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

Mike is good to go

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

  • #61
    Re: Mike is good to go

    Originally posted by bphil View Post
    Sometimes I think I'm watching completely different games than everyone else...
    If you watched last year's team and thought "Brandon's not really making a difference on D" then yeah, we're watching different games.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Mike is good to go

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Also could we please quite trying to insult Mike's athletic ability by just saying he has a high Bball IQ. Mike is fast, Mike can jump, Mike is average strength for someone of his height & build (in other words he is not week or strong).
      Peck, Mike is not of average strength for his height & build. I like the guy and am excited to have him back to normal, but the dude is not even a little bit strong (for an NBA player, blah blah blah).

      If you're 6'9" with a fantastic basketball IQ, you should be able to post up a guy who's 4 inches shorter than you. You should have a mismatch every time down the floor. The other team should be thinking "crap, how are we going to cover him on this possession." Instead they stick a 6'5" guy on Dun and let Dun try shooting over the top. Sure, his accuracy's not bad, but you'd expect a lot more.

      I'll say this: if the Pacers were playing against a team with a 6'9" shooting guard, I'd be thrilled and relieved if he played the type of game Mike played.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Mike is good to go

        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
        If you watched last year's team and thought "Brandon's not really making a difference on D" then yeah, we're watching different games.
        brandon can put the clamps on his man

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Mike is good to go

          Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
          Wingspan measures from fingertip to fingertip I believe. As we've seen Tyler has some pretty broad shoulders. So while his wingspan is longer, I'd guess that his actual arm length is shorter. If it were say, 1 inch shorter on each arm because of the width of his shoulders, it would make up that difference in wingspan, I believe.

          Just a guess, but I think it's a pretty good one.
          There are several differences in their frames that might account for this. Sometimes a player's shoulders may be positioned higher than another player even though they are the same height. Sometimes that's because one player has a longer head and/or neck. Other times it's because one player's shoulders are simply a bit lower...sometimes angled down...due to the way they are built.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Mike is good to go

            Healthy Mike Dunleavy is currently better than Brandon Rush, Paul George, or Lance Stephenson. End of story.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Mike is good to go

              Since I have seen almost every game he has played in I will say this. There was a game his sophmore year at Duke where he drove and one hand dunked a ball over Heyward. There was also a game his junior year where he was playing Boston College and off a free throw missed while the ball was still in the air he grabbed the rebound and flushed it. I know he has athletic ability but to be honest that has never been his game. As far as the workout numbers I do know he does not have a crazy vertical or wingspan by NBA standards, but he is quick for his size and has sneaky speed which is why he may be one of the best cutters in the NBA.
              JOB is a silly man

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Mike is good to go

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                You used two wrong examples.

                Hans isn't athletic and he shows it. He has difficulty getting off "normal" shots. That was true even in college. He gets that label because he initiates contact and puts his body in weird spots. When you initiate contact it's hard to get maximum lift on your shot. People who normally initiate contact do so because they can't jump high enough to get their shot off cleanly and need a way to counter balance their lack of athleticism.

                There were times watching Tyler at UNC he would come out of no where and make a very athletic play, then the next time he came down the court he would look like he was on par with Zoubek and barely get 3inches off the ground.

                I've already given the measurements on Dunleavy, and he IS unathletic.

                I agree there is a sigma attached to white players, but it's because most white players aren't as athletic as black players. Sure some exceptions to the rule come along, but those are just that, exceptions.
                Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.
                His vertical is at least the league average.
                It's not that Tyler can't jump, it's that he never learned (or likely didn't HAVE to) in order to get his shot off.
                He's so big (wide) and long armed that he developed a flat footed game in the paint.
                And it worked for him against college sized players.
                I've seen plenty of highlight films of him soaring for massive put back slams.
                And his time in the cone shuttle type test is in the upper range.
                There is NOTHING about Tyler athletically that is below average.
                Accept that YOU have a preconception based on his whiteness and certainly his often clumsy looking moves.
                That ain't a lack of athleticism.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Mike is good to go

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  Interesting to compare Mike and Tyler:

                  Height w/o shoes: 6'8" vs 6'8.25"
                  Height w/ shoes: Both 6'9.5"
                  Wingspan: 6'9" vs 6'11.5"
                  Standing reach: Both 8'10" (By the way, how is this possible given their height and wingspan differences?)
                  No Step Vertical: 24.5" vs 27.5"
                  Max Vertical: 29" vs 34"
                  Bench Press: 11 vs 18
                  Lane Agility: 11.55 seconds vs 11.12 seconds
                  3/4 Court sprint: 3.30 seconds vs 3.27 seconds

                  I'm fascinated that by most measurements listed, Tyler surpasses Mike, including areas you would think an NBA wing would be better than an NBA big. (Vertical, Lane Agility, 3/4 Court sprint)

                  http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Mike-Dunleavy-2294/
                  http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/...ansbrough-288/
                  I posted an article sometime back that said if there was a big winner in the pre draft testing it was Tyler Hansbrough.
                  He tested in the upper ranges of every test they use. And compared favorably with a bunch of guys that would be considered superior athletes by most on this site and others.
                  He matched the #1 pick from a couple of years ago, (big white kid, came out early, from out west, ahhhhhhhhh damn memory) in pretty much every test.
                  Certainly can't match in SKILLS, but athletically this kid is close to a freak for his size.
                  And his color.
                  MIke is much more challenged as shown by those results, but as you say, you don't play wing in the NBA at 6'9" if you can't move.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Mike is good to go

                    Didn't the Pacers start Reggie Miller at shooting guard for 17 years?
                    PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Mike is good to go

                      Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                      Didn't the Pacers start Reggie Miller at shooting guard for 17 years?
                      I don't see how that's possible. College small forwards can't play as NBA shooting guards, as we've established in discussing Paul George.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Mike is good to go

                        Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                        Didn't the Pacers start Reggie Miller at shooting guard for 17 years?
                        Yeah, but playing out of position against quicker players at the 2 probably shortened his career...
                        Last edited by Brad8888; 10-01-2010, 11:42 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Mike is good to go

                          Dun-Dun may start ONLY becuz Brandon is suspended and JOB has always had a problem with developing his rookies. Paul George is already better than Dun-Dun if you play NBA basketball with your DEFENSE dictating your OFFENSE. The Pacer BS of going up and down the court and giving UP as much as you score if DUMB. JOB needs to put the best athletes on the court and let them PLAY at least 25 minutes per game. We need guys on the court who can cause MISMATCHES. Dun-Dun doesn't create any kind of mismatch. Paul George at SG, Lance Stephenson at PG, Magnum Rolle (with his quickness, speed down the court, and mid-range shooting prowess) at PF will ALL create mismatches. I like McBob at PF but you can tell that he wants to take the shot behind the 3pt line and he will now spot up there and shoot it when he gets the rock passed to him. McBob is best suited near the rim where his nasty attitude helps the team when he get rebounds, starts the break, and he runs the court to finish at the rim. If we continue to play this pansy-antsy game of 3pt shooting again this year, I'll puke with all the athletes we have now.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Mike is good to go

                            Mike Dunleavy is a better player than Brandon if Mike is healthy. He is under-rated on Defense because he's spent his entire career playing alongside Troy Murphy. Dude takes charges, provides good help side D and has good length. Maybe D is not his strong suit, but he plays so smart and effectively offensively that he makes up for it. ...and without Smurph, Mike can play the role of the weak link on defense while bringing a potent offensive threat from the perimeter....and a heady game that makes basketball easy for his team mates.

                            Let's be clear about this. I know that defense is the way you advance in the playoffs. It is a must. However, just because Brandon is a better defensive player does not make him more consistent or a better overall player than Mike Dunleavy. If we get the same Mike and Brandon from last year, I would take Brandon. If we get the best from Mike Dunleavy, however, Brandon will be hard pressed to beat him out.

                            Does Brandon have more potential? Absolutely...but he has yet to show much. Dunleavy has played better than Brandon in the NBA and that's simply a fact.

                            As for Paul George, I hope he beats out both of them. However, nobody knows how he will develop. Give him a good chance to win the job is my opinion.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Mike is good to go

                              I think is funny that some guys here wants to get rid of Rush, a second year player that average 9.4 PPG 4.20 RPG 1.4APG and +10.20 EFF and wants to replace him with an eight years broken down veteran that average 9.9PPG 3.50RPG1.5 APG and +9.43 EFF.

                              another comparison:

                              Brandon Rush 2.9 millions team option salary, 24 years of age, .411 3point %

                              Mike Dunleavy 10.5 salary 30 years of age, .318 3point %


                              I might ad that Brandon Rush is a way better defender than Mike, he is in fact the best defender on the team and he does many things on the court that don't show on the stats.

                              Here are Brandon Rush stats for his second year:
                              Season Age Tm Lg G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB
                              2009-10 24 IND NBA 82 64 30.4 3.6 8.6.423 1.5 3.7.411 0.7 1.1 .629 0.5

                              DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
                              3.7 4.2 1.4 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.9 9.4

                              Here is Danny Granger stats for his second year:


                              Season Age Tm Lg G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT%
                              2006-07 23 IND NBA 82 57 34.0 4.9 10.6 .459 1.3 3.5 .382 2.9 3.6 .803


                              ORB DRG TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
                              1.4 3.3 4.6 1.4 0.8 0.7 1.6 3.0 13.9

                              If you guys look at Brandon numbers and compare them to Danny's they are not too far off and actually Brandon right now is a better 3 point shooter than Danny was in his second year.
                              Last edited by vnzla81; 10-01-2010, 10:17 PM.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Mike is good to go

                                ...and TJ Ford averaged 12.2ppg his second year.

                                ...and your Dunleavy stats picked a year when he was recovering from major knee surgury. He averaged 14, 19 and 15 the previous 3 years..and he only played in 18 games that last year.

                                But I get it. He is not the long term answer. My argument is merely that Brandon has not proven that he is necessarily going to be the better player this year. In fact, Brandon has never played nearly as well as the pre-injured version of Dunleavy.

                                With that said, I am hoping Rush beats out Dunleavy because we need a better SG.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X