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.
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
-
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
I'm glad that you mentioned Roy's height. Let's make a list of Centers that are 7'2 or more and have averaged 8.8 RPG or less in a season. Let's also put a minimum amount of games (around 50) and a minimum amount of minutes (around 20) in order to filter out bench players or seasons that were cut short by injury.Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
Here's the list -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...r_by=trb_per_g
Let's see who we can find here.
An older Kareem Abdul-Jabbar appears 8 times in this list. That makes absolute sense since he played until he was 41 years old and his age influenced his rebounding at that stage of his career.
Next on the list is Mark Eaton. For those of you that don't know him (although I'm sure that most of you know him) he was that guy ->
Mark Eaton was a 7'4 Center that spent his whole career with the Utah Jazz and won DPOY twice (in '85 and '89). He was a slow, hulking big that wasn't athletic but became an All-Star due to his outstanding rim protection. He is the closest comparison to Roy, imo, since they have similar levels of athleticism. Mark Eaton appears in this list 7 times. He averaged double-digit RPG twice in his career (11.3 in 84-85 and 10.3 in 88-89) and he could have done it several other times but Malone was drafted by Utah in the '85 Draft and took the lion share of the boards.
Next on the list is James Donaldson. He was a 7'2 Center that had an active basketball from 1979 until 1999 although the last 5 years of his career were spent overseas (in Italy, Spain and Greece). He is notable for being the only player that has played so many NBA games (957 over the span of his NBA career) that has not attempted a single 3-point shot. He became an All-Star with Dallas in 87-88 playing alongside Mark Aguirre, Derek Harper and Big Smoove. He appears in this list once (in 89-90, grabbing 8.6 RPG) and he barely misses the cut next season (averaging 8.9 RPG in 34.1 MPG).
Next on the list is Zydrunas Ilgauskas. Zydrunas was 7'3 and he has only averaged more than 8.8 RPG once in his career (in 07-08 he averaged 9.3 RPG). Therefore, he appears on this list 10 times. Big Z was an All-Star twice but he was never a dominant rebounder due to his lack of athleticism (just like Roy).
Next on the list is a 36 year old Artis Gilmore. He was still an All-Star at 36 but as its natural his rebounding had fell a bit due to his age.
Next on the list is Shawn Bradley. Bradley was 7'6 and yet he has never averaged more than 8.8 RPG in his career. He appears in this list 7 times (he misses the game pre-requisite by 1 two times, 93-94 and 98-99, and the minutes pre-requisite three times, 01-02 and the last two years of his career).
Next on the list is Yao Ming. Yes, the original Great Wall himself. Are you surprised? You shouldn't be. He appears in this list twice. The first time was in his rookie season (he averaged 8.2 RPG) and the second time was in his third season (he averaged 8.4 RPG).
Next on the list is Arvydas Sabonis. He was 7'3 and he has been inducted into the Hall of Fame but he only averaged more than 8.8 RPG once in his NBA career. Granted, he only came to the NBA when he was already past his athletic prime but some people in this forum claim that athleticism doesn't matter as much as size does in rebounding, don't they? If that's the case then how do they explain Sabonis? He appears 5 times in this list.
Next on the list is our very own Rik Smits. In fact, our 7'4 Rik Smits has never averaged above 8 RPG for a season in his whole career. He appears in this list 12 times.
Next on the list is Primoz Brezec. The 7'2 Center from Slovenia was a Pacers pick but he barely played in his 3 years as a Pacer. We didn't protect him in the 2004 NBA Expansion Draft and Charlotte picked him made him their starting Center. He had two good seasons with Charlotte (scoring in double digits in 04-05 and 05-06) but he never averaged more than 7.5 RPG.
Next on the list is Greg Ostertag. He started 70 games for the Utah Jazz team that pushed the Jordan-led Bulls to 6 games in 96-97 as a 2nd year player (although he only played 23.6 MPG). He was a 7'2 big that never had a lot of athleticism or an offensive game but played due to his inside presence and defense. He never averaged more than 7.4 RPG in his career. He appears in this list 4 times and that's mainly because he misses the minutes requirement most of the time.
Next on the list is Tom Burleson. Some of you may remember him as a member of the 1972 US Olympic team (although he didn't play a lot) or as an NCAA champion with NC state in 1974. He played played 7 seasons in the NBA and despite being 7'2 (although NC state had him listed as 7'4) and a very good shotblocker he only averaged more than 8.8 RPG once in his NBA career. He appears in this list 3 times (he misses the minutes requirement in his last 3 seasons).
Next on the list is Randy Breuer. He was a 7'3 Center that played from 1983 to 1994 spenting most of his career in Milwaukee (7 seasons) and Minessota (3 seasons). He mostly played off the bench but he did have 285 career starts. He never averaged more than 6.8 RPG during his career and appears on this list 4 times.
Next on the list is Gheorghe Muresan. Yes, the 7'7 behemoth with the 7'10 wingspan that weighted over 300 lbs was only able to grab more than 8.8 RPG once in his career. Why? He was too slow and not athletic enough. He appears in this list twice (averaging 6.7 RPG in 94-95 and 6.6 RPG in 96-97).
Next on the list is a 37 year old Dikembe Mutombo. Just like KAJ his old age obviously affected his rebounding.
Next on the list is Manute Bol. Bol is the tallest player in NBA history. He was 7'7 barefoot and had a ginormous 8'6 wingspan. He is one of the best shot blockers in history and he is well-known for this incredible play ->
He never averaged more than 6 RPG per game, though. What was the problem? He was unbelievable skinny and didn't have the strength to fight for position inside the paint. He appears in this list twice since he only had 2 seasons in which played more than 20 MPG.
Next on the list is Luc Longley. The 7'2 Center from Australia won 3 championships with the Bulls but never averaged more than 6 RPG in his career. He appears in this league 3 times from 95-96 to 97-98 (in Chicago's second three-peat era).
Last on the list is Jake Tsakalidis. He was a 7'2 Center born in Rustavi, Georgia and raised in Greece that spent 7 seasons in the NBA. He played 3 full seasons in Phoenix (the team that drafted him in the 2000 Draft), 3 full seasons in Memphis and he split his last season between Memphis (23 games) and Houston (13 games). He started 141 games in the first 4 seasons of his career but he only started 27 games in his last 3 seasons. He started 47 games with the Phoenix Suns in 01-02 (his second NBA season) and averaged 5.6 RPG in 23.6 MPG. Just like several other Centers his size he lacked the athleticism to compete with NBA athletes.
I realize that this is probably a very long post. But I feel that it is necessary. NBA history is full of cases of 7'2+ Centers that very rarely average more than 10 RPG throughout a season.
In fact, here's a list of bigs that did manage to do that using the same parameters that I used in the other list (over 50 games and 20 MPG) -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...r_by=trb_per_g
This list has 40 results while the previous list had 81 results. What does that indicate? It indicates that it's [u]far more like[/b] for a 7'2+ Center to average 8.8 RPG or less than it is for them to average over 10 RPG or more. In fact, this list is dominated by Hall of Famers like KAJ (appears 12 times), Artis Gilmore (appears 8 times, he would appear more but the search only included NBA seasons), Ralph Sampson (appears 4 times) and soon-to-be Hall of Famers like Dikembe Mutombo (appears 11 times) with some seasons from Yao Ming, James Donaldson and Mark Eaton sprinkled in.Originally posted by IrishPacer
Empty vessels make the most noise.Comment
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
Not sure how Popavich's offensive system has to do with pacer players fatigue levels. Just saying Pacers are younger overall and played less games in the previous 3 seasons than Heat or Spurs. Therefore the fatigue excuse doesn't seem as valid as it would be for both of those two teams. Spurs have reeled off 13 straight including a win @ GS without Manu and TD. The reasons this team is struggling offensively have very little to do with fatigue imo.Originally posted by Nuntius View PostLast edited by PacersPride; 03-24-2014, 01:22 AM.Comment
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
Do you know why Popovich's offensive system matters? That's why:Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
That was a bench unit consisting of Marco Belinelli, Matt Bonner, Nando de Colo, Cory Joseph and Danny Green. No big 3, no Kawhi, no Splitter. They exhanged 7 passes, the ball changed the side of the court 3 times and every single player touched the ball. There are a lot of teams that are never going to achieve that kind of ball movement and communication and they did it with their bench.
That's why Popovich's offensive system matters. It's so damn good that every bench player can come in and perform great. When your bench is as good as the Spurs bench then you can afford to rest your starters for extended periods of time.
Our offensive system is not good and our bench players are not integrated nearly as well as San Antonio's are. The result of this is that our team struggles to find scoring off the bench even if the bench players have solid individual skills. Our offensive system just cannot get the most out of them. So, in order to win we're forced to play our starters more than we'd have to. Therefore, we cannot rest our starters as much as SA can which leads to fatigue issues (especially when combined with the very high level of our defensive intensity).Originally posted by IrishPacer
Empty vessels make the most noise.Comment
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
I don't think anyones disagreeing that SA's offensive efficiency is one of the best in the lg and has been for years. Im just not buying that this teams poor offensive production has to do with fatigue issues. As I pointed out heat and spurs are both older teams and have played more games the past few seasons.
minutes wise excluding PG and Lance all are other starters average almost 5 less minutes a game than the players with the most minutes at each of their respective positions. Hill, West, Hibbert are not in the top 10 at their position in minutes played. Only Lance and PG are who are both only 23 years old.
I believe we may be discussing two separate topics. Even though our bench offensive production is bad, it hasn't changed the number of minutes Coach Vogel has played for any of the starters except possibly PG and Lance and those guys are much younger.
Pacers are 5-5 in our last 10 and have been stymied for about the previous two months. many on here are buying into this team being fatigued and I just don't accept that as an excuse for this teams slightly above average play against primarily jv eastern conference teams.Comment
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
Miami and San Antonio are also two teams that can count on their bench to score a lot more than we can do. They both have a better offensive system than we do and are able to get better production from their bench. We are the only top team that relies almost entirely on its starters. Portland relies on its starters as much as we do and that's a big reason for their recent fall (combined with LMA's injury).Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
If we had a better offensive system that enabled us to get production from our bench then Frank wouldn't need to play our starters so many minutes. That's all I'm trying to say.
By the way, Miami is 4-6 in the last 10. They are not playing any better than we are.
PS: That said, I don't believe that it has to do simply with fatigue. I believe that our players are conserving energy and are trying to win using as little effort as possible in order to be able to give 110% in the playoffs. It has more to do with managing their energy and their overall health, imo.Originally posted by IrishPacer
Empty vessels make the most noise.Comment
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
Isn't Frank's job to integrate a system that fits our personnel though?I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano ZapataComment
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
To be fair his personnel have changed every year hes been coach. He has to have time to learn the player and integrate them seeing what works. In the case of this year our 6th man changed midway through the season.Originally posted by D-BONE View PostComment
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
I believe most of it is mental. Too many guys get down on themselves if they miss a couple shots. Then they get out of their element and start chucking shots, making lazy passes, do stupid fouls, or start pouting. And this goes for the whole team, cause all of them are guilty of one or more of these bad reactions.Originally posted by Nuntius View PostComment
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
Lack of clarity of offense is what's hurting this team. It's why we constantly bring in a new bench when the previous bunch don't work out. It also says something that said bench players go elsewhere and perform much better.
Vogel is a great motivator and can get the most of guys on defense. Guy has no clue on offense. I've been saying for over a year he needs to bring in an offensive coach. Which is why I was seriously disappointed with the McMillan hire. A team with loads of talent shouldn't be an eyesore to watch on offense.First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.Comment
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
Not that our offense was GREAT last year, but it makes you wonder how much we miss B.Shaw. I feel that he helped with the installation of our "smashmouth", inside/out attack more than we realized. I definitely think the addition of an offensive minded coach would help our team next year.Originally posted by Sparhawk View PostComment
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
The reference to Twilight was inferring that posters are creating player vs. player (vis a vis Team Edward vs. Team Jacob) rivalries after losses to vent their frustrations. Instead of focusing on the game or the season at large, it's all about assigning blame and creating polarizations.Originally posted by Taterhead View PostYou Got The Tony!!!!!!Comment
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
Championship or not, I think we must hire Mike Dantoni as our assistant next season on offense. I doubt D'Antoni will land a coaching job next season once the Lakers fire him, so assisting Vogel until a position opens up would be satisfactory.Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View PostComment
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
It certainly is.Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
The starters have stayed together for a few years and have an offensive system that works for them (when they don't fall in love with jumpers, ignoring our bigs). The bench is a different case, though. We had a different bench in 11-12, a different bench in 12-13 and a different bench this season. Just like Mad-Mad-Mario said we even changed our 6th man in the middle of this season. The longest tenured player currently in our bench is Ian Mahinmi and we all know that he is not here for his offense.
We talked a bit about the Spurs before so allow me to say this. Manu has spent his whole career in San Antonio and he has come off the bench in 436 of his 748 games. Matt Bonner has been a Spur since the 06-07 season and he has only been a starter in one season (08-09 with 67 starts in 81 games). He has played 441 games as a bench player for the Spurs. Danny Green and Tiago Splitter have already been there for 4 seasons.
For a comparison, the longest tenured Pacer in our current roster is Roy Hibbert with 446 games. Both Manu and Bonner have had more games as Spurs in general and their amount of games as bench players are almost equal with Hibbert's total games. And let's not even talk about Duncan or TP.
Obviously, Pop is Pop and he would be able to make almost every player fit his system but don't underestimate the importance of how many games those guys have played together. Matt Bonner may be simply a role player that is used as a stretch big but he knows exactly where to be on the offensive end and he knows how and when his guards will pass to him and when his teammates will cut after he receives the ball. Those guys are always in synch with each other because they have played together for so long. That cannot be achieved without having spend a big amount of time together as teammates.
Our starters are getting to that point slowly but our bench is nowhere close to that because it changes every season. Eventually, we will have to pick some players that are going to remain part of our bench for the long haul. Top teams shouldn't totally revamp all of their bench pieces year after year. We have to keep some guys that are going to develop some familiarity and chemistry with the starters.
That said, our bench's offense could still be better than it currently is. Offense is not Frank's strongest suit.Originally posted by IrishPacer
Empty vessels make the most noise.Comment
-
Re: Pacers / Grizzles Post Game thread - 3/22
Yeah, it could be mental. It could be a lot of things. Honestly, none of us in this forum knows what it is. We can only speculate. Only the players themselves know and I'm not even sure if all of them do.Originally posted by pogi View PostOriginally posted by IrishPacer
Empty vessels make the most noise.Comment
Tweet
Comment