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

Monta Ellis for Granger ??

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

  • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
    I did, but it wouldn't change my opinion of him if I didn't. Iverson and heck even Tinsley were regularly among the league leaders in steals; didn't make them good defenders.
    Here is the post I was responding too.



    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Yeah, I only cited Danny's steals as evidence of how great he's been playing defense this season.

    I didn't post anything about shooting fg%, or anything like that.
    Read the entire thread and you know what people are talking about.

    People here are saying that Monta sucks on defense and that he is one of the top players in steals because he is like Iverson and Tinsley but when is Danny related is pretty much a "yeah Danny is one of the top defenders in the NBA because he is one of the top players in steals" so again my question is which one is it?
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

      Originally posted by mattie View Post
      When you score at an above average efficiency while contributing to one of the best team defenses in the league that with out a doubt contributes to winning. Likewise, if you score at a below average efficiency while contributing to one of the worst team defenses in the league that with out a doubt contributes to losing.
      http://www.basketball-reference.com/...rder_by=ts_pct

      There were 19 players who scored at least 20 points per game last year. Granger and Ellis both did it. 12 of them did it at or above your mythical TS% breaking point of .550, Granger was one of them.

      Here's the list of players, other than Ellis, who scored 20 but didn't reach that TS%, and hence contributed to their teams' losing:

      Blake Griffin
      LaMarcus Aldridge
      Brook Lopez
      Kobe Bryant
      Russell Westbrook
      Andrea Bargnani

      Comment


      • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Here is the post I was responding too.





        Read the entire thread and you know what people are talking about.

        People here are saying that Monta sucks on defense and that he is one of the top players in steals because he is like Iverson and Tinsley but when is Danny related is pretty much a "yeah Danny is one of the top defenders in the NBA because he is one of the top players in steals" so again my question is which one is it?
        Here read this:

        http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND7.HTM

        Comment


        • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Read the entire thread and you know what people are talking about.
          I've read the entire thread, thank you.

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Funny that you point this out, I had an argument last week with Danny Granger homers in another thread and they told me that his defense was amazing because he was one of the top leaders in steals this season, so which one is it? Danny is great in defense because he is steeling a lot of balls and Monta is like Iverson because he is doing the same thing Danny is doing? OK..........
          The highlighted, bolded, and underlined portion of that post is a straight out lie.

          I'm not going to mince words at this point. You either ignored the conversation, you've forgotten the conversation, or you're purposely lying about what was said.

          Your assertions that the argument about how Danny has been playing good defense revolved around his steals is just flat out not true.

          You were presented with much more than just steals. You know this. I know this. Everyone who read the conversation knows this.

          If you're going to distort what was said, then I'm going to set the record straight.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

            Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
            Do you think if Ellis was swapped for Gordon or Westbrook the Warriors would have been any better the last few years, with that coaching and style of play?

            There's arguments for why they're better players than Ellis, but I don't think W-L records a very good one.
            It's not only not a very good argument, it's absolutely terrible. Ellis has a much better winning percentage for this career than Eric Gordon.

            Career Records
            Danny Granger: 226-278 (.448)
            Monta Ellis: 219-285 (.435)
            Eric Gordon: 83-175 (.322)

            None of the three have much career winning to hang their hats on, but Gordon's losing has been an a whole different level than Granger's and Ellis'. The minor difference in the latter two's career winning percentages has been this season; they were two wins apart coming into 2011-12.

            If any of the three men put up "empty" stats, it's Mr. .322, Eric Gordon.

            Comment


            • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
              http://www.basketball-reference.com/...rder_by=ts_pct

              There were 19 players who scored at least 20 points per game last year. Granger and Ellis both did it. 12 of them did it at or above your mythical TS% breaking point of .550, Granger was one of them.

              Here's the list of players, other than Ellis, who scored 20 but didn't reach that TS%, and hence contributed to their teams' losing:

              Blake Griffin
              LaMarcus Aldridge
              Brook Lopez
              Kobe Bryant
              Russell Westbrook
              Andrea Bargnani
              Actually there is a pretty good argument that could be made that Kobe's increased shooting last year helped contribute to the Lakers regressing..

              Obviously I don't need to talk about Westbrook.

              Any how, I never argued .55 is the breaking point. I clearly argued that above average shooting must be better than below right? Or am I wrong there?

              If you cannot see that one player shooting better than another while also making that team a top tier defensive unit is not indication of superior abilities than there is no need for us to talk. You're a lost cause.

              Seriously, give it up.

              Comment


              • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

                Originally posted by picasso View Post
                Hahaha. He started off as a PG. The fact that he averages just 1 more assist to a SF says a lot.
                Last year he doubled Danny's assists on a per minute basis with a nearly identical turnover rate.

                Ellis: 5.0 assists & 2.8 turnovers per 36 minutes
                Granger: 2.6 assists & 2.7 turnovers per 36 minutes

                He was not and is not a point guard. He's a 2 guard. Undersized and ball dominant, but a wing nonetheless.

                If you had any interest in acquiring Jamal Crawford, you should be falling all over yourself to get his younger, better version.

                I don't think this is a no-brainer trade. But it certainly bears close examination.
                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                -Lance Stephenson

                Comment


                • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

                  Here Vnzla. Here are the posts.


                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Count55 had a tweet the other day, where he used the numbers from Synergy Sports about Dannys defense.

                  Let's just say that you aren't even in the same universe as what has been happening on the court.

                  I forget the exact details, but I'm positive it was measuring 27 iso plays where Danny was the defender. I know they resulted in 10, count em, TEN turnovers with a FG% at 23%. (I'm pretty sure it was 23%, but if not, it was in that territory)

                  I'll go back through his tweets and see if I can locate the exact tweet.

                  Danny's defense has been fan-freaking-tastic this season.
                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Found it.

                  @TimDonahue
                  @8pts9sec per @mySynergySports Grangers' defensive #s are sick. In 54 plays, allowing 05.2PPP, 24.4% FG%, & 10 TO's vs. 2 shooting fouls.
                  I remembered 27, because that's the points scored (54 possessions, 1/2 a point per possession)
                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  So many people have resorted to the "it's a tool, not the tool" line it's becoming overplayed.

                  I don't know how you can say they're just numbers, when they're measuring what you're seeing. +/- gets that excuse, because those are completely dependent on the other 4 guys you're playing with.

                  Measuring his defensive stats in iso plays, measures what you see with your eyeballs.


                  Danny is putting up downright awesome defensive numbers. I haven't even mentioned the fact that he's fourth in the NBA in steals. He's taken multiple charges, he's been getting deflections, and his energy on the defensive side has been well above average for him.

                  At this point in time, it's like you focus on the one or two times out of ten that the offense does something positive, and then applying that as the overall standard of Danny's defense.

                  You're just not right about this topic. His defense is much better visually, and statistically.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

                    If this trade happened:

                    PGs: Ellis, Collison, Hill, Stephenson, Price

                    SGs: Ellis, George, Hill, Jones, Stephenson

                    SFs: George, Jones, ?

                    PFs: West, Hansbrough, Amundson

                    Cs: Hibbert, Foster, West, Pendergraph

                    That's a incredibly balanced roster.

                    What the stats fans have told me is this is a like for like swap in terms of offensive output. However, we're trading a good-sized SF capable of defending at a high level(leaving a hole) for a undersized SG(or a score-first PG, however you want to look at it) which we already have 4 of.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

                      Originally posted by mattie View Post
                      Actually there is a pretty good argument that could be made that Kobe's increased shooting last year helped contribute to the Lakers regressing..

                      Obviously I don't need to talk about Westbrook.

                      Any how, I never argued .55 is the breaking point. I clearly argued that above average shooting must be better than below right? Or am I wrong there?

                      If you cannot see that one player shooting better than another while also making that team a top tier defensive unit is not indication of superior abilities than there is no need for us to talk. You're a lost cause.

                      Seriously, give it up.
                      When Granger had a .554 TS%, he was far from a top tier defender. He was a liability. He was last year. He was the year before that. He was his best season prior to that. He has been a good defender this year. But it's been twelve games and his shooting this season? Historically bad.

                      The difference defensively a year ago between Ellis and Granger was neglible. That has changed in this miniscule sample so far this season. But so has Granger's offense. Drastically. Can he do both at a high level? Obviously, that is the hope. But at this point, that is all it is. Hope.
                      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                      -Lance Stephenson

                      Comment


                      • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

                        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                        When Granger had a .554 TS%, he was far from a top tier defender. He was a liability. He was last year. He was the year before that. He was his best season prior to that. He has been a good defender this year. But it's been twelve games and his shooting this season? Historically bad.

                        The difference defensively a year ago between Ellis and Granger was neglible. That has changed in this miniscule sample so far this season. But so has Granger's offense. Drastically. Can he do both at a high level? Obviously, that is the hope. But at this point, that is all it is. Hope.
                        Danny's defense has always been off and on the last few years. Not bad.

                        The new system has Danny focused on defense. It's sustainable. His shooting percentage is not. It will, as the season goes on, revert to the mean. I think you know that. Not sure why I have to point out that shooters sometimes slump.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Here Vnzla. Here are the posts.
                          Good job in finding that thread, either way I never mentioned your name because I wasn't talking about you. Few posters have made the Danny Granger's steals per game = better defender argument before in different threads. Sorry if you thought I was calling you out
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

                            Originally posted by mattie View Post
                            Danny's defense has always been off and on the last few years. Not bad.

                            The new system has Danny focused on defense. It's sustainable. His shooting percentage is not. It will, as the season goes on, revert to the mean. I think you know that. Not sure why I have to point out that shooters sometimes slump.
                            There is just as much reason to think that his defensive effort will regress to the mean.

                            I think both are likely to happen.

                            Water will find its level. And right now, Danny's cup is way out of whack both offensively and defensively.
                            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                            -Lance Stephenson

                            Comment


                            • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              Good job in finding that thread, either way I never mentioned your name because I wasn't talking about you. Few posters have made the Danny Granger's steals per game = better defender argument before in different threads. Sorry if you thought I was calling you out
                              Here I'll help you respond to those types of posters if that problem ever arises again:

                              "Sorry, I need to point out that you're making a poor argument. Truthfully Granger is an excellent defender as I've come to find out. However, his steals are not an indication of his over all abilities defensively."

                              Done and done. I'd just copy and paste that. You're welcome.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Monta Ellis for Granger ??

                                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                                There is just as much reason to think that his defensive effort will regress to the mean.

                                I think both are likely to happen.

                                Water will find its level. And right now, Danny's cup is way out of whack both offensively and defensively.
                                Not at all. Shooters slump, in fact we know that will go back to normal based on all data ever recorded.

                                On the other hand, seeing as this coaching change now means Danny is focused on defense versus shooting, there is absolutely no reason to believe he'll regress considering we know he's capable of playing this defense. We know he's capable because we've seen him play an entire season at this level.

                                So no there is absolutely no reason at all to believe his defense will regress.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X