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

How do you feel about the emphasis on 3-point shots?

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

  • How do you feel about the emphasis on 3-point shots?

    Like others on this board, I have held the opinion over the years that the 3-point shot is "fool's gold," as Larry Brown calls it.

    Nevertheless, despite my early concerns, I've certainly warmed up to it at this point in the season. There is no doubt that a three takes the wind out of the opponents' sails. Also, I have been pleasantly surprised to see Dun and Granger effectively hit the three this season, in general.

    So, tonight, I'm fired up to watch the Ps play, and to see some of our players drain some threes and rev up the offense.

    Do I worry that it will catch up with us as the season goes on, and into the playoffs? Yes. I feel strongly that last year Detroit--especially with Billups--saw Larry Brown's prediction of fool's gold coming back to haunt them. But they were red hot the first half of the year.

    And yet, Obie went to the semi-finals with this strategy a few years back.

    So, I've got mixed emotions about our vulnerable strategy of jacking up the three whenever it's open. But I'm certainly enjoying it.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


  • #2
    Re: How do you feel about the emphasis on 3-point shots?

    I think Brown is wrong about it being fool's gold. I suppose it can be, but it's not about the % of shots from 3, it's how you get them. Passing around the arc before a chuck is terrible, but going into the post and then opting for a wide open arc look from a solid 3pt guy, that's not just gold, that's diamonds.

    Winning ball is about sticking with a strategy. The fool's gold part comes in when teams start to focus on the wrong aspects of a strategy or stop working the total package.

    The Suns might not have won it all, but it sure as heck isn't because they make a ton of 3s. If you can hit the 3 and D up, you can win.

    Having said all that, right now the Pacers are NOT a good offensive team. They are 21st in points per possession. They are also 21st in 3P% and Adjusted FG% (which JOB points to as defense for shooting the 3).

    It's their 10th ranked defense that's giving them a chance.

    One problem with that combo is a bad number in the FTAs department where they are well behind the competition. They D up tight and foul more, and their own jumpers aren't drawing as many fouls.


    Returning to the 3P% for just a second, the team is at .343 (ugh, opponents are at .373). Why?

    Well above that line we have (all taking at least 3 a game):
    Dun .414
    Danny .367 (but not as high as you'd think or want)
    Shawne .358 (see DG)
    Troy .367

    And below:
    Tins .313 (4 per game)
    Rush .300 (1.7 per, but limited GP)
    Diener .235 (2.3 per, see Rush)
    Quis .308 (0.8 per)


    And combine that with poor 2P% from some guys and look at the line for Adj. FG%, .479 for the team.

    Below (taking at least 5 FG per night):
    JO .415
    Tins .443
    Troy .462
    Quis .463

    So to me there are some serious execution issues, primarily with those 4 players. Each needs to be scoring better than that on their Adj FG%, and I'm 100% certain JOB agrees.

    The offensive strategy isn't great, it never had Boston or Philly ranked as a top offensive team (per possession), but it can be better than it has so far. The Pacers really could have used either Rush or Diener (still could I should say).

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: How do you feel about the emphasis on 3-point shots?

      The Pacers are averaging 22.2 3PA per game, just a couple more than their opponents (20.5 per game).

      They are only 4-8 in games where they take more 3PA than their opponents.

      The Pacers are 6-3 in games when they shoot a higher 3P% than their opponent.

      Here's the most surprising fact: The Pacers are 9-0 in games where they shoot a higher overall FG% than their opponent.

      The Pacers have outscored their opponent in the paint 14 times, versus only 12 games when they took more 3 attempts.

      These figures lead me to say what I would say anyway. As a preferred weapon, the 3 is not a reliable way to win. But as a means of mixing up the attack and forcing the opponent to defend the whole floor, the 3 is a great tool. Our players aren't deadly from outside, but they are good enough to force the defense to come out to them.
      Last edited by Putnam; 12-11-2007, 07:27 PM.
      And I won't be here to see the day
      It all dries up and blows away
      I'd hang around just to see
      But they never had much use for me
      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: How do you feel about the emphasis on 3-point shots?

        Yeah, I think what we are seeing is what many of us suggested in the summer. This is not JOB's Celtics, they aren't loaded with 3pt offense, and if it wasn't for Dunleavy it might be downright ugly from long range at this point.

        The motion that works the best has been the cutting. That's the one offensive aspect that looks better with JOB than it did with Rick. Otherwise I'm often painfully reminded of how lacking the toolbox was for Rick on offense.

        Tinsley is sloppy and quite the chucker at times, but the offense struggles so much that his freewheeling style is by far the best option most of the time. I thought that was true the last few years as well.


        I will say that in defense of JOB's system, many guys are seeing good 3pt chances. If you could get a Dennis Scott/Nick Anderson set of bombers rolling from out there you could see them really start to hurt teams. I guess Dun is doing his part toward that. But that Magic combo MADE 5 a game at something like 42%. Dun doesn't take enough and Danny doesn't make enough to come close to that, let alone anyone else on the team.
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-14-2007, 02:49 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: How do you feel about the emphasis on 3-point shots?

          .365 puts you in the top 100 in three point career accuracy of all-time. If you're anywhere in that vicinity you're doing okay by me. Even if it's only for a season.

          Danny .368
          Mike .436
          Troy .365
          Shawne .368


          Jamaal .326
          Marquis .313
          Kareem .300
          Travis .229

          I'll assume Rush and Diener will even out over the course of the season and Jamaal has looked pretty good lately ( .354 in the last 15 games).
          I'm in these bands
          The Humans
          Dr. Goldfoot
          The Bar Brawlers
          ME

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: How do you feel about the emphasis on 3-point shots?

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
            These figures lead me to say what I would say anyway. As a preferred weapon, the 3 is not a reliable way to win. But as a means of mixing up the attack and forcing the opponent to defend the whole floor, the 3 is a great tool. Our players aren't deadly from outside, but they are good enough to force the defense to come out to them.
            I agree with this.

            I think the best effect of the 3pt focus is that it is successfully drawing defenders out of the paint. We were terrible at that last year and I blame it for everything from JO's knee health to global warming.

            They key is that we are still using the inside presence while denying it to opponents. If it takes a 3pt mentality to get to the right side of that balance, that's what I want to see.
            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


            • #7
              Re: How do you feel about the emphasis on 3-point shots?

              I don't like living and dying by the 3, especially with the team we have. Because we won't live long.

              I don't mind the three ball. Just as long as they come in rhythm. I think that at least in the beginning of the games it is really important to get as many layups as you can. It can really help a players confidence I think.

              I like though how Jim wants guys to shoot. He doesn't want them to be afraid to fail. At the same time, the 3 point shot is such a low % shot that you can't live by it.

              I think we will continue to see a lot of 3s. If we can get a lot of possessions it won't be a big deal to me.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: How do you feel about the emphasis on 3-point shots?

                Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                Mike .436
                This is exceeding my wildest dreams.

                Well, no, I guess not all my dreams...you perverts.
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: How do you feel about the emphasis on 3-point shots?

                  Originally posted by rommie View Post
                  I don't like living and dying by the 3, especially with the team we have. Because we won't live long.

                  I don't mind the three ball. Just as long as they come in rhythm. I think that at least in the beginning of the games it is really important to get as many layups as you can. It can really help a players confidence I think.

                  I like though how Jim wants guys to shoot. He doesn't want them to be afraid to fail. At the same time, the 3 point shot is such a low % shot that you can't live by it.

                  I think we will continue to see a lot of 3s. If we can get a lot of possessions it won't be a big deal to me.
                  Good points.

                  However, thanks to Quinn Buckner, the phrase in bold is totally worn out and tiresome.

                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: How do you feel about the emphasis on 3-point shots?

                    I don't mind. What I don't get though is how opposing teams come in here and shoot lights out...and then the guys on our team who are supposed to be able to shoot all of a sudden can't shoot. Diener and Rush puzzle me, and Danny's inconsistency is frustrating, to say the least. I'm not shocked about Dunleavy, because his mechanics are sound. His issue, I'm convinced, was a confidence issue. Maybe, hopefully, it's the same with these other guys. And Murphy, I would send him down the hall to report for Bowser duty. Let him wear that puppy uni..and let him chuck away at halftime to his heart's content.
                    Last edited by NapTonius Monk; 12-15-2007, 02:09 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: How do you feel about the emphasis on 3-point shots?

                      I think that it's good in the 1st 3 QTRs.....but not as good when we need to maintain a lead....we need to pull back on the throttle and start taking more high-percentage close-range/mid-range jumpshots. If we have a solid lead....we need good defenders on the floor and execute on all of our possessions.

                      IMHO...that means that players that can't defend and/or has good shot selection high percentage shots ( yes, I'm speaking about Murphy ).
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: How do you feel about the emphasis on 3-point shots?

                        3pt shooting should be part of the strategy...I think it's a must...but not in the top 3 concerns on a team...unless you want mediocrity. Even the Suns with a spectacular offense and perhaps better talent than anyone in the league, generally struggle in the playoffs in comparison to their regular season. Same with Dallas. Both have been as good or better than San Antonio in the regular season, but y'all know what happens come May.

                        Defense is and will always be the #1 way to win games, particularly in the playoffs. Long, quick, defensive minded players win championships.
                        Good shooters are important, but in the playoffs you need guys who can score...when it's tough to get a bucket. Look at Billups. Better yet, look at Rip Hamilton. He is a scorer...rarely going for the 3....but very, very effective in the playoffs. Look at Peja. A complete bust in the playoffs.

                        San Antonio has it all, but even they go to the rack and play an all around great defensive game. They define success and I think they are worthy to emulate. Defense, ball movement, chemistry...

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X