pick ends up with 3-2nd picked players....Budinger, Taylor, & Llull. I'm not saying Bird didn't try, b/c I truly feel he did. He's in his last year of his contract just like O'Brien, and he has to show progress this year too.
I'm extremely skeptical that Tyler can be the type of POWER FORWARD I envision. A nice b/u, but not a starter. Better than Sir Foster, sure. Which leads me, as others do, why do the Pacers need 3 energy PF's? Unless, Foster is going to be traded, or only playing as a 5 to b/u Hibbert with Tyler and McBob as the b/u to Murphy.
I'd want to see Bird and Morway make a trade or 2 involving Foster and/or Ford, and it wouldn't bother me to see Murphy go for the "right trade."
I'll settle into the summer with how the trade shook out, and I'm looking forward to next season. Welcome Tyler and AJ as our newest Pacers!!!! May you have a long, exciting, and productive career as a PACER.Comment
-
Re: Take a step back. . .
Originally posted by rcarey View PostWhich experts have ever said that you shouldn't draft fundamentally sound players? I'd love to see one link to a person making that claim.Originally posted by rcarey
Meanwhile, Kobe Bryant is one of the most fundamentally sound players in the League. So is Dwyane Wade. They know more about how to properly execute a pick-and-roll than Tyler Hansbrough does about the entire sport of basketball. They better understand how to use dribble moves to get a defender off-balance than Tyler Hansbrough does the English language. Those skills are among the fundamentals of basketball.
Athleticism and talent are not mutually exclusive from those fundamentals. Chris Paul, for example, is currently reinventing the fundamentals of how the point guard position should be played. He has that much talent. He is that skilled. He is that fundamentally sound. But he also has the physical and other basketball-related tools and skills that allow him to go beyond the realm of traditional basketball to do the unconventional things on the court that you also need to be able to do in order to beat the amazingly proficient and coordinated defensive schemes that exist throughout the NBA.
Tyler Hansbrough, in the eyes of most people who aren't thrilled by him becoming an Indiana Pacer, doesn't have those types of abilities. Obviously, comparing him to CP3 is absurd and no one expects a single player in this Draft to be even close to that good, but there is a certain level of surety that some of us people have that Tyler will never be capable of doing things that put us in a great offensive position to score on, say, a Tom Thibideau-coached defensive trap.
Those of us who are a little disappoint today think Tyler just doesn't have the basketball tools to translate the understanding of fundamental basketball he showed at UNC into NBA-level production. He doesn't have any defined way to score points or stop other people from scoring points at this level. And, based on the evidence I have seen of him over the past four years, he isn't likely to develop an arsenal of new ways to do either of those things. He plays the game in a certain way that has been effective for him throughout his life, but that style has been mainly based upon out-muscling, out-quicking, out-hustling and, sure, even "out-fundamentalling" players who were incapable of matching him in those areas. When he begins playing against people who all cannot only match him in those areas but greatly supersede his abilities in them, I believe his ability to influence a game will become significantly diminished.
No one dislikes the Hansbrough pick because he is a guy who works hard. No one dislikes the Hansbrough pick because he is "just" funamentally sound. No one dislikes the Hansbrough pick because of an irrational dislike for the guy. (Okay, that last one probably isn't true.)
We just don't think he is going to be a large on-the-court factor in an NBA basketball game. Is it a terrible pick? No. In fact, it might be a pretty good pick. Tyler will almost certainly be a decent role player in the NBA.
But he is not someone that will be much of an on-court difference maker. And he has no chance to ever be that type of player. I honestly don't know enough about the other guys I sort of like -- Maynor, Toney Douglas, Clark, Teague, Lawson -- to say with any certainty whether or not they are capable of being bigger difference makers than Tyler. And, no, drafting Tyler isn't some cataclysmic mistake that will set the Pacers back for years -- as has been noted, there probably wasn't a lot of actual impact players in this year's Draft. But for those of us whose eyes start bleeding every time we are forced to watch the talent deficiency in our backcourt, we would have liked to see an improvement in that area. Or at least the chance that a player we drafted would be able to create some improvement in that area down the road.
With Tyler, we probably have at least servicable big man who can give us 15-20 minutes of NBA-acceptable play a night -- and on occasion, I could see him being a little Ronny Turiaf-esque sparkplug that helps start a 3rd Quarter run. And, sure, maybe that was the best we could do in this Draft.
But if that's the case, it sure is boring, depressing, uninteresting and -- more to the topic at hand -- not something I'm going to get particularly amped up or congratulatory about.
Regardless, best of luck, Tyler.Last edited by JayRedd; 06-26-2009, 12:04 PM.Comment
-
Re: Take a step back. . .
GOOD POST MEN...@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
Comment
-
Re: Take a step back. . .
Please post more often. This is great!Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
I want Tyler to succeed, and I also believe this wasn't a make or break draft so I'm not super disappointed.
BUT Tyler doesn't shore up any of our on-court deficiencies. He's only a slight upgrade over what we already have. Does anyone honestly believe Tyler is going to help us defensively at Power Forward? Does anyone know that Tyler only averaged 0.2 more blocks per game than TJ Ford? Or 0.4 more than me (and I've never played)?
When you're preparing Thanksgiving Dinner, you don't pick a slightly better cornbread when you have a chance to add cranberries.
I will say that I love the idea of the Pacers picking proven winners/4-year college guys. I feel like Detroit did this 7-8 years ago and it put them on the right path.Last edited by imawhat; 06-26-2009, 12:16 PM.Comment
Comment