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

The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

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

  • The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

    http://grantland.com/features/the-co...ce-stephenson/

    It's too long to copy and paste, but go read it. It's worth it. I'm still on board with signing Lance (partially because I think he cost himself some serious dough in the ECF), but there are both some positive and negative stats here for Lance.

    One damning one is this, Lance is turned the ball over on 24% of his pick and rolls as the ball handler which placed him at 145th on the list of players who had run at least 50 PnR chances. That is really, really bad. Lowe postulates that a huge reason for this is that Lance's mid range pull up jumper is pretty much the equivalent of a basketball fundamentals apocalypse and so his PnRs either must get to the rim or they flame out in spectacular fashion. And I must agree with Lowe there, Lance was definitely a neutered player on nights where teams would just lay off of him on the PnR unless he was hitting that shot.

    That being said Lowe, being that he is simply the best in the business at what he does, doesn't stop there. I'll let you read, but basically Lowe IMO comes to the conclusion that Lance has all the indicators of a guy who is ready to make another leap IF he learns where his strengths are. For example, when Lance actually COMMITS to going around the pick in a PnR, instead of those awful head bobbing, time wasting Mexican stand offs he often finds himself in, Lance will then proceed to drive to the hoop 45% of the time and in those attempts in the lane Lance converts on 70% of his opportunities at the rim, which is equal to this guy by the name of Lebron James who I think might be alright at this basketball thing.

    In short, this summer is important for Lance not only that he is about to get paid, but it's also likely the most important summer of his career from a work standpoint. If Lance is going to take the next step, and by proxy also the Pacers, then he clearly needs to work on two things, 1.) cutting down on unnecessary movement that leads to a lot of unnecessary mistakes and bad turnovers and 2.) Add a pull up jumper that is at least reliable from one spot to his arsenal.

    In the end, he's still only 23, and just put up 14, 7 and 5 for a season. I've said all along that I think Lance will make another leap this year comparable to what we just saw from PG and I think PG will make another leap even still. Sign me up for that wing combo for at least the next 4 years.



  • #2
    Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

    Seemed to me that the Washington series and more specifically in game 6 was one of the first times when Lance ran pick and roll after pick and roll. In the regular season he was used on a more limited basis. So that skews some of the stats used in the article.

    the article I think makes a pretty strong case that Lance isn't as good as many believe. At least not yet, but his value of course is potential. But right this minute he's not that good
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-10-2014, 11:03 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Seemed to me that the Washington series and more specifically in game 6 was one of the first times when Lance ran pick and roll after pick and roll. In the regular season he was used on a more limited basis. So that skews some of the stats used in the article
      Which ones? I agree that at times it was hit and miss, but I still think lance ran plenty of pick and rolls this season to say safely he needs to improve his decision making and versatility within that set. I guess what I'm asking is how big of a sample size do we need?

      RE: your edit
      I think what Lowe is saying is that right now Lance is a lot of times his own worst enemy. Will he ever get out of that stage is the big question.
      Last edited by Trader Joe; 06-10-2014, 11:06 AM.


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        But right this minute he's not that good
        I would say most people believe that? (I do.) With Lance, it seems to me that most people are talking about his potential.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

          The article is really good, recommend taking 10 minutes to read.

          Here is the portion at the end. Anyone who says the pacers have an easy decision is lying, I cannot remember the Pacers ever having a more difficult decision on one of their own players.

          The two year team thing is interesting. Can the chemistry hold together for two more years. Bring the same team back for two more years, same coaches everything (with bench changes) I don't know, that doesn't feel right to me, but it might be

          http://grantland.com/features/the-co...ce-stephenson/

          Indiana Pacers: The Pacers’ issues with Stephenson are well documented. He stole rebounds from teammates to inflate his own stats, he went on some haywire vengeance tour after the coaches left him off the All-Star roster, and everyone with the team grew tired of his on-court circus act against Miami.

          But he’s a skilled 23-year-old player, and if he bolts, the Pacers would have no ready means to replace him. They could split the full midlevel exception between two wing players, but go that route and you’re paying combinations like Jerryd Bayless–Nick Young.7

          And this is a two-year team now for the Pacers. Both West and Hibbert have player options for the 2015-16 season, and if they exercise those, they’ll be free agents in July 2016. The team will have to find a successor for West soon. The league expects the tax line to rocket up to $81 million for 2015-16, and Indy players have no potential bonuses that could screw up their cap figure, according to several league sources. The Pacers could pay Stephenson $10 million per year, duck the tax in each of the next two seasons, and go forward building the next iteration of the team.

          Indiana has three bold deal-makers in Larry Bird, Donnie Walsh, and Kevin Pritchard. It will shock no one if they pull something unexpected to sort this out and accelerate any transition they think is necessary. Trading Hibbert probably isn’t off the table, and unloading George Hill’s contract would give them some breathing space and the chance to search out a more dynamic lead ball handler.

          Stephenson should fit any long-term picture the Pacers have of themselves; they know him best and he’s comfortable there. But price could be an issue. Indiana is hoping Stephenson has cost himself some money, and there are lots of teams waiting around to see if the market starts in the $6 million–$8 million range — a spot at which they might dive in. The Pacers would outbid that, but it takes only one daring team to take a leap and smash that market apart.
          Objectively, in basketball terms, some team should do it. But the non-hoops issues are what make Stephenson the most interesting free agent of the summer.
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-10-2014, 11:31 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

            I found this part interesting regarding the cap:

            And this is a two-year team now for the Pacers. Both West and Hibbert have player options for the 2015-16 season, and if they exercise those, they’ll be free agents in July 2016. The team will have to find a successor for West soon. The league expects the tax line to rocket up to $81 million for 2015-16, and Indy players have no potential bonuses that could screw up their cap figure, according to several league sources. The Pacers could pay Stephenson $10 million per year, duck the tax in each of the next two seasons, and go forward building the next iteration of the team.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

              Look how far Lance has come in 2 seasons... I think he is going to be a very special player, I really hope we keep him.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                I think it depends on whether the Pacers prioritize the long term or the short term.

                In the long term view, the obvious course is to keep the pair of 23 year old wings at all costs, then use age/long term viability to evaluate the rest of the roster. In this view, trading West (much older and with a large contract) makes a lot of sense.

                In the short term view, the Pacers want to win as many games as possible during this window when the East is weak and Miami is possibly declining. In this case, West is a must-keep (he's still too valuable for us) and it's quite possible that replacing Lance with a cheaper player is the best move in this scenario.

                Of course, if Lance can be kept at less than $10m (according to Lowe's numbers), we don't need to sacrifice another starter and we get the best of both worlds, i.e. competitiveness in the short term and a good core for the long term. This is the ideal scenario for us (and IMO, quite possibly how it would work out).

                If Lance ends up costing more, this is where the difficult decisions start. Long term or short term? I think the Pacers will go for a balance of both, meaning keep both Lance and West. This means sacrificing one of the other starters (Hibbert or Hill) for a cheaper guy, and probably at a talent deficit.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                  What is the max that Lance can get? I know the Pacers can give him 5 years everyone else 4 years. But through the first 4 years can other teams pay lance as much as us or is that different also?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    What is the max that Lance can get? I know the Pacers can give him 5 years everyone else 4 years. But through the first 4 years can other teams pay lance as much as us or is that different also?
                    Hypothetically, other teams can offer up to the maximum contract allowed for Lance's number of years in the league. So yes, they can offer him just as much money on a per year basis, but could only do so for a maximum of 4 years.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                      I think it depends on whether the Pacers prioritize the long term or the short term.

                      In the long term view, the obvious course is to keep the pair of 23 year old wings at all costs, then use age/long term viability to evaluate the rest of the roster. In this view, trading West (much older and with a large contract) makes a lot of sense.

                      In the short term view, the Pacers want to win as many games as possible during this window when the East is weak and Miami is possibly declining. In this case, West is a must-keep (he's still too valuable for us) and it's quite possible that replacing Lance with a cheaper player is the best move in this scenario.

                      Of course, if Lance can be kept at less than $10m (according to Lowe's numbers), we don't need to sacrifice another starter and we get the best of both worlds, i.e. competitiveness in the short term and a good core for the long term. This is the ideal scenario for us (and IMO, quite possibly how it would work out).

                      If Lance ends up costing more, this is where the difficult decisions start. Long term or short term? I think the Pacers will go for a balance of both, meaning keep both Lance and West. This means sacrificing one of the other starters (Hibbert or Hill) for a cheaper guy, and probably at a talent deficit.
                      Good points. What is interesting is that PG and Lance, at 23, will probably be entering their prime (26~) around the time that the Heat are dead. Do we think that those two are enough for pushing us over the top? I suppose it depends on how talented you believe they can be. I think most of us think PG has the ability to be a top 5 player. He had at least three otherworldly superstar performances in the playoffs at 23 years old. A few years of work and I think that becomes a thing of consistency. Lance does some great things as well, but will he ever play in control enough to be the primary ball handler on a championship team? I have my doubts. Regardless, I think you roll the dice with talented wings like this and see where it takes you. The roster can be manipulated in a few years once West and Hibbert are up for free agency and at that point PG and Stephenson will be entering their prime.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                        As pointed out by ECKrueger, the belief that the tax threshold is going to jump significantly for 2015-2016 and that the Pacers currently have no big escalators for that season would make it at least theoretically possible that Simon would be willing to dip into LT territory next year expecting NOT to be subject to repeater issues because of the threshold hike.

                        I go back to the fact that Bird wasted no time in any other press conference about signings to state Simon wasn't going over the LT - until the end of season one, where that was about the only reason not to re-sign Lance that was NOT mentioned.
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                          Just think if the Pacers stood pat at 3yrs - 30million for West instead of 3yrs- 36Million. we'd have alot more flexibility going forward. Now we got 12 million player option and a 15 million player option in the same year.....OOPS!
                          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                            If Lance cares about his money, he'd do a 2 yr deal, grow a bit and then hit pay dirt.

                            Still, although it only takes 1 team, I see him getting something between $7 and $9M, and closer to the $7.

                            Then again, teams overpay for lesser talent all the time. Pistons anyone?
                            Last edited by Sparhawk; 06-10-2014, 12:02 PM.
                            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


                            • #15
                              Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              Just think if the Pacers stood pat at 3yrs - 30million for West instead of 3yrs- 36Million. we'd have alot more flexibility going forward. Now we got 12 million player option and a 15 million player option in the same year.....OOPS!
                              Why aren't you guys GMs since it's so easy to predict and you know all this way in advance? You'd be millionaires and no longer have to slum with the likes of us.

                              Just think if the Pacers had just let Roy walk. We'd have a lot more flexibility going forward - except those lottery picks would have cost us more in guaranteed salary...
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X