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

Danny Hatred?

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

  • #31
    Re: Danny Hatred?

    ok here is my opinion on the trade Granger idea, if we trade Granger how can we improve our offense? obviously their aren't a lot of big scoring threats out there right now due to Granger's trade value (low because he hasn't played yet), we have the 29th best offense in the NBA, title contenders don't have the low of an offense, if Granger comes back and improves out offense then, in my opinion we are title contenders. Like someone else said earlier, Granger also brings this attitude and toughness to this team, whenever he was on the court last year you could see a different attitude, I don't know why we would trade him

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Danny Hatred?

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      Anyone who would not deal Danny Granger straight up for Demarcus Cousins in delusional. In fact, I would add a number one pick to that. I might even add two number ones because that trade would make you a championship contender right now. Yes, Cousins has to get his head on straight but he is still very young. We got Lance through it and now he is the steal of the century of a number two pick. The probem with all of this is that the Kings would never consider Granger for Cousins with or without the draft pick. They would want Paul George...... and probably still a number one draft pick. I would not make that trade but that is the only starter I would not include in a trade for Cousins....
      the Kings would accept a Paul George for DeMarcus Cousins trade straight up in a blink of an eye, the Pacers would also decline it in a blink of an eye

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Danny Hatred?

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        I didn't realize entertaining the idea of trading someone meant you hated them...it is possible to believe you can improve the roster by dealing a player you like for another player you like more.
        I would agree regarding "hate", because it is a very strong word. But, regardless of what some of say in our posts about not hating so and so, but... I don't believe a word of it and more often than not it comes down to some sort of personally perceived disappointment that one has in a player. That is why some attempt to get rid of player x. The funny thing is that just as often they are promoting getting rid of player x in order to acquire player y, who they just happen to like very much.

        So, although hate is a strong word, I think the word is used to basically say "dislike".

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Danny Hatred?

          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
          the Kings would accept a Paul George for DeMarcus Cousins trade straight up in a blink of an eye, the Pacers would also decline it in a blink of an eye
          I doubt it but, I, like you, would not make that trade. I know that no other one player from the Pacers will land Cousins and the bad contract they will insist comes with him.....

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Danny Hatred?

            this is the part of this Danny Granger I have never understood, Ol'blue said that when Granger comes back he will demand to be the focal point of the offense, when has Granger ever done this in his career? sure when he was the best player on the bad Pacers teams he took all of the shots, but look at last year for example, he sacrificed some of his shot attempts in order to make the team better, I always got the opinion that Danny is a team first player, not a me first player, Danny is a smart guy, I think he understands that George is our go to guy now, I think we just need to take some shots away from George Hill, Gerald Green, Tyler Hansbrough, and Hibbert. I think he only needs to average about 15-16 ppg from him, plus Granger is not a liability on defense he is an average defender, and replacing Stephenson with him will not kill our defense

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Danny Hatred?

              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
              I have watched Granger for his entire career and I have NEVER seen him focus on defense. He is adequate to mediocre there at best
              You must not have watched him during his first few seasons then. He was playing on a veteran roster behind Ron Artest and the only way he could get on the foor was to be aggressively defensively. Obviously he's no defensive stopper, but to clain he's NEVER focused on defense and is mediocre at best is just false. There's a big difference between mediocre at best and being above average, just like there's a big difference between above average and great. Danny is average to above average depending on the matchup.

              At the SF position Danny is playing defense against ELITE talent consistently (Bron, Melo, Durant, Pierce, Johnson, Gay, Iggy, Deng, etc) to say he's average at best would suggest that he's lit up offensively on a consistent basis.

              Let's compare Danny and other similar players, and how they fair against the other consistent scorers at the 3.

              PPG Danny is giving up against the players mentioned:

              Lebron: 28ppg
              Carmelo: 28 ppg
              Durant:30 ppg
              Johnson: 21ppg
              Gay: 20 ppg
              Pierce: 22 PPG
              Deng: 17ppg
              Iggy: 14 ppg

              So he's giving up 28-30 ppg out of the big 3 scorers in Bron, Melo and KD. And then gives up about the career averages to the other players that I mentioned.

              Now lets see what a guy like Joe Johnson, a player often compared to Danny gives up within the same matchups..

              Bron: 29ppg
              Melo: 27ppg
              KD: 27ppg
              Pierce: 22ppg
              Deng:18ppg
              Iggy:17ppg
              Danny: 19ppg

              So comparable right?

              Okay so now lets look at the career ppg given up by a defensive standout. Had a hard time choosing between Deng and Iggy, so I went with Deng who not only is more of a SF like Danny, but is on the same athletic level as Danny IMO, therefore is a better comparison

              Bron: 31ppg
              Melo: 28ppg
              KD: 25 ppg
              Pierce: 18 ppg
              Gay: 16 ppg
              Iggy: 16ppg
              Johnson: 19ppg
              DG: 16.5 ppg (17)

              Some numbers are better, but just like Danny and Joe, he gives up big numbers to the big 3 at SF (Bron, Melo, KD)


              Now I am NOT advocating that Danny is close to as good of a defender as Luol Deng. But the fact that they give up similar ppg's to similar players should show that Danny is not "mediocre at best" defensively imo.

              Edit: Looking back: I should have used FG% within my argument as well. Could have given a better indicator....

              Link: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...h2h_finder.cgi
              Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 01-15-2013, 12:22 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Danny Hatred?

                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                He also will demand to be the focal point of the offense again taking touches from PG. I am not a Granger hater but some folks here have a way inflated view of him as a player.
                When has he ever demanded to be the focal point of the offense though? When Mike Dunleavy was here, you never heard Danny making a fuss over sharing shots with Mike D, and I never even got the sense they got along all that much. On the flip side, Danny and Paul seem to be friends at the very least, so I don't see why he would "demand" anything. He's never done it before, so why would he now?

                Think about it, following his MIP season, he could have gutted the pacers for a ridiculous contract along the likes of Rudy Gay, but he didn't. He signed a fair market value contract. As the team's success has risen, Danny's FGA's have gone down, and never once have you heard him complain, nor has he responded with negative body language.

                There were plenty of times last season, ESPECIALLY early on when he was struggling, where Danny was getting 8, 9, 11 FGA in a game; and so he was putting more effort defensively to make up for it. Again, he never complained about the lack of touches. He didn't refuse to play hard. He just played.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Danny Hatred?

                  My fault about the wording. Hatred was probably a dumb word to use. But anyways last year in the playoffs Danny played a bit hobbled towards the end and I'm guessing we will wait until he is 100% so that is why I put Danny = Last years Danny. I could be wrong with that but with the emergence of George he wont have to do as much as last year.

                  And as I said if we get offered a Cousins, Gasol, or another star like that then yeah go for it. But Thomas Robinson, Jose Calderon? Don't see how guys like this give more to this team than Danny Granger.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Danny Hatred?

                    Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                    Because that fake toughness really helped last year...
                    Maybe not, but you still need someone to help because Paul can't guard both Lebron and Wade. This is what gave Miami problems last year when the Pacers were able to give them problems at least.

                    Ultimately a lot of it was Wade just starting to hit ridiculous shots to salvage what was headed south up to that point. But without the balance of Granger on the other wing, you've got problems.

                    I think a big issue is it's just been too long since people watched Granger play. Even when his shot wasn't falling last year, Granger was always a well-rounded contributor. He wasn't really fake tough, he was just up against a mega-star(s) who got on track. And as good as Paul has been all along, there is no denying that he's playing better now than he was last season, so it's not like he or Roy were carrying the team at that point.

                    In the critical game 5, Danny was the top scorer and shot a decent rate compared to the rest of the team. It was just Wade/James both going for 14 in the quarter with red hot scoring that saved it for Miami.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Danny Hatred?

                      Why don't we just call Paul our SF and Danny our SG, Paul guards the tougher match up, problem solved. Looking at every team in the league at SG and SF, I don't see this as a huge problem. On offense Danny could punish smaller SG's, our team defense is good enough for this to work just fine.
                      "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Danny Hatred?

                        Originally posted by Hoop View Post
                        Why don't we just call Paul our SF and Danny our SG, Paul guards the tougher match up, problem solved. Looking at every team in the league at SG and SF, I don't see this as a huge problem. On offense Danny could punish smaller SG's, our team defense is good enough for this to work just fine.
                        Because he can't put the ball on the floor and get to the hoop......

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Danny Hatred?

                          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                          Anyone who would not deal Danny Granger straight up for Demarcus Cousins in delusional. In fact, I would add a number one pick to that. I might even add two number ones because that trade would make you a championship contender right now. Yes, Cousins has to get his head on straight but he is still very young. We got Lance through it and now he is the steal of the century of a number two pick. The probem with all of this is that the Kings would never consider Granger for Cousins with or without the draft pick. They would want Paul George...... and probably still a number one draft pick. I would not make that trade but that is the only starter I would not include in a trade for Cousins....

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Danny Hatred?

                            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                            Because he can't put the ball on the floor and get to the hoop......
                            As usual you have no idea what you are taking about. We all know Danny's not the greatest ball handler, but he is effective and fairly proficient at getting to the line.

                            Danny 4.7 Ft attempts per game last season. Higher than, Iggy, Deng, Joe Johnson, Gay, Paul George, just .2 worse than Josh Smith, Bosh.

                            Also higher than these guys at a variety of positions, Tony Parker, Duncan, Tyreke, Monroe, P. Gasol, Millsap, Kyrie, Pekovic, Noah, Garnett, Scola, Al Jefferson, Batum,
                            "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Danny Hatred?

                              Originally posted by Hoop View Post
                              As usual you have no idea what you are taking about. We all know Danny's not the greatest ball handler, but he is effective and fairly proficient at getting to the line.

                              Danny 4.7 Ft attempts per game last season. Higher than, Iggy, Deng, Joe Johnson, Gay, Paul George, just .2 worse than Josh Smith, Bosh.

                              Also higher than these guys at a variety of positions, Tony Parker, Duncan, Tyreke, Monroe, P. Gasol, Millsap, Kyrie, Pekovic, Noah, Garnett, Scola, Al Jefferson, Batum,
                              And that was low when compared with his previous 4 or 5 seasons

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Danny Hatred?

                                Though not as animated as Mattie lol I'm kinda curious why he's considered "fake tough"? He never said he wanted to fight Bron or anything of the sort, he just got into his face bc he was tired of getting cheap shots. If a guy getting into the face of another player without actually fighting him then KG, D.West, and every other player in the league is "fake tough"...cept Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, JO and Jamaal Tinsley lol
                                Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 01-15-2013, 09:04 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X