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

Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

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

  • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    I wouldn't say your opinion (or the stat) isn't important. I just don't think it is definitive. I respect your insights (and the others who have made the same point about this year's versus last year's offense).

    Yes, PG is trending and DWest is healthier. All your points about why the offense is better this year (or is it worse? I forget ) are worth considering. Let's also consider the fact that Lance gets DWest and PG the ball just where they want it and he shares the ball more than Granger, who fg% isn't all that great.

    I've asked this question in a couple of threads and maybe someone can finally answer it. How are we measuring last year's offense being better? Total points? FG%? Is fg% being factored in? Is pace of the game and number of possessions being factored in? I mean, while yes, we are 29th or whatever in total points, we are winning lots and lots of games.

    Not being difficult. Asking honest questions and would love to hear some fair minded analysis that considers all factors in this assessment that last year's offense was better.
    Points per Possession. That's how we're measuring it.

    Last year's offense was better. Period.

    Comment


    • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

      Originally posted by mattie View Post
      Points per Possession. That's how we're measuring it.

      Last year's offense was better. Period.
      Then I'm assuming the other team's points per possession is much lower this year in order for us to be winning.

      So . . . could one argue that if this year's starting five didn't exert so much energy on defense, they would have an equivalent or better PPP this year than last year?
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

        I think the Lance vs Danny debate has many different aspects...

        - I think we all agree Danny's the much much better overall player. He's a better rebounder, scorer, shooter, and teams actually gameplan on stopping him.
        - There's one thing Lance does better than Danny - Moving and handling the ball, something that has been long an issue for us... West is blossoming this year because he's getting the ball exactly where and when he should be getting it, and this has a lot to do with Lance.
        - Lance is a better fit next to Hill as he can run the offense - Hill is a combo guard who's pretty much more of a scorer and less of a "sets guys up". It doesn't look like we're going to move Hill for a real point guard any time soon as well
        - Another thing Lance does is... allow P.George play SF, and because of that he's guarded by other small forwards who aren't quite quick enough to defend him.

        So overall the choice here is lesser talent with better fit or better talent with lesser fit. In my mind, the most logical move is really to turn Hill and Lance into a playmaking point guard, maybe someone like Conley, but that doesn't seem likely.

        I think it's also important to compare the lineups:
        Hill/George/Granger/West/Hibbert will give very good spacing on offense and a defense that relies on size, toughness, and will rebound the ball well. However I think this lineup will be (just like last year) slow and predictable.
        Hill/Lance/George/West/Hibbert has better ball movement and is quicker.

        So the choice here is basically Spacing vs Ball Movement.

        In my opinion, rotation should be something like this:
        Hill (32) / D.J (16)
        George (15) / Lance (28) / OJ (5)
        Granger (26) / George (22)
        West (28) / Tyler (15) / Granger (5)
        Hibbert (28) / Ian (15) / West (5)
        Originally posted by Piston Prince
        Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
        "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

        Comment


        • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

          Go out to basketball reference and it's obvious we were rated higher offensively last year. That is because we had Collison and Granger last year...whose absence (especially DC's) is now helping us defensively. Then you have Hibbert who is killing our offense this year. So, certainly, we were better offensively last year notwithstanding Paul's explosion. We are probably a better team though because the defense is literally the best in the entire NBA. I would argue that it's because we have Lance and Hill rather than Danny and DC playing big minutes...along with DWest being a bit healthier....and Paul improving a bit.

          Comment


          • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

            I never said there is not 2 sides to every agruement, I'm just not listening to yours. IMHO, if Danny is healthy, we are a better team regardless how Frank uses him. If he's not healthy, who plays where and when is a mote point.

            Comment


            • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

              Last night was the perfect example of why Danny starts when he gets back. Too long of periods where the offense was pretty bad. Lance is good at what he does, but it's rather limited in amount of time it's being done. Most of the time, he's pretty much non-existent. He'll knock down a shot from the corner off a pass or he'll make a back cut, nut they're but unique to Lance.

              When he starts doing his thing, you let him go and ride it until it stops for whatever reason. I don't think bringing him off the bench changes any of that. It might result in 5-8 less minutes per night, but that's 5-8 less minutes of him standing in the corner, not 5-8 mins less of him being aggressive.

              Scoring by committee works, if you've got a big enough, reliable enough committee. Right now, the Pacers struggle a little bit with that.

              I'm just not sure why you'd want to limit Danny's role, to keep Lance's role where it is, when Lance's roll for the majority of the time is rather dull. He's only averaging 8pts.

              I've liked Lance since the beginning, and I feel as confident in him as I ever have, but Danny's better.

              The Pacers only have 4 players (counting Roy's 9.9) averaging double digits. Which wouldn't be as bad if the rest was filled with 8-9pts from mutliple guys. But the next one is Lance at 8.3pts and then it goes to Green at 6.9pts.

              Danny has proven he can coexist with a scoring SG, when he played with Dunleavy. Mike wasn't shy about getting his shots up. PG is better, but him and Mike even play a similar style offensively.


              If Lance's scoring was offset with 6-7 assist per night, then sure. Don't get me wrong, I think he 3 he does get is positive signs, but I don't think it's special enough to make up for the lack of scoring. Danny averages 2per game for his career.

              The Pacers just really need help scoring, more than anything else, so I say maximize that player who gives you that the best.
              Last edited by Since86; 02-09-2013, 01:02 PM.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                Go out to basketball reference and it's obvious we were rated higher offensively last year. That is because we had Collison and Granger last year...whose absence (especially DC's) is now helping us defensively. Then you have Hibbert who is killing our offense this year. So, certainly, we were better offensively last year notwithstanding Paul's explosion. We are probably a better team though because the defense is literally the best in the entire NBA. I would argue that it's because we have Lance and Hill rather than Danny and DC playing big minutes...along with DWest being a bit healthier....and Paul improving a bit.
                Except the defense was better last year too. The defense and offense was better with Hill last season compared to this season... (try again)

                Comment


                • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                  Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                  Then I'm assuming the other team's points per possession is much lower this year in order for us to be winning.

                  So . . . could one argue that if this year's starting five didn't exert so much energy on defense, they would have an equivalent or better PPP this year than last year?
                  No. Last years five man unit was better defensively and offensively compared to the starting five this year.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                    Originally posted by mattie View Post
                    No. Last years five man unit was better defensively and offensively compared to the starting five this year.
                    No, last years group may have been better offensively (mostly because Hibbert is not as good there this year). This years team is way better defensively and they may be the best defensive team in the NBA........ Granger could not defend your grandmother.... ...

                    Comment


                    • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                      Originally posted by mattie View Post
                      Except the defense was better last year too. The defense and offense was better with Hill last season compared to this season... (try again)
                      You need to watch some footage of last years team and this years team. This team, right now, without Granger is better than last years team..... ... Just ask Lebron James.....

                      Comment


                      • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                        Lance is not a stellar one on one defender Derozen ate him up last night for example

                        Comment


                        • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Last night was the perfect example of why Danny starts when he gets back. Too long of periods where the offense was pretty bad. Lance is good at what he does, but it's rather limited in amount of time it's being done. Most of the time, he's pretty much non-existent. He'll knock down a shot from the corner off a pass or he'll make a back cut, nut they're but unique to Lance.

                          When he starts doing his thing, you let him go and ride it until it stops for whatever reason. I don't think bringing him off the bench changes any of that. It might result in 5-8 less minutes per night, but that's 5-8 less minutes of him standing in the corner, not 5-8 mins less of him being aggressive.

                          Scoring by committee works, if you've got a big enough, reliable enough committee. Right now, the Pacers struggle a little bit with that.

                          I'm just not sure why you'd want to limit Danny's role, to keep Lance's role where it is, when Lance's roll for the majority of the time is rather dull. He's only averaging 8pts.

                          I've liked Lance since the beginning, and I feel as confident in him as I ever have, but Danny's better.

                          The Pacers only have 4 players (counting Roy's 9.9) averaging double digits. Which wouldn't be as bad if the rest was filled with 8-9pts from mutliple guys. But the next one is Lance at 8.3pts and then it goes to Green at 6.9pts.

                          Danny has proven he can coexist with a scoring SG, when he played with Dunleavy. Mike wasn't shy about getting his shots up. PG is better, but him and Mike even play a similar style offensively.


                          If Lance's scoring was offset with 6-7 assist per night, then sure. Don't get me wrong, I think he 3 he does get is positive signs, but I don't think it's special enough to make up for the lack of scoring. Danny averages 2per game for his career.

                          The Pacers just really need help scoring, more than anything else, so I say maximize that player who gives you that the best.
                          They will address that by playing Granger off the bench and using him for instant offense. That keeps the cohesive group they have together. It doesn't matter who starts as much as it matters who finishes. Granger will finish but the defense and the team will be better with him coming off of the bench if he will allow that to happen and that isn't clear. If he pouts, and he might, then get rid of his sorry *** as soon as you can..... ...

                          Comment


                          • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                            Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
                            Lance is not a stellar one on one defender Derozen ate him up last night for example
                            And Gay ate Paul George. And the entire team was tired. That proves nothing. Lance is a very good defender. Maybe not stellar yet, but good.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                              Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                              And Gay ate Paul George. And the entire team was tired. That proves nothing. Lance is a very good defender. Maybe not stellar yet, but good.
                              He is one hell of a lot more stellar than Granger........ and he made himself that way with some good coaching...... ...

                              Comment


                              • Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                                When motivated Danny is still a better defender than Lance. Danny's forte' odd as it seems coming into the league was defense and rebounding. But after a few seasons he fell in love with shooting 3's and scoring and slacked off on D. But made a very good effort on D in the playoffs vs Miami.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X