The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest! -
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/6184096
Pacers need to find some playmakers
Charley Rosen / Special to FOXSports.com
The Pacers' 100-91 loss at home to New Jersey on Friday highlighted just what's wrong with Indiana.
Let's start with Jamal Tinsley. Going into the game, the Pacers have been outscored by the alarming total of 71 points whenever their starting point guard is on the floor. This is due to the three major knocks against Tinsley's game: His shaky outside shooting, his putrid defense, and his poor decision-making.
Surprisingly enough, the best aspect of Tinsley's performance against the Nets was his shooting — 8-15 for 16 points. True, he was 0-2 from downtown, and the Nets went under any screen/roll in which he was involved, thereby allowing him to freely fire away — but enough of Tinsley's shots fell to confound New Jersey's strategy in this regard.
On defense, Tinsley made one outstanding play — stealing a pass from Jason Kidd. Otherwise, Kidd absolutely destroyed him, repeatedly driving past Tinsley and penetrating deep into the paint. But whenever Tinsley was thusly beaten, he made no effort to recover and instead was content to passively watch the play come to its inevitable conclusion — an easy score for the visitors. When Tinsley was subjected to S/Rs, he rarely offered any serious resistance and was routinely nailed into submission.
By my accounting — which included shots, passes, and dribblings — Tinsley made a total of 14 good decisions with the ball, and ten bad ones. In the waning moments, with the game still on the line, Tinsley made a pair of atrocious choices — over-handling his way into a forced shot that missed badly, and then over-handling and foolishly throwing a pass out-of-bounds.
This guy is a loser. Period. So why on earth did the Pacers let Anthony Johnson leave town?
The spotlight next moves to Jermaine O'Neal: Just the other day he complained to the coaching staff that he wasn't getting enough touches — and he was right on. The first play of the game was designed to feed O'Neal the ball on the left box, where he missed a baseline turn under moderate pressure. And then the offense was aimed at Al Harrington and Tinsley. In fact, O'Neal didn't tally his first field goal until the start of the third quarter. For the next few minutes, however, he simply took over the ball game; scoring on jumpers, reverse moves in the low-post, and even finding his way to the hoop through an aggressive double-team. O'Neal scored 13 of his 17 points in that period, but was strictly an afterthought before and after.
For the Pacers to succeed, this guy needs to be the center of their offense. The more touches he gets, the better he rebounds, passes, blocks shots, and hustles. Since O'Neal is not averse to passing the ball (he had three assists), Indiana can play inside-outside basketball when the offense runs through him.
Al Harrington playing the center-spot can only work against the league's weak sisters. Indeed, the Nets had Nenad Krstic repeatedly attack Harrington in the low post, a tactic which saddled "Baby Al" with foul trouble and limited his daylight to 25 minutes. Also, in a critical end-game sequence, Harrington failed to box out Krstic and the resulting put-back was devastating.
For sure, Harrington can fill the basket from near and far — 7-13, including 2-4 from beyond the arc, for 18 points. But he was a timid rebounder (snatching only four), and was disinclined to pass (zero assists). In the best of all possible worlds, Harrington would be the designated scorer off the Pacers' bench, filling in at both the small- and the power-forward positions.
Stephen Jackson is reputed to be a streak shooter, but if he's not streaking — 3-11, 7 points — then he does the Pacers more harm than good. It says here that Jax should be benched, traded, or simply told to go home (as the Bulls did last year with Tim Thomas), and Marquis Daniels should be given a full-shot at the shooting guard. (It almost goes without saying that Jackson isn't exactly a model citizen either.) Danny Granger has a lively body, good hops, and a nifty stroke — 5-13, 4 blocks, 12 points. What he can't do is play defense. Twice he was burned to a crisp when he turned his head and allowed Bostjan Nochbar to cut backdoor for a pair of dunks. On his solitary free throw, Granger also practically jumped backwards as he released the ball — not surprisingly, the shot was way off.
Still, the youngster has the necessary skills to succeed while he learns the NBA game, and is therefore well-worth the heavy-duty playing time he's receiving. With Harrington serving as the Pacers' sixth man, Granger would consequently become more involved in the offense and his education would be greatly accelerated.
So, then, if Harrington becomes a super-sub, who should start in his stead?
Jeff Foster, who contributed 11 tough rebounds (3 offensive) in 29 minutes, also added solid screens, nifty rolls, clever ball reversals, excellent defense, and he even hit a mid-range jumper. Foster showed big-time on the Nets' S/Rs, made some terrific rotations, and after Krstic had abused Harrington, Foster came in and put the Nets' young center in a box. Foster's retrieval of one of O'Neal's free throws also led to an extra possession wherein O'Neal had the opportunity to bag a 10-foot jumper.
Foster played most of Harrington's minutes late in the third and early in the fourth quarters. When he was replaced by Harrington midway through the last period, the Pacers had rallied and were ahead 75-71. When Foster returned to the action, the Pacers trailed by 82-79, and their flow had been irretrievably disrupted.
Foster doesn't need the ball to be effective, and thereby enhances O'Neal's game.
Marquis Daniels showed flashes of brilliance — 5-10, 7 rebounds, 3 assists, 5 steals, 14 points. His on-the-ball defense stymied Kidd, but he did lose his focus when defending on the weak-side. In any case, the Pacers would be best served if Daniels inherited Jackson's starting position.
Sarunas Jasikevicius is too slow afoot to play acceptable defense, but his court awareness can sometimes compensate for this. Darrell Armstrong can still play effectively for short stretches. With both of these gents unable to sustain any degree of excellence at the point, and with Tinsley's fatal flaws, the Pacers most immediate need is to trade for a real-live playmaker. Any of the following would provide a vast improvement: Earl Watson, Brevin Knight, Steve Blake, or Jose Calderon.
Overall, the Pacers' offense featured lots of flex action, some cross- and down-screens, a few flimsy staggered-screens, and when O'Neal was on the bench, some rather casual S/Rs. The lack of flow in their offense resulted in several forced plays (including shots, drives, and passes). The biggest culprits were Jackson (5), Daniels (4), Harrington (3), and Tinsley (2). And because the Pacers can't run effectively, easy buckets are hard to come by.
How bad was Indiana's defense? So bad that Kidd easily scored a layup on a 1-on-2 fast-break against Jackson and Tinsley. So bad that the Pacers played most of the second half in a 1-2-2 zone that attempted to double all of the Nets who caught the ball in the pivot (including the rather harmless Jason Collins). So bad that even their zone could be easily penetrated from the top (by Kidd), and from the baseline (by almost everybody in a Nets uniform). So bad that in the endgame, Daniels got absolutely no help when New Jersey resorted to isos by Vince Carter.
In sum, the Pacers have to be firing on all cylinders to compete with the NBA's elite teams. And because they're stuck with Tinsley and Jackson, not even Rick Carlisle's excellent coaching can turn this jalopy of a roster into a hot-rod contender.
Charley Rosen is FOXSports.com's NBA analyst and author of 13 books about hoops, the current one being "The pivotal season — How the 1971-72 L.A. Lakers changed the NBA."So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.
If you've done 6 impossible things today?
Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!
-
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
I will comment more later, but at first read I agree with much of what he writes - although I think Granger is a good defenderComment
-
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
I agree almost with everything that is written here. But Tins didn't play that bad yesterday. He had +/- -5 (team average -9). But overall yes - when he's on the floor the team usually plays bad and as PG he have to take much of responsibility. His defence is usually bad also. That doesn't help either."Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."
- Albert EinsteinComment
-
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
A great read. Had to agree with everything he said. I am tired of watching J.T. lack of hustle and bad play making. Jackson got benched for the fourth and so should have Tinsley. I would also look at giving Granger minutes at the 2 spot. But FOSTER needs to get more minutes. He has got his hop back after 2 years of injuries and is playing great.Comment
-
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
Seems like a pretty accurate assessment. I don't know if RC will actually move Al and/or Jack to the second unit. As has been discussed, I think getting Al there is probably the most needed move due to the fact he and JO don't complement each other well.
Strong continued play from Quis may or may not lead Rick to elevate him to the starter. If so, that's fine. More importantly than starting the game in his case, however, is finishing and getting at least 30 minutes or more. In other words, a minutes played distribution like what he had against the Nets.I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano ZapataComment
-
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
Exactly how I feel. I am not even a big Foster supporter, but he is needed in there simply to stop the bleeding.Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
...and I think starting Quis at PG should be a consideration. I know he is unproven on offense and we might lose a little, but just think about how much better our perimeter defense would be.Comment
-
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
So exactly how realistic are our chances for these PGs he mentions would be upgrades and what would it take to acquire someone of their general level?
We've got guys like Powell, Marshall, and Baston who are basically riding the pine that I think could be could 2nd unit energy guys and all of which are the type of guy that does not require we run offense for them. Sure, they all could probably use enough minutes to get adjusted. If we moved other guys out, could these guys cut the mustard off the bench? Or are they, in fact, part of the trade bait?I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano ZapataComment
-
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
Let me start with Tinsley's offense. His overhandling in the 4th quarter killed our offense, and that one pass he threw out of bounds reminded me of something you might throw in the first quarter of the first preseason game, not the last few minutes of an important regular season game. He was trying to make the scoring pass. Jamaal please just make the easy pass, run the offense, stop dominating the ball.Originally posted by able View Post
The part that really makes me lose my mind is the part about Tinsley's defense, the part I bolded. That is exactly what has driven me crazy about Tinsley for going on 6 season now. He often just gives in on defense, if he gets beat by the initial move, he just stops, he's doen it for 6 seasons and I can't stand watching it.Comment
-
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
Don't get me wrong...i really like tinsley as our starting pg....but we really need to consider picking up a quality point guard that can play defense, be a play-maker, and shoot the 3 ball on occasion when needed.I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.Comment
-
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
Trying to dump it Marquis outside the 3 point line is a scoring pass?Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
If Marquis had played in the preseason they may have had a little better feel for what each other was going to do. How much time have they spent on the court together?..........
PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731Comment
-
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
I would love to Greene get a full game, start, play good D, I would like him to chase Redd tonight, in fact.Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
I would love to see a game that features no Jackson, no Tinsley, with those minutes going to Greene and Marquis.
Foster gets the start and yes, Granger comes off the bench, which I was against in the start of the season.
When Danny comes in off the bench now, in a game, he immediately is a difference maker with his energy.
I'd like to see Armstrong, Granger, and Rawle off the bench and watch the D intensity and pace explode. You can keep JO or Al in as the anchor while the other rests.
The problem with this is Al playing defense on the quicker small forwards, but if Granger is coming in fresh late in the first quarter, Al can hold it down against most any player by punishing the Tayshawn Princes in the low post.
Greene (Bulldog) gives you top notch physical D, can get the team into it's offense with no flash or thoughts that he has to do it all on his own. That's really all you need.
I kept saying it's too early, blah, blah, but 3 games in a row of spiraling becomes a trend, imo.
This article is right for this game, and right in some generalities.
Calling Tinsley a loser is harsh, I think he's trying to run the team, but he's is a liability when he's the only guy, who is hung to dry, thats left to create offense all on his own.
I don't think this all falls on him, but it is disturbing when he's on Granger, constantly about everything, or thats they way I see it.
For example, when they long pass from Tinsley to JO was made, but Granger stepped in and thought it was for him, a true point guard gives DG props for running the court, but Tinsley and JO jumped on him by telling him it was intended for JO. Um, ya he understood that after the play, but he had no way to know JO was ahead of him, I think.
As always, I think its the psychology of it all. JO never played college ball, Tinsley got free reign in college, they all don't get the whole sacrifice for the team by doing all the little things, not for the glory of blocking a shot or the pretty pass, or looking up at the stat board at the end of Conseco to see how many points you got, as Tinsley did repeatedly, after every score. Its about boxing out a guy, running out at a jump shooter and another teammate covering your man, it's about elevating your teammates psyche, not harping on obvious mistakes.
Lastly, I don't think Jackson could seem any less interested. I fear collectively they are starting to fall right back into old habits. I would bench him until his wrist gets better (or that's the tact I'd use in the media and with him)
Carlise should get a bonus just having to deal with some of these boneheads.
What's JO doing in the coaches office yelling at his bosses when he should be in the lockeroom lifting the team up.
Is Armstrong the only guy on the team that gets it and has the nads to do whats right?
I wish Carlise would play the guys who show interest and really want to give effort and be team guys.
How about this play your 5 best defensive guys the most minutes and let the rest pout. The problem is he can't; he has to just keep trying to hope that the lightbulb goes on, but at what point do you realize is will never come on.
For instance, Al getting worked by Krstic. I can see if it happened once, maybe twice, but if the coach is going to leave Al out to dry, come over and feign a double team to at least disrupt Krstic's post up, but this team, like in the recent past, has such a low B ball IQ, they don't get it.
It's either stupid or selfish and either is unacceptable.
The whole thing confounds me.
You can't tell me, Rik Smits, Mark Jackson, and Chris Mullin, and Reggie Miller could hold their own defensively and this group can't stop the game from looking like a dunk and lay up drill.
Why do they not know how to play basketball??
.....but thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.Comment
-
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
The one noticeable falling back into bad habits is this: We seemed to have good harmony, support, camraderie, energy, etc. when we came out early and one a few games.
Obviously, as soon as the going gets tough, the team vibe begins to head down the toilet. Some responsibility falls on everyone. Tins and Jack are obviously problematic. They were already isolated by the fans, and deservedly so. So you've got that to deal with. Not to mention your options for dealing them aren't particularly sweet.
But I'd also say where's the leadership from the top players? Al and JO have to find a way to lead the team. Al plays hard while he's out there but got T'ed up last night due to his frustration about the officiating. That was just an extension of his lost focus b/c of foul trouble. Yes maybe there were some tough calls, but as the leader you've got to maintain positivity as an example for the rest of the squad.
JO played with a lot of energy last night but I just don't see him commanding the effort from other players in a positive way. Or maybe in any way for that matter. The only consistent positive presence is DA. Sure it helps some but we need somebody else to step up and take that on with him. Preferably somebody identified as one of our top players.
We're 9 games in. At this point, I'd say some tinkering with the starting lineup at least. Then give it about ten more games. If that doesn't seem to have much impact, then prepare to really turn things upside down. Play some of these new and/or young guys more minutes to see what they've got. Start seriously persuing any and all trade options.
Although I'm not against seeing some of the Powell/Baston/Greene/Marshall guys getting longer looks sooner rather than later either.I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano ZapataComment
-
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
Sign me up for some Jose Calderon!
This was a surprisingly fair article from Rosen, except for the part about Danny's defense. However, Rosen tends to make hasty jusdgements based on one game, and I think this was a product of that.
It's not hard to see just how badly Tinsley, Saras, and Jackson are stinking it up out there. We've got some guys who desperately need to be off of this team. TPTB made great moves in adding Quis and Al, but they flubbed by now removing who needed to be removed over the offseason. They've got to fix that, and quick. And Quisy needs to be starting.
Comment
-
Re: A MUST READ article on the Nets game!!!
Hey, looks like he stole my Jose Calderon idea!
Anyway, for that to happen Jose is going to have to keep up his stellar play and also become disgruntled with the lack of playing time (in comparison to TJ Ford). Jose is out-performing TJ at the PG spot, but getting less minutes because of the pressure on Sam Mitchell to play TJ (especially after signing that big contract).
During last night's game against the Lakers, Jose pretty much brought the Raptors back from a deficit in the 2nd quarter. He sat until the 4th quarter where he got some more playing time. He was playing well again, but missed a shot or two he usually makes. Once he went off in favour of TJ, he was noticiably upset with himself on the bench...yelling and stuff. I'm not sure if it had to do with getting pulled because he was playing well, or if it had to do with him missing a shot or two that he usually makes.Comment
Tweet
Comment