Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Core Problem w/the Pacers is their "Core" and Unit Cohesiveness

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

  • The Core Problem w/the Pacers is their "Core" and Unit Cohesiveness

    Coming into the 2012-2013 NBA season, I was both excited and cautiously optimistic about the team. I considered their 2nd-round debut after being out of the post season a number of years refreshing and couldn't wait to see how the team improved themselves this season. Like many other fans, I expected there would be some changes to the roster, but little did I suspect that one of those players no longer on the roster would be Darren Collison! And here is where the focus of this thread takes shape.

    While I expected team chemistry and cohensiveness would be problematic since so many new faces have been added to the roster, I did not expect to see this team struggle as much as it has since the season began. And like many fans, I've struggled to make sense of it all. However, I think George Hill provides the answer per this article from Pacers.com:
    [George]Hill, who led all scorers Tuesday with 18 points, but missed all four three-point attempts and had one more turnover (three) than assists, attempted to shoulder the blame.

    "As a point guard I have to figure a way to get everyone involved and in sync," he said. "I put that on my shoulders. I have to find a way to get Roy going, and Paul and D. West.

    "Right now I'm still learning as a point guard. I really never was a point guard growing up, so I'm learning every day. I have to take it like a man and figure out a way to do it."
    Did you catch that last part? If not, I think all Pacers fans, as well as Coach Vogel himself, needs to read that last paragraph again!

    I'm not calling for Hill to be benched nor do I believe he should be. IMO, he performed admirably last year both as the backup PG behind DC and as the starting PG when DC went down due to injury. So, I give him credit where credit is due. However, even Hill would tell you he's more of a Shooting Guard than a Point Guard. And that's part of the team's problem right now. Another is the fact that while Hill, by his own admission, is still in a learning phase so is our new backup PG, DJ Augustine.

    IMO, the Pacers made a huge mistake in trading away DC AND AJ Price. This left the team without a true PG! CORRECTION...a true veteran PG. As hard as this team is struggling to manufacture points while also addressing chemistry issues, they're also trying to bend the learning curve with their PGs - something that's extremely difficult to do for a team that IS expected to compete after that outstanding performance from last season. But as the team continues to struggle, it's becoming more and more apparant that Coach Vogel needs to make a line-up change (soon). I would suggest the following:

    C - Hibbert/Mahanmi
    PF - DWest/T Hansborough
    SF - PGeorge/Sam Young*
    SG - Stephenson/Green
    PG - GHill/B Hansborough/Augustin

    *Only while Granger is out due to injury.

    Once Granger returns, I would suggest going with:

    C - Hibbert/Mahanmi
    PF - DWest/T Hansborough
    SF - Granger/Sam Young
    SG - PGeorge/Stephenson/Green
    PG - GHill/B Hansborough/Augustin

    Why Sam Young at backup SF? DEFENSE, of course!

    Why start PGeorge at SG ahead of Stephenson particularly since Stephenson seems to have developed some confidence in his newfound role at the position? Chemistry among the starters! Remember: We retained our STARTING CORE for a reason - this group performed very well together last year. There's no reason to think they couldn't pick up where they left off once Granger returns (and he's able to get his legs back under him [re: "game shape"]). However, I do believe it would be tempting to keep Stephenson at his starting SG position and bring PGeorge off the bench ONLY because you want someone with expericne, the ability to score and take charge of the 2nd-Unit w/the reserve players. Vogel may have to go this route if he can't get more productivity from the bench.

    Why move Ben Hansborough ahead of Augustin? Not only is Augustin struggling to find his offense, he also appears to be struggling w/how to run the offense particularly when working against Zone defenses. I've watched Lil Ben [Hansborough] perform over the summer and in his brief stints of playing time not only does he seem to have better court vision, he also has the ability to create shots for himself. In other words, he has exhibited confidence in his game and his teammates seem to enjoy playing alongside him. Give it four more games and if Augustin hasn't improved his game play, I'd say it's time to yank him and play Ben Hansborough in his place.

    I really don't think there's anything else that can be done to improve team performance beyond coach accepting a dose of reality and making some minor lineup changes. If the team continues on its current trejectory, the former 2nd round contenders who nearly took the Miami Heat the distance may find themselves out of the playoff hunt this year. And that would be a damned shame.

    Make the adjustments, coach! Do it quickly before things get so far out of hand the team can't recover.

  • #2
    Re: The Core Problem w/the Pacers is their "Core" and Unit Cohesiveness

    Several problems I have with your post. Adjust these and I'll come back with a more meaningful response.

    First, you ask why PG starts at the two over Lance. Well, news flash, Lance is starting at the two.

    Also, Hill is the only one playing well right now. Just because he admitted that he was never a point doesn't change the fact that he seems to be developing into a damn fine point guard. By the way - if you were to ask Hill if he'd rather develop into a point guard and be a legitimate starting point worthy of a long as successful career, or just a backup guard, or 7th man what do you think he'd rather be?????

    Lastly, DC was definitely a shootfirst point even moreso than Hill, and AJ flat out sucked.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Core Problem w/the Pacers is their "Core" and Unit Cohesiveness

      I'm not trying to be rude, but your "major lineup changes" are swapping about 10 minutes each between Young/Green and Ben Hansbrough/Augustin. That's not gonna affect the outcome of games.
      Time for a new sig.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Core Problem w/the Pacers is their "Core" and Unit Cohesiveness

        Just a thought....but do you think that if we went back to an "egg timer" lineup where we have distinct 1st and 2nd units where 5 Players come in and 5 Players come out would make a difference in creating more Chemistry among the Players?

        Given the multitude of lineups that we run with Granger out and the "mix and matching" that has to go on....you have to wonder if that is causing issues with "cohesiveness" among the Players.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Core Problem w/the Pacers is their "Core" and Unit Cohesiveness

          You guys are way over thinking the problem and solution. The problem is no Danny Granger to keep the defense honest. With out Granger the opponent's defense does not have worry about us going nuts from 3pt range. Even though Granger is not considered a marksman from 3. He has a solid reputation as a good shooter who will make you pay. Pacers did not even take that many 3's last year compared to previous seasons. But no team is gonna cheat off Granger to double team Hibbert or West. They no longer have to worry about that. They can double at any time from any position on the floor now.

          The only solution to this is for Hibbert and PG to step it up, make better decisions. Score more points.
          Augustine has to start attacking like DC did last year. I dont even know if he is capable of it, but the last thing we need is for Augustine to sit back and shoot 3's. We no longer have a reliable perimeter shooter / threat , so we need to get more drive and kick sets going. Pick and pops with West.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Core Problem w/the Pacers is their "Core" and Unit Cohesiveness

            I think that many of us thought that this would be the year that Paul George would step up and become a star player and a big 3 point threat for us. But it hasn't happened.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Core Problem w/the Pacers is their "Core" and Unit Cohesiveness

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              Augustine has to start attacking like DC did last year. I dont even know if he is capable of it, but the last thing we need is for Augustine to sit back and shoot 3's. We no longer have a reliable perimeter shooter / threat , so we need to get more drive and kick sets going. Pick and pops with West.
              Lance is good at attacking the basket
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Core Problem w/the Pacers is their "Core" and Unit Cohesiveness

                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                You guys are way over thinking the problem and solution. The problem is no Danny Granger to keep the defense honest. With out Granger the opponent's defense does not have worry about us going nuts from 3pt range. Even though Granger is not considered a marksman from 3. He has a solid reputation as a good shooter who will make you pay. Pacers did not even take that many 3's last year compared to previous seasons. But no team is gonna cheat off Granger to double team Hibbert or West. They no longer have to worry about that. They can double at any time from any position on the floor now.

                The only solution to this is for Hibbert and PG to step it up, make better decisions. Score more points.
                Augustine has to start attacking like DC did last year. I dont even know if he is capable of it, but the last thing we need is for Augustine to sit back and shoot 3's. We no longer have a reliable perimeter shooter / threat , so we need to get more drive and kick sets going. Pick and pops with West.
                I agreed with everything you posted except that part about Danny not being known as a marksman from 3. That's exactly what he's known for. He's a career 38% shooter from 3 and has had a couple of seasons of 40% shooting. He's a deep threat that moves well without the ball and has to be accounted for on the perimeter because of his ability to catch and shoot with that quick release of his.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Core Problem w/the Pacers is their "Core" and Unit Cohesiveness

                  Mattie,

                  My question as to "why starter PG over Stephenson" was rhetorical. Still, I suggest you re-read the section of my post that starts with "Once Granger returns..." then take another look at the recommended lineup. Perhaps my commentary will appear more rational to you then.

                  aamcguy,

                  You're right! Playing our bench 10-12 mins really doesn't allow enough time for players to get acquinted with offensive schemes or develop unit cohesiveness. Furthermore, Vogel really hasn't utilized Lil'l Ben or Sam Young that much this young season. So, it's difficult to guage with any real sense of certainty how effective these guys can be. But what we do know is although Gerald Green can shoot the ball pretty good and has "Ups!", his defense needs work. One thing I do like about his game is he runs baseline screens better than any Forward/Guard I've seen since Reggie Miller, Rip Hamilton or Mike Dunleavy. Vogel needs to put him in position to do that more often. I do think, however, that because Green is playing out of position (SG, not SF) it's affecting his game. There's a clear learning curve he will have to get over before we start seeing any real improvement from him. Let's just hope he's a quick learner because the Pacers are going to need him.

                  As for DJ Augustin, as the team's only real PG w/NBA experience, he really should be performing much better. My choice would be to bench him, get him into the practise gym and keep him there until he shows marked improvement in his passing game and his command of the Pacers' offensive schemes. Until then, he rides the pine and give Ben Hansborough his minutes OR Vogel could go with a 3 PG rotation.

                  CableKC,

                  I would never suggest rotating players unilaterally unless it was absolutely necessary (i.e., you're only down to 10 healthy bodies and all are deserving of playing time), but I do get your point which is pretty much the same as aamcguy - our bench has seen limited minutes. Right now, Vogel is relying heavily on the starters, particularly Hill and DWest, but that's because our bench has under-performed so far. Somehow, someway our reserves AND Hibbert and PGeorge needs to step it up!

                  graphic-er,

                  You've hit on the biggest problem facing this team right now as far as defenses collapsing in the paint and the Pacers' inability to spread the floor - they don't have their marksman out their and it's hurting them bad! So, again, unless Hibbert, DWest, PGeorge, Stephenson or somebody particularly among our Guards become deep ball threats, defensive will continue to throw Zone defenses at us and force our Bigs to beat them...a losing strategy for sure!

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X