Tweet
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
The arena for tonight's Bucks @ Nets game:
The arena for tonight's Bucks @ Nets game:
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
-
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
A snowstorm hit the NY area today. That's why the arena is completely empty (not that it looks much different from an average night).Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-10-2010, 08:58 PM.Comment
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
Pretty sure there aren't even 10 players on the floor in that picture, hence the joke.Comment
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
Comment
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
Looks more like a Pacers game circa January 2011.
Comment
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
they only had like 1000 people@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
Comment
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
you are right my friend, you are right my friend................Originally posted by Hicks View PostLooks more like a Pacers game circa January 2011.
@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!Comment
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
And soon after our home games could be in another city.Originally posted by Hicks View PostLooks more like a Pacers game circa January 2011.Comment
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
Originally posted by maragin View Post
Comment
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
This is the darkest timeline.Comment
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
I listened to the 2/10/10 ESPN NBA today podcast last night.
A couple of tidbits from memory.
The guy hosting had been told by insiders that...
Ray Allen will absolutely be moved by the deadline. The ESPN guy was told something like, you can bet your house that Ray Allen will be moved by the deadline.
Washington looking to possibly clean house. We've heard this really, but not quite as strong as the ESPN guy said it.
Other stuff we already know, but I didn't realize how certain this guy sounded that Ray Allen was gone.Comment
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...PERDiem-100209
Kudos to Hollinger for criticizing Monta Ellis for being a stat padder on a horrific team. I also enjoyed seeing him rip apart Joe Dumars for making a string of terrible moves the past several years.
Overrated and Underrated Storylines
PER Diem: Feb. 9, 2010
By John Hollinger
ESPN.com
Archive
Joe Murphy/NBAE/Getty Images
Nothing against the Clippers' Chris Kaman, who is having a strong season, but is he really an All-Star?
Sometimes narratives take on a life of their own. For instance, let's say there's a player who we'll call "Chris." Let's say "Chris" has a bad year in 2008-09, missing a bunch of games with an injury and playing poorly in many of the others.
Let's say, further, that Chris gets in great shape the following offseason, shows up with a much-improved face-up game and a renewed zeal for scoring in the post, and puts together his best season as a pro. It's a great story, right?
But we can never stop there. We can't just say Chris had a good season ... we have to take it a step further and start campaigning to put him on the All-Star team. "But it's such a good story!" we argue. "How can you ignore it?"
And it is a good story, and it makes us feel really jolly. Except there's another half we don't consider -- that maybe there's another player, or even several players, who have played better than Chris. These other guys have been starved for attention, relatively, because we expected them to be good in the first place. As a result, there's no great story to be told, and thus no reason to start a let's-put-him-in-the-All-Star-Game campaign, but in truth they're more deserving.
If you haven't figured it out yet, "Chris" in this case is Clippers big man Chris Kaman, whom the commissioner selected as an injury replacement to the All-Star team Monday despite the fact that Carlos Boozer, Marc Gasol, Nene and Andrew Bynum are all having better years. Kaman is a great story, yes, but he's also third in PER on a team that's 21-29.
As a result, Kaman becomes our lead item in today's theme: A look at who and what are overrated and underrated so far this season.
With Kaman out of the way, let's take a look at a few other stories that are getting way too much (or too little) attention:
Kirilenko
Underrated: The Revival of AK-47
When we talk about players who merit consideration for one of the several All-Star spots likely to come open in the Western Conference, I'm surprised Andrei Kirilenko hasn't received more attention. Right now, his bad haircut is getting more airtime than his stellar play, and that's unfortunate.
One of the big reasons behind Utah's recent change in the standings, and in particular the Jazz's improved defensive play, is that Kirilenko has suddenly reverted to his mid-2000s form. Over the past eight games, he's averaging 18.6 points per game and shooting a scalding 72.1 percent from the floor.
That's impressive enough, but what's really notable is how he's filling out the rest of the stat sheet with six rebounds, three assists, two steals and two blocks per game. It's a throwback to his "5x5" days, except now he's hitting midrange jumpers consistently. Kirilenko's impact has been notable on D, too -- Utah gives up 6.8 points fewer per 100 possessions with him on the court.
As a result, he's been more than able to offset Utah's other issues on the wings -- the nondevelopment of Ronnie Brewer and C.J. Miles, for instance, or the injury to Kyle Korver -- and provide a reliable wingman for the Deron Williams-Carlos Boozer star tandem.
Dumars
Overrated: Joe Dumars
Let's look ourselves in the mirror, fellow media members: We've all given the guy a free pass because of his amazing run to six straight conference finals and blithely ignored the fact that he's screwed up a hundred ways from Tuesday since he decided to whack Flip Saunders after the 2008 conference finals.
Check out the résumé and find me a correct decision. Just one. Fire Saunders? Wrong. Hire Michael Curry? Wrong. Trade Chauncey Billups? Wrong. Extend Richard Hamilton? Wrong. Sign Kwame Brown? Wrong. Go after Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva? Wrong again.
In two years, the Pistons have gone from one of the best teams in basketball to among the worst. They stink, they're capped out, and they don't have much in the way of young talent; for all we know, in two years they're going to be the Pittsburgh Pisces or the Seattle Grunge or something. If Isiah Thomas or Rob Babcock had done this, we'd have buried them alive by now, so it's only fair for us to point out that regardless of his previous track record, Dumars is on a two-year losing streak of McHalian proportions.
Mohammed
Underrated: Nazr Mohammed
I'm going to keep talking about this 'til I'm blue in the face because nobody else seems to be catching on to Mohammed's dramatic career turnaround this season. Yes, Cap'n Jack has made an impact; yes, coach Larry Brown has these guys defending like never before; and yes, Gerald Wallace is showing the full arsenal now that he's finally staying healthy.
But I would argue Mohammed is a bigger story than those other guys, and absolutely nobody is talking about him. He was left for dead at the end of the bench last season, and this season he's been killing. The Bobcats lost Tyson Chandler and immediately embarked on a winning streak because Mohammed started channeling Dave Cowens -- how about 23 and 17 against Andrew Bynum and Pau Gasol, or the fact he's averaging 20.2 points and 12.0 boards per 40 minutes, or that he's shooting 57.3 percent from the field?
Mohammed has been playing only 20-25 minutes a game, which has kept his numbers down and prevented more people from noticing him. While I don't think he's quite this good, I've always believed him to be underrated because of his knack on the boards and ugly-but-effective 10-to-12-foot jumper.
Hinrich
Overrated: Kirk Hinrich
I get about 20 e-mail questions a day about Hinrich, which might make sense if he had made a basket at any time in the last month. He is making more than $9 million this season and is shooting 37.7 percent, leaving me scratching my head wondering why fans of other teams still clamor for him.
It's not like this season is some dramatic outlier -- he's shot 41.3 percent for his career. His PERs the past three seasons are 13.41, 13.97 and 10.24, and, I repeat, he makes an average salary of $9 million a year -- not just this year, but next year, and the year after that, when he's 31. Sure, he's an accomplished wing defender, and that has value. But do you really want to kill your team's cap/tax situation by paying this guy star money to shoot bricks and play defense when similar players can be found for a fraction of the price?
Overrated: Steve Nash at 30
Hang on ...
Nash
Underrated: Steve Nash at 35
Steve Nash at 30 was a Big Story. Steve Nash at 35 isn't. But what Steve Nash is doing at 35 is way, way, way more amazing than what Steve Nash did at 30.
For starters, you'd have a hard time proving that the 35-year-old Nash is any worse than the 30-year-old Nash. Compared to his first MVP season in 2004-05, Nash is averaging three more points a game, providing just as many assists and rebounds per minute, and shooting better on 2s, 3s and free throws. He has a good shot at establishing a new career high in PER, not to mention becoming the first player in history to set a career high in scoring at age 35 or older.
Now that we've got that out of the way, go through the archives and find a point guard who did anywhere near as well at Nash's age. I'll just wait here for you to get back to me. ... Still waiting. ... Anything? No?
Truth is, no point guard in history can touch Nash's performance this season. In fact, only one guard prior to Nash has had a PER of 20 or more at the age of 35 or later: John Stockton.
Granted, Stockton did it six times, but the post-35 Stockton never had a year like Nash has put together this season. For starters, Utah managed Stockton's minutes carefully, but Nash is playing 33.5 minutes per game. Moreover, they're hard, active minutes as the engine for a Suns' offense lacking other players who can create their own shot. Second, he's doing it for one of the league's fastest-paced teams. Despite those added requirements, he has the best PER in history for a guard aged 35 or above.
About the only other historic parallel is Lenny Wilkens, who came to Cleveland at age 35 and helped an awful Cavs team become slightly less awful by averaging 20.5 points and 8.4 assists and making the All-Star team. But that was on a 50-game loser; Nash's team might win 50, and he's been their best player. It's unprecedented, and considering all the fawning over him in 2005 and 2006 -- when he wasn't playing any better than he is now -- it's getting shockingly little attention.
Ellis
Overrated: Monta Ellis
Ellis is almost the perfect prototype of an overrated player: He's a low-efficiency player who plays a lot of minutes on a fast-paced team, so he ends up with gaudy per-game averages even though he's not advancing his team's cause much.
For starters, take the air out of his Golden State-generated stats and you're dealing with a much less impressive résumé. Ellis averages 26.2 points per game, which ranks sixth in the league and at first glance seems very impressive. But once you adjust for his league-leading 41.7 minutes per game and the hyper pace the Warriors play at, his scoring numbers look much more ordinary. On a per-minute basis, he's not even the best scorer on his own team -- that would be Corey Maggette.
Moreover, if you look at pace-adjusted points per minute, Ellis isn't 6th ... or even 16th. He ranks a mere 18th, placing behind former teammates Jamal Crawford and Al Harrington, among others.
Meanwhile, his efficiency numbers are brutal. Ellis ranks in the bottom half of shooting guards in true shooting percentage, but what's worse is that he doesn't create offense for others. Among shooting guards who have played at least 1,000 minutes, only one -- Denver's J.R. Smith -- has a worse pure point rating than Ellis.
I point out Ellis' startlingly poor offensive efficiency because it's of more than merely academic interest. I'm still dreading he'll be chosen as an All-Star sub (if his own knee injury suffered Monday night isn't serious) since about half of the Western Conference team seems to be on the verge of pulling out of the game, and the lure of the scoring average may be too much for the commissioner to resist.
(That said, an equally awful choice would be Houston's Aaron Brooks, and I've heard as much momentum for picking him as for taking Ellis. Baron Davis is still miles better than both of them even while taking every third night off; he's the obvious choice here. Unfortunately, the league may be reluctant to take a second Clipper, meaning the botched Kaman pick will lead to an equally idiotic outcome in the backcourt.)
Bogut
Underrated: Andrew Bogut
Well, let's put it this way: He's been better than Chris Kaman. I left him off my All-Star team, but I think he may have moved past New York's David Lee in the competition to be chosen as a sub. Milwaukee is making a legitimate push to squeeze into the postseason -- my projections have them finishing 42-40 -- which would be a huge development for a team that was thought to be about half a notch above New Jersey before the season started.
Bogut is an underrated key at both ends. Offensively, he's become a go-to guy for the Bucks, thanks to an improving series of jump-hook moves in the lane; he averages 19.7 points per 40 minutes, with reasonable efficiency, and has dramatically cut his turnover rate from last season's unacceptably high levels. He's even making foul shots once in a while, converting a career-best 64.0 percent.
Meanwhile, he's been a key to the Bucks' defense despite an inability to challenge shots at the rim. Bogut specializes in taking charges and plays physical post defense, helping the Bucks rank eighth in the NBA in defensive efficiency despite the fairly limited defensive assets on the Milwaukee roster.Comment
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
Shaq made some comments about Dwight Howard after last night's game. None were really that interesting but...
Shaq throwing the Dunkin' Dutchman's name in there with the best-of-the-best was neat.Shaq on Dwight Howard: “Superman my ***.”
…
Shaq on getting doubled but not doubling Howard: “When I was coming up and there was Ewing and Hakeem, I never doubled anybody. You tell me who the real Superman is. Don’t compare me to anybody. I’d rather not be mentioned. I’m offended. Hakeem, Ewing, Rik Smits, Duncan, Robinson, the best of the best, straight up. I never doubled nobody.”
Comment
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
Jeez, that was the worst dunk contest ever. Then we have Nate Robinson winning with 51% of the vote thanking god for his great victory. If god does exist he/she/it is doing a facepalm
Comment
-
Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)
That dunk contest did suck quite a bit.Comment
Comment