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 Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

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

  • #46
    The 2004 pistons post-sheed allowed 78.2 ppg for the rest of the season and an absurd .382 FG%.

    In the playoffs, they allowed 80.7 on .392.

    Even in that era, those are defensive numbers absurdly ahead of everybody else. Those numbers are absurdly better than anybody else in any era after 1954.
    Last edited by Kstat; 01-13-2013, 04:48 AM.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      Seth, I'd thank you again if you could simply "dumb down" your posts for people like me that have a low basketball IQ.

      I'm guessing that you're saying that the current Pacers Team is a good defensive Team when compared to the rest of the Teams in the same season while comparing us to the other defensive juggernauts of the past ( when comparing them to their respective Teams in the same year ) ?
      Right. CGG brought up what I was going to bring up, which is how are they doing relative to the tone of the league. Are the rules, styles, rosters conducive to poor shooting? Clearly the 98-99 season was and skews the overall results to the point that from an analysis standpoint I'd ignore it as an outlier.

      03-04 has a change in hand checking enforcement and we again saw several teams put up big (low) numbers in DEF FG%, although not as many. I think the case that the 03-04 teams were just damn good defenses is far more legit than the idea that 98-99 was just a magical season of tough defenses.

      The Pacers and the 97-98 Spurs were holding teams to a FG% WAY below 2nd place and in relation to the typical team they both have strong ratios (what they allow vs what a typical team allowed). So that COULD mean that if you put either of those teams into the 98-99 season or the 03-04 season they might have lead the league in FG% defense with an even lower rate than they allow(ed).




      The reason for using the median (the middle point where as many numbers fall above the line as below it) instead of the mean is to get rid of a shift caused by an outlier(s) that pulls the average hard one way or the other and skews the real league standard/average. Like everyone is 5'7" to 6'3" except for one guy at 7'3" which brings the average height from 5'11" to 6'2". That's not the real "typical" because only a few people are that tall or taller.

      Average is fine, but in this case one of the problems could have been the data affecting itself. With only 28-29 other samples in the set, 2-3 really low (or high) numbers could pull the whole average over and make things look better or worse than they were.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

        I'd also add a tidbit from 2004 that only Pistons fans remember, since it was so brief:

        The pit-bull trap.

        A 2-2-1 full court press that was the most unfair defense I've ever seen on a pro level. It was the brainchild of Larry Brown and it was the driving force behind our under-70 streak.

        Mike James and Lindsey Hunter up front trapping the inbounds pass, Rasheed Wallace and Tayshaun Prince covering the middle of the floor, and if you got past them, you had Ben Wallace protecting the rim.

        Basically, it was a defense designed to turn the other team's point guard into a pile of jelly. We never allowed a guard to get the ball past halfcourt. And once it found it's way into the hands of a big man, it was open season.

        We were forced to scrap it halfway through the first round because Sheed hurt his foot and couldn't cover enough ground to make it work anymore, and then we lost Mike James after the season, but for a very brief time that was the most devastating defensive scheme I ever saw. We were holding teams to 63-68 points almost every single game, and there was nothing passive about it. We were pressing and trapping full court, and teams simply could not get off a good shot. Sheed in his prime in the middle of the trap knew exactly where to be, and he was still athletic enough to get there.
        Last edited by Kstat; 01-13-2013, 07:21 AM.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

          This was a few years after 04, but I remember one game when Eddie House tried to dribble the ball up the court and Lindsey Hunter stripped him and took the ball for a lay up on two consecutive possessions. I almost felt bad for Eddie, I was praying for him to make it past half court.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

            If Hunter had any kind of offensive IQ whatsoever he'd be remembered in the same breath as Gary Payton as one of the great ballhawks of all time. He just couldn't stay on the floor because he was so inept with a basketball in his hands.

            Mike James wasn't quite as good, but he was right up there in his prime. The two of them together were brutal. No matter who you turned your back on, you were in trouble.

            I wish there was film of it on youtube. Larry Brown was the most creative defensive coach I ever saw, he had a roster that could run almost any kind of pressure defense he wanted to dial up, and he had the ideal coach on the floor in Rasheed to make sure it was done correctly.
            Last edited by Kstat; 01-13-2013, 07:28 AM.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              ...and josh smith. But hey, who's counting....It was the most lopsided trade ever, right?

              Kinda like the idiots that still whine over the pau gasol trde, while overlooking the fact Memphis got Marc gasol....
              They were lopsided. Ex post, the trades you mentioned look better because the picks turned out to be Smith and Gasol. But the average value of mid first rounders and second rounders are much less than Smith and Gasol. If not, everyone would want a Laker second rounder.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                Funny how every team we played was either dysfunctional or just offensively inept after we ground them into dust....

                We get that a lot.
                You guys held bad offensive teams to low numbers. Sooooo impressive.

                If you guys had maintained it for an entire year we would all be impressed. But big difference between 82 + playoffs. And 25 + playoffs

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                  Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                  You guys held bad offensive teams to low numbers. Sooooo impressive.

                  If you guys had maintained it for an entire year we would all be impressed. But big difference between 82 + playoffs. And 25 + playoffs
                  Well, they tried, but I'm sure the 2004 pistons are mortified that they weren't able to impress you with their half-dozen or so defensive NBA records that still stand.

                  Every team we played that year was a bad offensive team, dontcha know?
                  Last edited by Kstat; 01-13-2013, 10:47 AM.

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    Well, they tried, but I'm sure the 2004 pistons are mortified that they weren't able to impress you with their half-dozen or so defensive NBA records that still stand.

                    Every team we played that year was a bad offensive team, dontcha know?
                    The '04 Pistons might not be, but you seem awfully concerned.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      Well, they tried, but I'm sure the 2004 pistons are mortified that they weren't able to impress you with their half-dozen or so defensive NBA records that still stand.

                      Every team we played that year was a bad offensive team, dontcha know?
                      Ignoring the facts doesn't make your point more valid. Just between the Pacers games(6 in the playoffs 1 in the regular season) and the Nets in the playoffs, they played 14 games against teams in the bottom third of the league in offense.

                      If you play a larger percentage of games against bad offensive units, your defensive stats should be better.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                        Seems like the bucks and lakers were the 3rd and 4th highest scoring teams. The pacers had the 26th pace, but they were 9th in off rating. The nets were the 25th offense though.
                        "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by cgg View Post
                          Seems like the bucks and lakers were the 3rd and 4th highest scoring teams. The pacers had the 26th pace, but they were 9th in off rating. The nets were the 25th offense though.
                          Stating facts doesn't make your point more valid.

                          Oh wait...

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                            http://www.basketball-reference.com/...405140DET.html

                            4 of your starters fouled out? lol

                            You were mean to rookie melo, but so were the pacers.

                            http://www.basketball-reference.com/...403060DEN.html
                            http://www.basketball-reference.com/...311040IND.html
                            "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              Stating facts doesn't make your point more valid.

                              Oh wait...
                              You mean a dysfunctional Lakers team, that nobody thought played like they had earlier in the year. Oh and 5 games against the offensively inclined bucks totally makes up for the 13 playoff games against Pacers and Bucks.

                              Are Pistons fans so disappointed by their current team that they have to go back and retroactively go back and add to their former glory.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history

                                Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                                Are Pistons fans so disappointed by their current team that they have to go back and retroactively go back and add to their former glory.
                                lol...wouldnt you be? Thats all they got...distant memories

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X