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

Do you like Gerald Green?

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

  • #31
    Re: Do you like Gerald Green?

    He clearly wants to be good, and not in an individual way but in a team way. He wants to do the things his teammates want. It was very obvious in a couple of instances in the Atlanta game and BillS and I discussed those moments post-game in the BLR while it was fresh in our minds. Both of us were sitting rows from the court where you can see all those interactions and even read lips and both of us saw multiple occurrences of Green taking responsibility. He cares, and to me it's indisputable.

    As a player he has killer hops, and I've pointed out many times that those help on a lot more than just dunks. He can contest for rebounds versus larger players, he grabbed one from behind a taller player last night in fact, and he can challenge shots at the rim like a bigger player. He's pretty good off the dribble, less sloppy than Paul often is. And he busts his butt to transition going either direction.

    I think his "dumb player" thing is overstated by a fair amount. Yes, his skill sets are not as strong in "awareness" as they are in athletic talents, but people were killing him for being a dumb player the last few months when the primary problem was just terrible jump shooting.

    During his slump he would still take a 3, but when he missed he would work his way into shorter jumpers later on. He is smart and willing enough to know he has to hunt for a better shot when he doesn't have it going. Maybe people don't like him taking a 3 late in the Hawks game, but he was the ONE shooter who had it going in the 2nd half. OJ and Pendy had gone short on their jumpers and were cold. Green was hitting, so he took it and he hit it. To me that's not "dumb". He could have searched for a closer shot, but this wasn't an 0-5 from 3 guy taking that shot. He's smarter than that.


    OJ has come from a tougher place obviously, his life story is just ridiculous, but Green has a good redemption story and he seems to value being a good team player at a point when he could have fallen back into a "satisfied" mode with his Pacers contract. I was a person that was very concerned with the possibility of a personal setback or issue creating his slump, so it's not like I'm just a blind Green fanboy. It's just hard not to pick up a vibe that he's sincere and capable.


    Having both OJ and Green pan out would not just be excellent for the future bench, but it would add 2 more guys that are fun to root for.




    Best part of the Atlanta game is after that ill-advised 3 Green went down the sideline giving 5 to fans.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Do you like Gerald Green?

      As a player? Not really. As a person? From what I've seen, you bet. Course that could easily be BS.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Do you like Gerald Green?

        Originally posted by repole View Post
        dRtg doesn't like Green much because he's been a mediocre defensive rebounder and doesn't rack up steals. dRtg is entirely a box score measure, shouldn't hold nearly as much weight as Synergy stats or 82games. It also still has him as a well above average defender.
        I like most of your post, but I'm not sure about this part. dRtg is a box score measure? My understanding is that it's more akin to plus-minus more than box score stats, i.e. number of points opponents score/100 possessions while Green is on the floor.

        The thing about Green's dRtg, is that it's one of the worst on the team. Among regular rotation players, only DJA is worse. Your point about defensive rebounding and steals might be valid though - both ends opponent possessions without a score and thus improves dRtg. It does make me wonder how a guy with Green's hops could be such a poor rebounder.
        Last edited by wintermute; 03-27-2013, 06:42 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Do you like Gerald Green?

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          He is maybe the best athlete ever to wear a Pacers uniform. He is also a capable shooter. Other than that I don't see him as having any substance. He might have the worst Bball IQ and Bball instincts of any player to have ever put on a Pacers uniform.
          This kind of player needs a not notch point guard, the reason he looked good in New Jersey was they had one. If we get one next year he would be worth keeping, if the Pacers are going to stick with Hill at the point they need to trade Green.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Do you like Gerald Green?

            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
            I like most of your post, but I'm not sure about this part. dRtg is a box score measure? My understanding is that it's more akin to plus-minus more than box score stats, i.e. number of points opponents score/100 possessions while Green is on the floor.

            The thing about Green's dRtg, is that it's one of the worst on the team. Among regular rotation players, only DJA is worse. Your point about defensive rebounding and steals might be valid though - both ends opponent possessions without a score and thus improves dRtg. It does make me wonder how a guy with Green's hops could be such a poor rebounder.

            dRtg basically tries to calculate how many "stops" a player generated based on their defensive rebounding rate, steal rate, and block rate. There's a part of the calculation that determines how much of a missed shot's value should be split between the defensive rebounder and the person who was actually defending the shot. I don't recall how dRtg decides who gets credit for causing a missed shot, it's been a while since I read Basketball on Paper, but from what I remember it's essentially an estimate based on box score stats like blocks/steals/rebounds. Either way, if you look around the NBA, you'll notice guys who don't put up big defensive box score stats rank towards the bottom of their teams in dRtg. Check out Avery Bradley for example, widely regarded as an elite defender, but because he doesn't get a ton of steals, defensive rebounds, or blocks, he ends up near the bottom of the Celtics (only Jeff Green and Jason Terry are behind him as guys who have played major minutes....both are also terrible rebounders who don't get many steals/blocks).

            dRtg on an individual level should really be taken with a grain of salt. I love most of the stuff Dean Oliver's produced, and on a team level dRtg shows you exactly what it should, but on an individual level it isn't nearly as useful as oRtg (in which the only real estimates revolve around assists).


            I'll add that pretty much everyone on the Pacers looks good on Synergy. Green comes out pretty close to the team average in most regards, so by no means is he doing anything special defensively compared to the rest of the roster. But the Pacers have been the best team in the NBA at getting stops, and Green has done nothing but help in that regard. I think sometimes people are more prone to notice his lapses defensively because of his general reputation of having a low BBIQ, but there really isn't any actual data to suggest he's been anything but a quality defender here. And again, even in New Jersey, he profiled as a very good defender, with the only question mark being how well he closed out on spot up jumpers (something that is greatly impacted by rotations, and with the Nets exceptionally awful defense, it should probably be weighted lightly).

            A Gerald Green fan who now finds himself rooting for the Suns.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Do you like Gerald Green?

              Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
              This kind of player needs a not notch point guard, the reason he looked good in New Jersey was they had one. If we get one next year he would be worth keeping, if the Pacers are going to stick with Hill at the point they need to trade Green.
              More of a drive and kick PG who likes to get up and down the court would certainly help. I will note that he also played a ton of minutes with Sundiata Gaines and Jordan Farmar running the point and didn't have any problems there. Just eyeballing it, I'd bet the split minutes wise between Deron Williams and non Deron Williams PGs was probably about 50/50.

              I think the biggest problem, outside of Green's spot up jumper just being off for as long as it was (and make no mistake, this is the biggest issue), has been the minimal post ups and hand off plays he's involved in. Things that were staples of how he scored in New Jersey have rarely been used here. He's been posted up a bit more here of late, so that's good to see, and hopefully it continues.

              The key to both those types of offensive plays by the way is they allowed Green to create with his athleticism while minimizing just how many times he had to dribble the ball.

              A Gerald Green fan who now finds himself rooting for the Suns.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Do you like Gerald Green?

                I don't think he's terrible most of the time on defense, but he seems to have 1-2 lapses per game where he just completely blows assignment. It could just be me. I do think he plays decent D for stretches.
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Do you like Gerald Green?

                  Early on I still held out hope for him, and I still do for the future. I just don't have any high hopes for him left this season. He could still prove me wrong, but I think this offseason will be make or break for him.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Do you like Gerald Green?

                    Originally posted by repole View Post
                    Time for some fun stats from Synergy:
                    -Green ranks as the 84th best defender in the NBA allowing .81 points per possession (PPP)
                    -He's been particularly good at contesting spot up jumpers allowing .85 PPP in those situations (he was terrible in this regard last year). That's a sign that he's not getting lost on rotations, though his length/athleticism makes it easier for him to recover than most.
                    -His isolation D has been pretty mediocre, which is interesting because last year he profiled as an excellent isolation defender according to Synergy. His sample size is small here though, so may just be noise. Especially when considering that he's been excellent guarding pick and roll ball handlers (65th in the NBA at .73 PPP) and that should be a similar set of skills.
                    -Opponents have connected on just 7/42 jumpers off screens with Green guarding them. His .47 PPP allowed there is 4th best in the NBA.

                    Synergy doesn't do the best job at accounting for team defense, that line can sort of get blurred at times so lets look at what 82 games has to say:
                    -Defense allows 97.3 points per possession with Green on the court, 100.7 with him off, a difference of 3.4 points.
                    -Green is holding his opponent to an 8.5 PER

                    dRtg doesn't like Green much because he's been a mediocre defensive rebounder and doesn't rack up steals. dRtg is entirely a box score measure, shouldn't hold nearly as much weight as Synergy stats or 82games. It also still has him as a well above average defender.




                    So maybe, just maybe, Green actually is a really effective defender? The Pacers don't use him on the other team's best perimeter player as often as the Nets did last year (Green profiled pretty well defensively last year as well, though he allowed spot up shooters too much space), so that probably helps a bit, but there's absolutely nothing to lead anyone to believe that Green hasn't been a plus on the defensive end.
                    nice post. well supported. simply from the "eyeball" test. GG has laspes on the defensive end. when he wants to lock down he can. but most of the time it seems his game overall is affected by how he plays offensively. lets not act like GG is a lockdown "Paul George" type of defender.

                    in some ways what i specifically said was a compliment to his defensive abilities. but he is not a "lockdown" defender. those stats are nice but i think even you would agree he is not a guy you expect to even slow down James or Wade. i would take my chances with sam young and Pulp on Wade.

                    lockdown and "effective" are two entirely different things. again, enjoyed your post but it doesnt change what i originally stated.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Do you like Gerald Green?

                      he's pretty cool when he's in mid air I guess
                      //

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Do you like Gerald Green?

                        I'd like to see his payroll off our books if anyone would take him.
                        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Do you like Gerald Green?

                          He's my 15th favorite player on the Pacers

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X