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:
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

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

An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

    If I could get people to set aside their agenda's regarding Tyler for a moment (both sides the pro and the con) I have an honest question that I want to ask.

    Is there any reason to believe that Tyler could be a better player when paired with better players on the bench?

    We all know the limitations and those of us without an ax to grind will admit that he is not really better at many things than when he was a rookie, in fact in some areas he has regressed dramatically. I saw someone listed his synergy stats in another thread & he was shooting something like 19% from 10-15' or something close to it. My God that is not bad that is...I'm not even sure there is a word that describes the futility of that stat.

    But there is also this, whenever he has been able to play min. with the starters he has produced. Not at an elite level and probably not even at a good enough to start on a winning team level, but he has given good games when called upon.

    He seems to really have taken a dive over the past two years. Some of that can be attributed to the arrival of David West and Tyler's decrease in steady min. But I also wonder how much if any of it is attributed to the fact that for the past two years our bench (which I understand he is a part of) has been a disaster.

    He's never going to be a rim protector on defense and at times he get's lost on rotations (don't tell anyone this but guess what David West does to at times) but he has become a pretty good positional defender and at times can be a force on the boards.

    I do admit I like the fact that at times he comes in off of the bench and is like a bowling ball and causes EF5 tornado type havoc to the other team.

    Again I have no real dog in this fight other than just wondering if maybe better players on the bench wouldn't take some of the burden off of him. But the equal problem is that he is also the type of player that needs consistent minutes to produce.

    If he signs the one year deal and then becomes and unrestricted free agent next season I wonder if really that is a bad thing? In other words we would punt on trying to upgrade the bench 4 this year and just go back at it with Ian, Tyler, O.J., Lance & Watson as our bench with Plumlee getting scraps.

    If that doesn't work then you can clear out a decent amount of salary next off season and can upgrade then.

    Is there really a great upgrade over Tyler right now out there that we can afford that would be willing to come and be a bench player with inconsistent minutes? I mean I'd love Hickson myself but he isn't going to come cheap nor is he going to be willing to take the scraps of David West's min. and I'm not sure Frank would use him at the 5.

    Carl Landry to me is kind of the same way, I don't know if he would be willing to play 15 min a game or less regularly and I know he can't play the five.

    To me a lot of this really depends on Danny, if healthy (which until I see him playing a few games I'm going to assume he is not going to be) he can certainly handle some backup 4 min. if we ever get to the point where Tyler is in foul trouble or West get's injured.

    Okay I'm going to far off of where I want to be.

    To ask the question that I want answered I'll ask here.

    Is Tyler capable of being a decent backup with an improved bench?

    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

    The main reason I want to move on is I want to upgrade our shooting at every position possible. One of the Pacer's weaknesses is reliable shooters. We need more players besides West that can consistently knock down that mid range jumper. Don't know how many minutes Landry would expect but he is a much better option.


    • #3
      Re: An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

      I think that IF Tyler could improve his shooting, as the poster above mentioned, then he would be the ideal backup PF for our roster. However, the IF is definitely the multi-million dollar question.


      • #4
        Re: An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        Is Tyler capable of being a decent backup with an improved bench?
        Yes, contrary to what his many detractors might think, I beleive he already is a decent backup.

        There's no doubt his game needs improvement, but perhaps being surrounded by more capable
        bench players will indeed better help him to succeed.

        Despite his shortcomings, I've always liked the energy that he brings.


        • #5
          Re: An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

          We use Tyler as a go to guy off the bench which probably explains why he's better with the starters. I think with the starters he was able to do what he's good at, make hustle plays and score garbage buckets. Too often with our bench unit out there we feed him and watch him go to work. It works during lower profile games, but man did he get to the line AT ALL against the Heat?

          His role needs to be reduced, he needs to be Tyler the energy guy not Tyler the go to post scorer.


          • #6
            Re: An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

            Originally posted by Goyle View Post
            His role needs to be reduced, he needs to be Tyler the energy guy not Tyler the go to post scorer.
            Reducing his role makes no sense in as much as he plays better with more minutes. If we keep him and reduce his role he'll probably fall out of the lineup, so why keep him just to reduce his role.

            I think it's simple, you either find someone else and let him go or give him as many minutes as you can.


            • #7
              Re: An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
              Reducing his role makes no sense in as much as he plays better with more minutes. If we keep him and reduce his role he'll probably fall out of the lineup, so why keep him to reduce his role.

              I think it's simple, you either find someone else or give him as many minutes as you can.
              I think he plays well in extended minutes because his role in this offense is reduced in those games. You want Tyler taking MORE shots?

              Granted, I'm completely against Tyler coming back, but if he's going to be here I would hope I never see a Tyler post up or mid range shot again.


              • #8
                Re: An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

                Tyler can really get to the line. He needs more space to get off his jump shot. he needs to be more like the second or third option off the bench to see his efficiency improve.
                that should happen this year with Danny or Lance on the floor.
                Still Landry is better and similar $$. No doubt there are others.
                We can live with him but I'd be shopping if I were the legand.
                Last edited by solid; 07-02-2013, 05:18 AM.


                • #9
                  Re: An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

                  I don't want him. I'd almost take any body else that's over 6'8 and can shoot a mid range jumper. Give me Landry any day over Tyler.


                  • #10
                    Re: An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

                    Tyler just can't compete with the trees. He can't defend them well, and he has difficulty getting his shot over them.

                    Now, if he had a solid outside jumper, that's another story. But he doesn't. And he's had two or three years to correct that problem and he hasn't.

                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


                    • #11
                      Re: An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

                      While his difficulty shooting is apparent, there is a deeper issue with his game. These two issues put together are why I would say goodbye.

                      The deeper issue is that he doesn't know how to play the game beyond his NCAA "drive to the bucket, overpower the shorter or weaker guy, and get to the line" game. A game that did not translate because he's not long enough to do that in the NBA. More to the point, he's not good at moving without the ball, passing, shooting, know, basketball.

                      I hate to give SJax credit, but he said it best. Tyler plays football on the basketball court.

                      As for his better play with's because he's playing the garbage man role with starters. The defense is also less focused on him. He does in fact make a better starter. We hear that all the time, but with Tyler I think it's really true.

                      The issue with that is...David West is a better starting PF. That's where this conversation needs to end...and why we need to say goodbye to Hans.


                      • #12
                        Re: An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

                        Well to be honest I don't mind Hans coming back to back us up...and I think an improved bench will help. Is he really worth 4 mil at this point though? That seems like a bit of a stretch.
                        Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.


                        • #13
                          Re: An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

                          First, as I said in the other thread, the thought that Hansrough has fallen off a cliff the last couple years isn't quite true. His midrange jumper certainly has. But other parts of his game got better last year. Best rebounding percentage of his career, both offensive and defensive. Best rate of FT attempts since his shortened rookie year. Lowest rate of FGA in his career. His TS% is his best year two years ago was .529. This year it was .527. And his offensive and defensive rating were each the best of his career last year. When you add in the improvements he's made on post defense, it's really a tossup which year was better...2010-2011 with the Bulls series, or this past year. Both were a lot better than the disaster that was 2011-2012.

                          Will he probably play better with a better bench? I think it's very likely. I believe the reason his FG% jumps up so dramatically as a starer are partially due to small sample size, but it's also partially because Tyler is not really a shot creator. He's a guy who works well in space as a finisher. If his man can be drawn away somewhere else, Tyler is good at cutting to the rim to either receive an interior pass and score or grabbing a rebound in space and going back up. Those were the kinds of plays he was making when West was out this year.

                          If you look at the Pacers bench over the last couple years and their FG% numbers, just about everybody who they brought in from outside had their worst FG% numbers as a Pacer. Look at Mahinmi's FG% for a great example of this. I think this is what you are referring to Peck as part of the results of a bad bench playing many times together.

                          Personally, I think Tyler is already an ok backup. Out of rotation players (500 minutes or more, so a rather generous idea of rotation player) Tyler was 52nd in the NBA in rebounds per 36 last year. He was 2nd on the Pacers behind only Hibbert. In TS%, he was 183rd, which would average out to 6th or 7th best on most teams. He ended up 6th on the Pacers, right behind George, Lance, and Augustin and well ahead of Mahinmi and Hibbert. And on the other side, he's a good post defender, a somewhat versatile one on one defender for switches, and a bad help defender.

                          He is a more limited player then when he had his midrange jumper going, and hopefully he finds it again, but the coaching staff figured out a way last year to maximize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses. If he comes back, hopefully a better bench does that even better. If they find an upgrade for him, that's good too.


                          • #14
                            Re: An open discussion about Tyler Hansbrough....

                            Good post Peck.

                            I know a lot of people around here really dislike Tyler, but I'd like him to stay for the following reasons:

                            1.) He's by far our best bench player
                            2.) I think he would improve with a solid point guard to play with
                            3.) There are games we won purely (I think) due to his hustle changing the flow of the game
                            4.) Remember Roy Hibbert for about 1/2 of last year? He couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from 2 feet. Hans I think has the same confidence type problems that Roy does, and I don't think he's used to dealing with it. I think there is a decent chance he get's his shot back and the offseason really helps him, and I hope he's on the Pacers for us to find out.
                            5.) He get's to the FT line at (I think) the highest (2nd?) rate in the league
                            6.) In all honesty (someone find the stats) but I think other players PER when being guarded by Hans drops significantly. He is actually a really good defender at this point.
                            7.) Other teams hate him. He causes players to lose focus, lash out, and it brings our team together.

                            I understand about the shooting percentage, the blocked shots, and an almost uncanny ability to play below the room. I also I'm not sold on Pendy, especially after he got used in the playoffs. I don't think Pendy can play D. consistently near Hans level. I also don't think we'd get anyone better who can fit into our system for anywhere near 4 mil.

                            Danger Zone


                            • #15
                              The odd thing about Tyler is that the football analogy fits him PERFECTLY. IMHO, Tyler reminds me of the Hulk from the Avengers movie. Tyler doesn't need set plays. The gameplay for him should always be "Tyler smash!". If we actually had better perimeter shooters around him, he possibly could be a better fit for the team.

                              Otherwise, we need a PF who have a better back-to-the-basket post game and a consistent jumper.
                              Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 07-02-2013, 08:27 AM.

                              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?