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

Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

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

  • Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

    Monday, March 13, 2006

    QUESTION
    OF THE DAY

    Conrad Brunner

    Q. Looking at the Pacers scores this season, it seems that in most of the games that were decided by five points or less, the Pacers lost. Come playoff time, a team needs every bit of clutch ability to win close games. Of course, the fact that Reggie is no longer in the team has its own effect. Do you think the Pacers suffer from an inability to win close games? How can the team improve this? Does it mean team is not mature to win a title yet? (From Marc in Tel Aviv, Israel)

    A. Though the Pacers have a respectable 4-5 record in games decided by three points or less, when the margin expands to five the record takes a nosedive. They're 6-16 in games decided by five points or less, with losses in 13 of their last 16. Five of the last six games -- all on the road -- have been decided by a total of 12 points. The Pacers lost three of those (at Toronto, Houston and Boston) but won two (at Philadelphia and the Hornets). Of course, three of those games probably shouldn't have been nail-biters, as the Pacers blew double-digit second-half leads in all three of the aforementioned losses.

    It does seem as if the team is still searching for their most reliable go-to options in clutch situations. For much of the season, Fred Jones was called upon because of his ability to get to the rim and either create a shot or draw a foul. With Jones out, the options have become Peja Stojakovic, Stephen Jackson and Anthony Johnson, with decidedly mixed results. Stojakovic has hit some big shots but, when faced with an isolation situation against Chris Bosh late in Toronto, was unable to make anything happen and lost possession. Jackson has struggled with his shot in those situations and Johnson came up empty the last two times the ball was put in his hands with a game on the line.
    In a one-shot situation, teams generally devolve into one-on-one isolation plays, which is not the Pacers' strength. They are at their best when executing a flowing offense that involves a lot of passing, screening and cutting. So perhaps the answer is not to spend too much time looking for a go-to savior to bail the team out in those scenarios. Maybe the solution is to simply trust the system, continue to run the offense and get a good shot from team play, rather than relying strictly on an individual.

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question.html

    Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
    Bum in Berlin on Myspace

  • #2
    Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

    I know there already has been much talk on the subject and it seems silly to start another thread about it, but just for this piece below I think it deserves it's own thread:

    Originally posted by Conrad
    In a one-shot situation, teams generally devolve into one-on-one isolation plays, which is not the Pacers' strength. They are at their best when executing a flowing offense that involves a lot of passing, screening and cutting. So perhaps the answer is not to spend too much time looking for a go-to savior to bail the team out in those scenarios. Maybe the solution is to simply trust the system, continue to run the offense and get a good shot from team play, rather than relying strictly on an individual.
    That's exactly how I feel.

    I hope Rick reads QOD.
    Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
    Bum in Berlin on Myspace

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

      In a one-shot situation, teams generally devolve into one-on-one isolation plays, which is not the Pacers' strength. They are at their best when executing a flowing offense that involves a lot of passing, screening and cutting. So perhaps the answer is not to spend too much time looking for a go-to savior to bail the team out in those scenarios. Maybe the solution is to simply trust the system, continue to run the offense and get a good shot from team play, rather than relying strictly on an individual.
      [/QUOTE]


      Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

        Originally posted by PacerMan
        Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
        Well yeah, one would think that, but apparently it's not that evident.
        Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
        Bum in Berlin on Myspace

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

          Originally posted by Raskolnikov
          I know there already has been much talk on the subject and it seems silly to start another thread about it, but just for this piece below I think it deserves it's own thread:


          That's exactly how I feel.

          I hope Rick reads QOD.
          That's exactly how I feel too.

          Any sane should IMO.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

            Well, I don't disagree with this. It does merit mentioning that there comes a minmum time limit within which some type of set, set-play, or offense takes too long to develop. The very strict parameters of say 5-8 seconds remaining or less. Max you could get in here would be, maybe, one pass beyond an inbounds at the upper limits. I believe UB has mentioned this regarding some late game situations recently.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

              Originally posted by Raskolnikov
              Monday, March 13, 2006

              QUESTION
              OF THE DAY

              Conrad Brunner

              Q. Looking at the Pacers scores this season, it seems that in most of the games that were decided by five points or less, the Pacers lost. Come playoff time, a team needs every bit of clutch ability to win close games. Of course, the fact that Reggie is no longer in the team has its own effect. Do you think the Pacers suffer from an inability to win close games? How can the team improve this? Does it mean team is not mature to win a title yet? (From Marc in Tel Aviv, Israel)

              A. Though the Pacers have a respectable 4-5 record in games decided by three points or less, when the margin expands to five the record takes a nosedive. They're 6-16 in games decided by five points or less, with losses in 13 of their last 16. Five of the last six games -- all on the road -- have been decided by a total of 12 points. The Pacers lost three of those (at Toronto, Houston and Boston) but won two (at Philadelphia and the Hornets). Of course, three of those games probably shouldn't have been nail-biters, as the Pacers blew double-digit second-half leads in all three of the aforementioned losses.

              It does seem as if the team is still searching for their most reliable go-to options in clutch situations. For much of the season, Fred Jones was called upon because of his ability to get to the rim and either create a shot or draw a foul. With Jones out, the options have become Peja Stojakovic, Stephen Jackson and Anthony Johnson, with decidedly mixed results. Stojakovic has hit some big shots but, when faced with an isolation situation against Chris Bosh late in Toronto, was unable to make anything happen and lost possession. Jackson has struggled with his shot in those situations and Johnson came up empty the last two times the ball was put in his hands with a game on the line.
              In a one-shot situation, teams generally devolve into one-on-one isolation plays, which is not the Pacers' strength. They are at their best when executing a flowing offense that involves a lot of passing, screening and cutting. So perhaps the answer is not to spend too much time looking for a go-to savior to bail the team out in those scenarios. Maybe the solution is to simply trust the system, continue to run the offense and get a good shot from team play, rather than relying strictly on an individual.

              http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question.html


              Hmmmmmmm...............

              Well first off it's nice to be somewhat vindicated in this as U.B. has been telling us that we haven't run this play that often lately even though I feel as though it has been more & more every game.

              Second it feels even better to have the Pacers P.R. staff even agree with us on this. Well agree with us would be some of us minus U.B.

              Third & this is probably the most important. What he is describing as being not our strong suite is exactly what is Rick Carlisle's strong suite. When push comes to shove he will resort to this offense.

              I now really really wonder if there isn't more of a rift between Rick & Larry than what we know. My gut feeling is that if Conrad knew that the half-court isolation play was what Larry wanted as well as what Rick wanted there would be no way he would make this statement. But my guess is he feels comfortable in the fact that Larry wants a more open offense & thus is able to disagree with the head coach's decision making.

              Remember, when you read anything by Conrad Brunner it is a P.R. piece. Now he may put his own flavor on things but at the end of the day he is an employee of the Pacers & he will not bring controversy to the forfront without knowing he is safe in doing so.

              This makes me go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................


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

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

                Originally posted by D-BONE
                Well, I don't disagree with this. It does merit mentioning that there comes a minmum time limit within which some type of set, set-play, or offense takes too long to develop. The very strict parameters of say 5-8 seconds remaining or less. Max you could get in here would be, maybe, one pass beyond an inbounds at the upper limits. I believe UB has mentioned this regarding some late game situations recently.
                The game before AJ started offense with 24-25s. remaining, which he ended iso with 6-9s. left (don't remember exactly).
                I'm really sorry because of my english (which is my 3-4 language) and I really appreciate Your patience. I hope this board will make me better

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

                  Originally posted by DeS
                  The game before AJ started offense with 24-25s. remaining, which he ended iso with 6-9s. left (don't remember exactly).
                  I had in mind the Philly and Boston games for example. There have definitely also been situations like the one you point out where what Conrad is suggesting could work. Whenever possible I favor the idea that we get most scoring opportunities, final possession or otherwise, through the natural progression of a ball movement and player movement-oriented offensive scheme.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

                    Originally posted by D-BONE
                    Whenever possible I favor the idea that we get most scoring opportunities, final possession or otherwise, through the natural progression of a ball movement and player movement-oriented offensive scheme.
                    yup, well said.

                    That's how basketball offense should be played IMO.
                    Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                    Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

                      Here's how I see it... Run some motion. The same motion we should be running the majority of the game. Try and catch a defender behind a screen or get the ball to a guy cutting to the basket. It can be a set play and you can hold the ball to kill clock before you run it if you absolutely must.

                      This crap of giving the ball to one guy and "letting him go to work" gets us a shot we can get anytime. You can get a heavily defended prayer anytime you want in a game. It's so freaking predictable it makes me sick when we continually do it at the end of quarters and it's only worse when it's a game winning/tying situation that we are blowing.

                      Of course teams defend it well- they know what's coming by simply seeing who gets the ball on the inbounds.

                      As for a difference of opinion between management and coaching... I don't think they are about to come to blows but I think there is a growing divide between where TPTB want the team heading and where Rick Carlisle feels comfortable taking them. I think there's too much respect for 'orders' to come down from above but I don't think there's too much loyalty for the "3 year rule" to be put into play.

                      I'm hesitant to say two years of Carlisle's time we were wasted because the last half of the season last year was fun to watch (just not for the reasons we'd envisioned at the start of the season). ...And the book is still being written on this season. OTOH.... the mold has still been cast.


                      -Bball
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

                        I think the easier way to answer this question is we don't have a closer on this team.First off other then Tinsley and Fred Jones (in some instances) we don't have anybody who can break you down off the dribble. Also not having Reggie around hurts because he's taken 80% of the big shots over the past 18 seasons. We just don't have a guy with under 6minutes left in the game who can carry us and close the game out.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

                          I honestly think Peja can be that guy, if we set the right plays for him. He can create his own shot, and he can get even better shots off of screens.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

                            Originally posted by rabidpacersfan
                            I honestly think Peja can be that guy, if we set the right plays for him. He can create his own shot, and he can get even better shots off of screens.
                            I'm rather ambivalent on Peja as the late-game go to guy. He's not convinced me of this, although maybe he needs more opportunities to prove what he's got.

                            On one hand, there's no denying he's the best shooter on our team and one of the best in the league. So the plays where he works open off screens have some legitimacy.

                            On the othe hand, the amped up D of the late-game situation I think affects his performance a lot. For instance, I don't know how well he can free himself even with a series of screens, when the D turns up the pressure. Likewise, I think his ability to drive the ball/create his own shots is much more noticeable early in games for the same reason.

                            Plus, I just don't know how much he WANTS to always be option #1 down the stretch. The reputation for the mental toughness many SAC fans harped on. This is probably the most important variable in the success equation in pressure circumstances.

                            Only time, and his performance, will tell I suppose.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Conrad: Why Do Pacers Struggle To Win Close Games?

                              Running a motion offense and passing the ball around in a situation where you want to use up clock unfortunately makes me think "turnover" with this team.

                              Yeah, doing an iso and missing the last shot has the same effect, but at least you don't let the other guys turn it into a 2-posession game with scant seconds left, leading to a foul-fest that seems only to work against the Pacers.
                              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