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:
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

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

What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

    The Pacers' splashiest, and only (thank you very much lockout) roster move this summer was adding George Hill in a draft night trade with the San Antonio Spurs. Acquiring an established, successful and still young player was a solid move; not to mention the P.R. bonus of his local roots. Hill stirred up even more excitement when he went ahead and scored 50 points in a Pro-Am game this summer. Not to be a buzzkill, but I mean to cut through some of the excitement and establish some realistic expectations for his performance. We'll approach what those might look like from a few different angles, but today we'll start with what role he might play in the Pacers' offense.

    Last season the Pacers' offense struggled, becoming progressively more stagnant as the year went on; reaching the point of being almost unwatchable in the playoffs against the Bulls. The roster was filled with some efficient complementary scorers and Danny Granger; a very potent scorer, but one who doesn't excel at creating his own opportunities. The Pacers had offensive weapons but lacked a dynamic individual creator, or a consistently effective manner of attack, to bind the whole system together. Although it hasn't been said explicitly by anyone in the organization, I get the feeling there is some hope that George Hill can provide some help in the dynamic individual creation department. Is he really up to this task?

    The first thing to look at is Creation Ratio, a statistic SBNation's own Tom Ziller introduced a few weeks ago. Creation Ratio compares the shots a player creates, either through an unassisted shot or an assist to a teammate, with the number of shots they take which are created for them. You can find a full description of the formula in Ziller's original piece. For example, Steve Nash has a very high Creation Ratio. Spot-up shooters like James Jones would have a very low one. A Creation Ratio of 1.0 would mean the portion of a player's offensive contributions which were created on their own is equal to the portion of their offense which was created for them by their teammates. Hill's Creation Ratio for last season was 1.48. To add a little more context, it ranked 35th of among the 40 point guards who played the most minutes last season. Of those 40 points guard, the one with the most similar Creation Ratio was Daniel Gibson, a guy not known for his ability to break down a defense. Now obviously, some of this is a reflection of the role Hill was asked to play in San Antonio. Roughly half of his minutes came alongside Tony Parker, making him a de-facto shooting guard. However, we'll return to that issue in a minute.

    I borrowed another idea from Ziller and put together a table showing each of the Pacers, and how their Creation Ratio was separated out. The blue bar represents the number of shots per 36 minutes each player used which were created by teammates. The yellow bar represents the number of shots per 36 minutes each player created for themselves or for their teammates.

    Four Pacers, A.J. Price, Darren Collison, Lance Stephenson, and T.J. Ford were responsible for most of the Pacers' shot creation on a per minute basis. Of those four, only Collison was among the top thirty players in the league in Ast%, or the percentage of teammates' baskets he assisted on. This means Price, Stephenson and Ford were creating a lot of shots for themselves. All three had a TS% below 46.0% which means the Pacers would probably have been a lot better offensively if that trio hadn't been quite so creative.

    So how would Hill's numbers have fit in? Below is the same graph as before, but with him included.

    If you couldn't find Hill, he's sandwiched between Dahntay Jones and Mike Dunleavy. That means his offensive contributions were not numerous, even on a per-minute basis. In terms of the division between creating offense and allowing it to be created for him, the Pacers that Hill most closely resembled were Roy Hibbert and Paul George, two players who are very much part of a supporting cast on offense. The good news is that even in that supporting role offensively, Hill was very effective. His TS% of 58.8% last season would have been third on the team behind Dunleavy and Josh McRoberts -

    The bad news is that in his time in San Antonio, Hill never showed that dynamic creation ability on a large scale. Again, the system and role he was asked to play certainly limited his opportunities to demonstrate that ability. Still, when those opportunities presented themselves, he didn't do much to stand out.

    According to Synergy Sports Technology, 13% of Hill's offensive possessions were used on isolations last season. He scored 0.95 points per possession, shooting 38.0% from the field, neither being a particularly impressive number. His saving grace was that he drew a shooting foul on 21.4% of those possessions. Hill used 24.9% of his possessions as the ball handler in a pick-and-roll. He scored 0.91 points per possession, shooting 41.9% from the field; again nothing impressive.

    The question will ultimately remain unanswered until, or if, the regular season begins, but there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest Hill is the cog to push the Pacers' offense to another level. Perhaps he simply hasn't had the chance. Perhaps it's outside his abilities. I want to be clear that either way, his addition to the roster is a huge positive. Even if he just gives the Pacers a rough approximation of what he provided the Spurs, it will be a huge upgrade to the backcourt depth. He may not start, but Hill will be one of the five best players on the team even if his production doesn't jump at all. We all may hope that he can be more than what he's shown so far in his career, but should be happy to have him even if he doesn't.
    Last edited by 90'sNBARocked; 10-07-2011, 02:20 PM.
    Sittin on top of the world!

  • #2
    Re: George Hill

    Edit: Nevermind
    Last edited by glazedham42; 10-07-2011, 02:26 PM.


    • #3
      Re: What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

      I think Bird is building toward a defense first unit like the Piston's of 5 years ago.
      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.


      • #4
        Re: What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

        Guess we will find out next year


        • #5
          Re: What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

          Hopefully he brings some WINS...
          I'm not perfect and neither are you.

          Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
          Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.


          • #6
            Re: What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

            From what we read in several posts of articles from his San Antonio days he is either Brandon Rush with the ability to play the 1 on occasion, or he is a decent 2 who can score in bunches when the mood strikes him and play the 1 or 3 when necessary, but who doesn't like to call his own number and floats to the corner more than he should, much to the chagrin of Popovich when he played for the Spurs. But, he has not had three positive drug tests like Brandon, and Hill is from here.

            WAY oversimplified, and hopefully inaccurate with respect to the lack of agressiveness.


            • #7
              Re: What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

              This is easily one of the three or so best moves Bird has made in the past few years. We traded the 15th pick in a poor draft and a second rounder for a proven quality player at a position we need help with who was a key contributor for the team with the best record in the NBA. Plus, he's still pretty young himself. Excellent.

              George will help out quite a bit. This is one of the main reasons that the lockout has been so frustrating. I can't wait to see how George gels with this group.
              Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-08-2011, 01:16 PM.


              • #8
                Re: What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

                Hill will make a big difference because he is very well rounded and fills a few of the many holes on the Pacers. He can defend, shoot, score off the dribble, handle the ball and he has leadership qualities. There is not another PG or quasi-PG on the team that fills all the gaps like that.

                Collison is smallish and cannot defend his own mother. He's also not a leader type.

                AJ Price...well...he might be better than how he played in the Chicago series...but I'm still waiting.

                Lance cannot defend the position adequately, especially with no athletic shot-blocker backing him up. Lance is also not that skilled handling the rock

                I am sure that George Hill will make us more competitive and no question he will make us more competitive with Chicago.
                Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia


                • #9
                  Re: What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Lance is also not that skilled handling the rock
                  What are you basing this on? Lance is a one on one beast who can definitely dribble the ball from point A to point B, lets just hope his team game matures.


                  • #10
                    Re: What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

                    Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                    What are you basing this on? Lance is a one on one beast who can definitely dribble the ball from point A to point B, lets just hope his team game matures.
                    True that but i don't think it was his team game that was the problem. He was a willing passer. It was his defense and maturity no?
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.


                    • #11
                      Re: What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

                      Does anyone think that having both Hill and Lance is a little redundant. I can't see a scenario where Lance would play over Hill. Hill should be getting 30+ mins a game.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.


                      • #12
                        Re: What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

                        I prefer not to worry about redundancy when stephenson is a second round project. Hill will and should play over him unless steph shows something great, in which case it is a good problem to have. It isn't like we'd get value moving lance anyhow.
                        Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".


                        • #13
                          Re: What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

                          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                          Does anyone think that having both Hill and Lance is a little redundant. I can't see a scenario where Lance would play over Hill. Hill should be getting 30+ mins a game.
                          On the long, long list of reasons why I don't think Lance should play (or be on the team for that matter) redundancy doesn't even come close to making the first page.
                          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                          -Lance Stephenson


                          • #14
                            Re: What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

                            The graphs in the original article (follow the link) were pretty interesting.

                            For all the love Dunleavy gets about being able to make the offense run more smoothly, his creation numbers were terrible. Right there with James Posey.
                            This space for rent.


                            • #15
                              Re: What Does George Hill Bring To The Pacers' Offense?

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              The graphs in the original article (follow the link) were pretty interesting.

                              For all the love Dunleavy gets about being able to make the offense run more smoothly, his creation numbers were terrible. Right there with James Posey.
                              But his basketball IQ helps the team by osmosis. He also keeps moving constantly, even if it is just running in circles at the top of the key. He is just smart, I tell you. Smart.

                              It will be interesting to see how his incredible IQ helps out another team this year.