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

Who do you want at PF?

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

  • #76
    Re: Who do you want at PF?

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    Not sure it is that huge, since you have Granger/Hibbert/Collison as your top 3 offensive options - depending on who you are playing at two even that might change - with Granger at the 3 instead of the 4 with Foster on the floor.

    Foster is just fine as a #5 option on the floor.
    Disagree entirely. If Foster is on the court, they also take away Hibbert via the double-team. Now you're playing 3- on 3 and Collison is going to have a hard time running the pick-and-roll because of all the congestion in the lane.

    With Foster on the court, we become a jump shooting team.

    The last thing we need right now is a rugged, rebounding-is-all-I-can-do PF.

    Rather we need a forward that plays the baseline quite well on offense, is an aggressive rebounder, and a "team" defender.

    I wouldn't rule out Tyler and Danny for that role. I think he'd make a great backup for Danny.

    We don't need one of "yesterday's" enforcers to play PF. The double post lineup is a thing of the past. But we also don't need a cottony-soft threepoint shooting specialist stretch forward.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Who do you want at PF?

      I think last year denver had a interest on foster, so how bout we give them foster and dunleavy for k-mart and maybe a pick. I know that k-mart is a injure prone but atleast hes a good defender and have only one year left, so if anything we just let him go or w/e. like this we unload a wing player, we can even throw djones in that trade.

      http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=27j9zap

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Who do you want at PF?

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
        Disagree entirely. If Foster is on the court, they also take away Hibbert via the double-team. Now you're playing 3- on 3 and Collison is going to have a hard time running the pick-and-roll because of all the congestion in the lane.
        If you sag off Foster he gets the offensive rebound because you aren't blocking him out. If you double-team Roy off Foster you certainly can't afford to double either one of the other two scoring options.

        It's not like Roy in the paint is our only way to score and with Jeff in there he becomes totally ineffective. We've been very successful in the past with a certain 4 who wasn't so much a scorer as the rebounding complement to a scoring 5.
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Who do you want at PF?

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          As I said above, why? Just how good does your #5 offensive option have to be?
          Good enough that nobody thinks of double-teaming away from him.

          And that's never been Jeff.

          Who should your fifth option be? Brandon Rush/ Derrick McKey. Guys that "can" do anything they want offensively but are willing to defer. But if left open... they'll kill you. Just as Derrick (not Reggie) hit those back-to-back three pointers in the fourth quarter of Game #7 of the 1994 ECFs.

          Collison - Rush - Dunleavy (in the future, George) - Granger - Hibbert.

          That's the type of offensive balance you're looking for.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Who do you want at PF?

            I am all for anything that causing the opponent to double team Roy. That encourages him to use his best skill which is passing. So double team off whoever, that will open up the pacers offense. If they double off of Foster, Foster can cut to the basket and force someone to pick him up and that will open another player.
            Please I hope teams double Roy every time.

            I fear more of the sagging off and zone type coverage, but double teaming is our friend. (sad thing is teams don't double much anymore)

            If i were the opposing coach, the last thing i would ever consider doing is double teaming Roy. make him score, make him shoot, if he shows he can score against my defender, I might sag a, dig or crowd, but never double
            Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-12-2010, 04:24 PM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Who do you want at PF?

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              If you sag off Foster he gets the offensive rebound because you aren't blocking him out.
              And he misses the putback. Big deal. Still a reasonable percentage for the defense. Further, you're doubling a big man (Hibbert) so the guy assigned to Foster isn't that far away from Foster anyway.

              If Foster is on the court with Hibbert, there aren't many lanes for dribble penetration.

              Dale Davis and Rik Smits would not be a very good combination in the modern NBA.

              Spacing is at a premium, and the double-post is nearly extinct.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Who do you want at PF?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I am all for anything that causing the opponent to double team Roy. That encourages him to use his best skill which is passing. So double team off whoever, that will open up the pacers offense. If they double off of Foster, Foster can cut to the basket and force someone to pick him up and that will open another player.
                Please I hope teams double Roy every time.

                I fear more of the sagging off and zopne type coverage, but double teaming is our friend. (sad thing is teamns don't double much anymore)
                Not for a give-and-go type of play. If Roy is double-teamed by a big the kickout is for a contested three-point attempt. There will be too much congestion in the paint. I know Jim O'Brien would love it, except he'd only have three guys along the 3-point line not four. But that's not sound basketball.

                The former "second post" player needs to move to the baseline. Not the wing. But out of the paint.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Who do you want at PF?

                  Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                  And he misses the putback. Big deal. Still a reasonable percentage for the defense. Further, you're doubling a big man (Hibbert) so the guy assigned to Foster isn't that far away from Foster anyway.

                  If Foster is on the court with Hibbert, there aren't many lanes for dribble penetration.

                  Dale Davis and Rik Smits would not be a very good combination in the modern NBA.

                  Spacing is at a premium, and the double-post is nearly extinct.



                  I think almost any team would take davis and smits in their prime.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Who do you want at PF?

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    If i were the opposing coach, the last thing i would ever consider doing is double teaming Roy. make him score, make him shoot, if he shows he can score against my defender, I might sag a, dig or crowd, but never double
                    Bull. If you were the coach, you'd front Roy and have Jeff's man in position to double him from behind. You're afraid of his passing, so you've go to prevent him from ever catching the ball in the first place.

                    If you're going to play Roy straight-up, from behind, then I want to be coaching the other team so I can scream at the PG to feed him the ball every play. Unless your post defender can move him far enough out of his comfort zone. He'll just shoot hook shots over your guy all game long. Of course, I'm not leaving Jeff on the court. So you'd have to double (or sag, I don't care which way you want to describe it) off Danny, Mike, Brandon or Darren. Pick your poison.

                    You know you'd be playing "straight man to man" against that lineup.

                    The question for that lineup is whether or not there's a potential mis-match on defense. And if so, I'll sub Tyler for Mike and there still isn't anyone on the court that you'll sag off or double away from. I'm just not sure Tyler is good enough to really take over for Mike yet, and I suspect that George will eventually surpass him.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Who do you want at PF?

                      Marreese Speights

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Who do you want at PF?

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        As I said above, why? Just how good does your #5 offensive option have to be?
                        This day and age, I think everybody has to at least offer something offensively. Jeff doesn't.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Who do you want at PF?

                          I think I'd like to see Jeff start but give a good chunk of minutes to Posey, McBob, Rolle and Tyler (if healthy) as well. If Jeff could get about 20 minutes and the rest be divided between the other guys that would be ok.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Who do you want at PF?

                            Originally posted by Ozwalt72 View Post
                            The thing with Landry is that he sucks as a rebounder. Per 36 numbers last season is 6.8 total rebounds.

                            To put that in perspective, Roy Hibbert's Per 36 rebounding last season was 8.2

                            So, you want to get a power forward that has no positional flexibility, is an average defender and is a bad fit with your starting center.

                            I don't know...I've seen Landry as the perfect 3rd big with another guy at PF that can play backup minutes at center.

                            EDIT: Though, he was a much better rebounder his first 2 years in Houston than he was this last year. The increase in minutes didn't show an increase in productivity.
                            Fully agreed on all counts.

                            (he was a better rebounder in his 1st season - 16.4TRB% - but he played less than 1000 minutes and versus backups. In his second season his playing time climbed and his rebounding rate declined to 13ish. Last season he was used as a top offensive weapon, his usage rate climbed and his rebounding rate declined even further to 10ish. More shots -> less rebounding opportunities; larger role -> less energy to rebound; playing against better, more athletic players -> less contested rebounds gained).

                            Originally posted by TheDoddage View Post
                            I like Anderson Varejao. Very scrappy, good rebounder, good defender, active on the boards, can play both big man spots. I'm not sure Cleveland is looking to get rid of him since he's their only starting caliber center, but if they decide to rebuild and slash salary, we have the pieces to work something out. His contract is a little bloated, but he might be worth it.
                            This is my favourite suggestion so far.

                            A quick and mobile big, good rebounder, excellent defender at both positions (maybe the best PF/C combo defender in the league?), ability to check on pretty much every type of big, superb transition player, great cutter, doesn't demand touches.

                            Locked into a very club-friendly contract (disagree with your take here) for the next 3 seasons - Indiana would still have enough flexibility to acquire another starting quality big, some guy like Josh Smith in a trade, his contract isn't expensive for a 6th man (and Varejao would be one of the best 6th men in the league). If not, a Hibbert-Varejao-Hansbrough rotation works.

                            How to acquire him? To me he's now the best player in that Cleveland roster. How do the new bosses there see him? What would you be willing to give away to get him?

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Who do you want at PF?

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              This day and age, I think everybody has to at least offer something offensively. Jeff doesn't.
                              Actually that really has always been the case. Not everybody has to be a scorer but everybody has to be able to score.


                              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Who do you want at PF?

                                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                                Bull. If you were the coach, you'd front Roy and have Jeff's man in position to double him from behind. You're afraid of his passing, so you've go to prevent him from ever catching the ball in the first place.

                                If you're going to play Roy straight-up, from behind, then I want to be coaching the other team so I can scream at the PG to feed him the ball every play. Unless your post defender can move him far enough out of his comfort zone. He'll just shoot hook shots over your guy all game long...
                                You could be right on this scenario. But I'd still try Roy and Jeff starting out. IMO, if the double team comes out of a more traditional setting with Roy and Jeff because the opposition fronts Roy, then I would try setting Foster on the opposite side baseline, with Roy attempting to establish position at about 8-9 feet on his side. I think this would prevent Roy being fronted because his help would be near the opposite baseline.

                                If they still front Roy, then he rolls for the over-the-top pass. If he's doubled at that time, then he either has the open man in his near corner (since that is the most likely source of immediate help), or he has Foster right in front of the basket on the opposite side if Foster's man attempts to help.

                                I don't think it will be as easy to front Roy as you suggest. And, because of his passing skills, I believe that doubling him is a strategy that could yield an advantage to us. I think the important factors are whether we can consistenty hit the open perimeter shot from the corner that might result (Granger) or whether the PF (Foster) can finish from the opposite side.

                                If Foster cannot finish, then yes, we select another PF who can... but our defense and rebounding would be weaker. The advantage that another PF would bring would be the ability to also hit the mid-range shot. Maybe the strengths and weaknesses wash... I don't know.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X