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

This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

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

  • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
    all hogwash if you factor in CJ Watson has missed 20+ games that Turner has been with this team. Yet again... #1 reason on PD for the Pacers slump... the DG Trade ,,,, not a host of the other reasons listed below by several posters.
    Do me a favor, and quote where some one has actually said the highlighted. When you start looking, and don't see it, it will start making a little sense.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

      Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
      I'm getting it from 82 games.com.
      http://www.82games.com/1314/13IND7.HTM

      I think -512 says enough without me having to pin anything else on him. I agree that most of the team hasn't been playing well either, but somehow they still manage to be +473 without him on the court. I'm not arguing that the starters haven't been bad either. That +473 includes the starters' dip in production as it measure net points since Turner's first game. Without their decline, that +473 would be even higher.
      I'm trying as hard as I can to wrap my head around this, but I'm still confused. Using a basic computer calculator (so it's possible I mishit something, but I don't feel like doing it again), I had the team at a net of -87 from Game 56 (Turner's first) to Game 82. I had Turner at a -66 over that period. Again, it's possible that I mishit something, but even if I did there's no way it would make it anywhere near your numbers. But by my count, Turner has a net that is actually 21 points better than the entire team over the 26 games he played here.

      Turner has played 26 games as a Pacer. If we've outscored opponents by 473 points when he hasn't been on the court, then it means we're outscoring opponents by an average of 18 points a game when he isn't playing....i.e. the starters (mostly) are outscoring people by that much. But that's not what happening. Starters haven't been outscoring guys by 18 points a game only for Turner to come in and blow the lead. Paul George himself has a -45 over the same time period....better than Turner by 41, but still bad for a guy who was once an MVP candidate on the best team in the league. I'm sure that West, Hibbert, Hill, and Lance all have bad numbers too. The whole team does.

      Something's not making sense to me here.

      Comment


      • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

        Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
        I'm sorry I fail to understand how factoring in CJ Watson makes -512 "hogwash." How does accounting for CJ being out for 20+ games explain that the rest of the team is +473 with Turner off the court yet -39 with him on it?

        It's pretty simple to understand.
        The Pacers, with Evan on the court, have been outscored by 39 points.
        The Pacers, with Evan off the court, outscore opponents by 473 points.

        CJ Watson accounts for all of that?
        Yea, dude, where are you getting these numbers? It's been 26 games. 473 - 39 = 434. That's the total team plus/minus based off the numbers you're telling us. Let's divide that by 26 games. 434/ 26 = 17. Are you seriously saying we've outscored our opponents by 17 points per game during the last 26 games???

        I'm sorry, but your numbers are off and that has severely skewed your opinon. There is absolutely no way we have outscored our opponents by 17pts/game during that time. Unless "Evan off the court" includes the 55 games he didn't play for us.... lol.

        I have the team at -77 since ET started playing for us (LA game). So right there just throws that entire argument out the window. -77 does not equal 434.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 04-16-2014, 12:33 PM.
        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


        • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          We started playing poorly before Granger left, wish people would let go of that.
          Yep, I agree.

          The wheels came off when the starters egos got in the way. Then it became true selfish basketball.

          Had nothing to do with Granger.
          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: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

            Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
            I'm sorry I fail to understand how factoring in CJ Watson makes -512 "hogwash." How does accounting for CJ being out for 20+ games explain that the rest of the team is +473 with Turner off the court yet -39 with him on it?

            It's pretty simple to understand.
            The Pacers, with Evan on the court, have been outscored by 39 points.
            The Pacers, with Evan off the court, outscore opponents by 473 points.

            CJ Watson accounts for all of that?
            I've figured out why those numbers are way off.

            They are comparing Turner's season plus minus to the Pacers plus minus of the ENTIRE SEASON.....i.e. they are counting all of the games before he was here, back when we were drilling everyone. So of course we've been way better without him when you factor in all of the games when he wasn't here and we were the best team in the league.

            Those stats that say we outscore opponents by 473 points when he's not on the court say that we've played 2987 minutes without him. But wait, he's only played 26 games here, so that 2987 would mean that we played 114 minutes a game without him on the court. Obviously that's impossible considering there are only 48 minutes a game. So these numbers are clearly factoring in the entire Pacers season here as opposed to limiting it to the games Turner played.

            This is EXACTLY what the problem is, because they say that Lance has been off the court in 921 minutes on the season, i.e. about 12 and a half minutes a game. That is exactly correct.

            So the mistake in your stats is that they are unfairly factoring in all of the time Turner wasn't even on the team as a way of saying that the team is better on the court without him. That's not fair. So it's completely incorrect to say that the team has outscored opponents by 473 points without Turner on the court. They've actually scoredd 21 more points with him on the court than they have without him.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-16-2014, 01:03 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              Eye test --- certainly. If you don't like him, then I'm not going to change your opinion. I definitely see a skillset that can be worked with. He does some things very well, he needs work in others, but he seems intelligent and with an off-season with our coaching staff would likely see a lot of improvement. Remember Lance's defense in his first few years? Turner is a blue chip prospect, and while he might not be a superstar, he has the ability to be an above-average to good player in this league. If the defensive kinks can be worked out, why would you not want him on the team? He was acquired mid-season --- went from starter to bench -- and a bench that was pretty damn terrible. People evidently expected miracles and when they didn't get it, immediately labeled the move a failure, which is just an extremely unwise stance to take so early.

              It was a mistake --- in your eyes. I don't agree at all. I won't repeat what Sollozzo responded to you with, but he nailed it hardcore. Take it all in, because Turner was put in a bad position and hasn't done near as bad as you seem to think.
              The difference is that Lance's lapses on defense were mental. Turner is physically limited. He sags off on his man because if he doesn't he gets beat off the dribble, and when he does sag off, he's too slow to recover and he doesn't have the wingspan to compensate the distance. Lance is 6'5 in shoes with a 6'10 wingspan. Turner is 6'7 in shoes with a 6'8 wingspan. Makes a huge difference in contesting shots. He does all that arm-waving on defense to compensate for his lack of foot-speed and reach. He's too small to guard 3's, and he isn't as physically imposing, nor as mentally aggressive as Lance. He's too slow to guard 1's and 2's.

              Why don't I want him? Because he's a mediocre player who thinks he's better than he is to the detriment of his team. He needs the ball and a prime role to be effective but few teams can afford to give him one, much less contending teams. I don't want him because whatever he gives you on offense, he takes away on the other end of the floor and then some.

              And if -512 isn't "as near as bad" then I shudder to think how much worse it can get.
              2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

              Comment


              • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                Your numbers are just wrong, lol...
                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


                • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Do me a favor, and quote where some one has actually said the highlighted. When you start looking, and don't see it, it will start making a little sense.
                  of all the potential reasons for this teams slump... what has been spoken of at least 50% of the time. the DG trade. and if this team fails. what do you believe will be considered the most publicized reason all offseason. the DG trade. I don't believe anyone needs to directly state it when its posted in all the threads throughout the forum. browse through each thread.. even the demoralizing game threads where the pacers lost and all comes back to one thing.. the DG trade.

                  there are several valid reasons the pacers declined recently.. all that ever seems to be spoken of is the DG trade.

                  Comment


                  • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                    of all the potential reasons for this teams slump... what has been spoken of at least 50% of the time. the DG trade. and if this team fails. what do you believe will be considered the most publicized reason all offseason. the DG trade. I don't believe anyone needs to directly state it when its posted in all the threads throughout the forum. browse through each thread.. even the demoralizing game threads where the pacers lost and all comes back to one thing.. the DG trade.

                    there are several valid reasons the pacers declined recently.. all that ever seems to be spoken of is the DG trade.
                    Translation: I don't care if people have said that they don't think it's the #1 reason, I'm going to continue building this strawman.

                    Knock yourself out there bud. I tried.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      I've figured out why those numbers are way off.

                      They are comparing Turner's season plus minus to the Pacers plus minus of the ENTIRE SEASON.....i.e. they are counting all of the games before he was here, back when we were drilling everyone. So of course we've been way better without him when you factor in all of the games when he wasn't here and we were the best team in the league.

                      Those stats that say we outscore opponents by 473 points when he's not on the court say that we've played 2987 minutes without him. But wait, he's only played 26 minutes here, so that 2987 would mean that we played 114 minutes a game without him on the court. Obviously that's impossible considering there are only 48 minutes a game. So these numbers are clearly factoring in the entire Pacers season here as opposed to limiting it to the games Turner played.

                      This is EXACTLY what the problem is, because they say that Lance has been off the court in 921 minutes a game, i.e. about 12 and a half minutes a game. That is exactly correct.

                      So the mistake in your stats is that they are unfairly factoring in all of the time Turner wasn't even on the team as a way of saying that the team is better on the court without him. That's not fair. So it's completely incorrect to say that the team has outscored opponents by 473 points without Turner on the court. They've actually scoredd 21 more points with him on the court than they have without him.
                      Wow, you're right about the OFF Court calculations. I have no idea why they would include games he wasn't here when you click on Indiana Pacers -> Evan Turner. +473 is incorrect, but -39 isn't since it calculates his 295 minutes played here. Looking at only the ON court column then, we're still -5.1 points per 100 poss. with him on the court. How does that, and being outscored 583-622 in his 295 min played, translate to scoring 21 more points with him on the court than without him, as you say?
                      2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                      Comment


                      • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                        Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                        Wow, you're right about the OFF Court calculations. I have no idea why they would include games he wasn't here when you click on Indiana Pacers -> Evan Turner. +473 is incorrect, but -39 isn't since it calculates his 295 minutes played here. Looking at only the ON court column then, we're still -5.1 points per 100 poss. with him on the court. How does that, and being outscored 583-622 in his 295 min played, translate to scoring 21 more points with him on the court than without him, as you say?
                        Remember that he is not the only one that is on the court at these times, I would suggest putting up the numbers for everyone, even that does not give 100% of the story, but it does help give some visual statistics to compare.
                        Why so SERIOUS

                        Comment


                        • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Do me a favor, and quote where some one has actually said the highlighted. When you start looking, and don't see it, it will start making a little sense.
                          Sookie has made it very clear that she thinks trading Granger was the biggest reason. Nothing wrong with that of course - Sookie always presents her opinions in a very cordial manner, and she's as free to her opinion as anyone else. Each of her posts putting most of the blame on the Granger trade receive a ton of thanks from other posters, so I don't think she is alone on that. I hope she doesn't have a problem with me bringing her up here, but I wouldn't think that she would considering that she is very convinced of this opinion and I'm sure she'll back it up again:

                          http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...t=#post1820356

                          http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...t=#post1820369

                          http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...t=#post1820407

                          http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...t=#post1820413

                          It's very clear that she thinks that losing Granger is the main reason for the collapse, and it's clear that a lot of people agree with her giving the numerous thanks received on each of the posts. Again, nothing wrong with what she's saying. Her posts are always very clear, polite, and well thought out. She's just as entitled to her opinion as anyone else, and it's an opinion echoed by other posters. I'm not going to go through the archives of every member's posts, but I think I've shown that she's not alone in her beliefs based on the numerous thanks received. I chose Sookie because Sookie does one of the best jobs of articulating why the trade was a mistake, even though I don't really agree with her. Regardless, the PacerPride isn't just pulling stuff out of thin air when he says that people are blaming the Granger trade more than anything else.

                          Comment


                          • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                            Turner also came in right about the time the entire team decided to forget how to play, so that all will skew his numbers, also. Think about it... he gets traded mid-season to a team with an entirely different scheme and philosophy... gets relegated to the bench... a unit that is itself performing terribly, and then the starting unit goes to crap, which Turner generally has less association with than the bench.

                            It all adds up to making him look a lot worse than he actually is. I think as time goes on, as he gets used to the system and as the team works these recent kinks out, you'll see he's a good player. I know I probably sound a lot like a broken record, but I'm always preaching the value of understanding the entire context and not just looking at things at face value.

                            This isn't to say that I'll give Turner a pass forever; obviously he needs to show improvement in a reasonable timeframe. That's the big question... will he or won't he? That's when you start to just eyeball the player in question and say "does he look capable of improving or not?" "Does he have the right work ethic and mentality?" I personally look at Evan and see someone who possesses those traits to varying degrees, so ya, I do believe he can improve... so now it's just a matter of having it come to fruition.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 04-16-2014, 01:03 PM.
                            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


                            • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Translation: I don't care if people have said that they don't think it's the #1 reason, I'm going to continue building this strawman.

                              Knock yourself out there bud.

                              must be just my imagination then its seems to be the #1 most discussed topic for the past month as to why the pacers have been slumping.? good for you bud... don't let the facts stop you from making your point.

                              Comment


                              • Re: This should be interesting.... (Channel 6 to air Larry Bird "State of the Pacers" interview before NBA Countdown tomorrow)

                                Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                                Wow, you're right about the OFF Court calculations. I have no idea why they would include games he wasn't here when you click on Indiana Pacers -> Evan Turner. +473 is incorrect, but -39 isn't since it calculates his 295 minutes played here. Looking at only the ON court column then, we're still -5.1 points per 100 poss. with him on the court. How does that, and being outscored 583-622 in his 295 min played, translate to scoring 21 more points with him on the court than without him, as you say?
                                Sorry, I phrased that incorrectly. What I meant was that his +/- was 21 points better than the team's during that time period. By my count, the team's overall plus minus since the trade is -87. His +/- when on the court is a -66. Therefore, he's actually 21 points better than the whole team.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X