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

Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

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

  • #31
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

    don't look now but the Jazz have won 3 out of 4. Beating the Rockets, Suns and Bulls.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

      Originally posted by dohman View Post
      Dear George Hill, As I said against the clippers. ITS TIME TO FIND THAT DEFENSE you are praised for. Your PNR coverage is horrid ....

      I have posted this several times before, but I don't think you can blame Hill for our weakness (if there is one) on our pick and roll coverage. Our scheme is designed so that Roy stays as close to the basket as possible (and that makes sense) but when you do that you give up something and you often make our point guard look bad.

      So I would argue strongly that it is not George Hill's fault at all. There is a reason why teams put Roy in a lot of pick and rolls. That is our biggest defensive weakness.

      if we trapped every pick and roll, our point guards would look terrific, but that would make our weakside forward look like he is lost half the time.

      Botton line is we ask a lot of our point guards in defending the PnR. we have determined it is better to give up a mid range jumper (hopefully contested) than a drive into the lane
      Last edited by Unclebuck; 12-03-2013, 03:28 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

        Originally posted by dohman View Post
        I think this is a game we win if we have Tyler Hansbrough. I am a huge scola fan but sometimes he defense is needed more than the points and last night was that night. His ability to turn around and throw is, is simply amazing.

        Biggest game of the year and lance lays the biggest nugget.

        Dear George Hill, As I said against the clippers. ITS TIME TO FIND THAT DEFENSE you are praised for. Your PNR coverage is horrid and I often times said to my self. Can we just put CJ in please. Also what is with you trying to go hero mode at the end of the game? Your the 4th option and single handily pushed us out of reach with your bad shot selection. I hope you watch the tape today and smack yourself and say. WHAT WAS I THINKING. Your lucky PG was there with his reggie miller impersonation or this would of been a 10-15 point loss. It also amazed me that you passed on the one shot you really needed to take and passed it to a PG who was not ready to either catch it or shoot it.

        Roy Hibbert. Bunnies are Bunnies for a reason. We would of been up a additional 8-10 points at the end of the first if you could hit your shots at the rim. It wasn't defense, you had lopez beat each time. It was just not either having the focus or ability to finish.

        Scola should only be allowed to shoot his jumper from the top of the key.

        Sometimes I forget that Mahimi played for a Title team because last night their back up center that I cannot even named OWNED HIM.

        Someone also tell lance teams are scouting his out of control dribble down the court. It works when you do it 1-2 times a game. Not every time.

        I am a little overly critical on last night because we gave that one away. They were beat and we were ready to move on to the next opponent but then they forgot they still had 15 minutes of basketball to play and just had to stay solid.
        Hansbrough's defense was never great, especially in a team setting.

        George Hill guarded as well as he could, we will always be at a disadvantage against super-quick guards, what George Hill needed to do was be more aggressive on the offensive end, so Lillard would have to work on the defensive end. Also CJ had way worse defense. Not sure why Hill hasn't been aggressive after the Wolves game. Didn't help Hill had to play the most minutes due to Lance foul trouble.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

          Originally posted by dohman View Post

          Dear George Hill, As I said against the clippers. ITS TIME TO FIND THAT DEFENSE you are praised for. Your PNR coverage is horrid and I often times said to my self. Can we just put CJ in please. Also what is with you trying to go hero mode at the end of the game? Your the 4th option and single handily pushed us out of reach with your bad shot selection. I hope you watch the tape today and smack yourself and say. WHAT WAS I THINKING. Your lucky PG was there with his reggie miller impersonation or this would of been a 10-15 point loss. It also amazed me that you passed on the one shot you really needed to take and passed it to a PG who was not ready to either catch it or shoot it.
          Who would have thought such a poor defender helped keep John Wall, Derrick Rose, Kyrie Irving, and Chris Paul under their season scoring averages. A few halfs of slow decision making on the pick & roll doesn't change that. The fact of the matter is that if a PG can knock down a high percentage of mid range J's off the pick and roll time after time, then they're going to score rather well because that is the shot (the most difficult shot in the game mind you) that the pacers are willing to give up. The law of averages says that a guard won't be able to beat our team taking that shot, and in every game this season but two..we've been right.

          Bottom line: lets not overreact to a 4 point loss on the road against a good offensive team.

          Edit: I forgot Hill did not play against CLE
          Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 12-03-2013, 04:17 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            The Knicks did start last season pretty well 18-5. They did win 5 more games last season than the pacers. They do have a true recognizeable star on their team. Pacers did not especially when the schedule came out in late July.

            So the Pacers beating them 4-2 is a massacre?? (no one ever suggested the Bulls massacred the Pacers when they best us 4-1 in 2011)

            They don't pick the teams willy nilly, through their research they believed the Knicks were a better ratings draw than the pacers. (Knicks are awful now, so things have changed)

            Also keep in mind the TV broadcasters pick the teams they want. Unless it is in their contract with the NBA they aren't going to show the Utah Jazz. If the NBA tells them to show the Utah Jazz, they aren't going to show the Utah Jazz unless they are contractually obligated to do so.

            I suppose I find it understandable that the Knicks were scheduled 6 times and the pacers none.
            ...and probably the most important fact: New York is physically a *massive* television market with tons of viewers. More viewers = more money made from advertisements.

            The economics around television don't align in lock step with promoting small markets. About the only chance you'll see Portland or Indiana on ABC, is if they're playing a large market team, or Miami... a 2 time NBA champ.

            Take a look: http://www.nba.com/schedules/national_tv_schedule/ABC/
            Last edited by docpaul; 12-03-2013, 03:33 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

              It's a self fullfilling prophecy at this point, in that they don't put the smaller markets on TV because they don't get good draws, while announcers for said TV companies like to ***** about how boring small market games are. Neither creates a very good atmosphere of picking people up, which is probably why people aren't picked up. Could you imagine trying to buy a car from someone who keeps telling you all the negative things about the car, and hardly ever venturing into the positives?

              I think people just want good basketball, the front of the jerseys be damned, myself. Doesn't take a fancy degree to figure out that the Knicks were going to be awful. Watching them peter out last year, only to go after older players on their way out, shouldn't really have been all that great of evidence of how wonderful a product they were going to give.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                Originally posted by immortality View Post
                Hansbrough's defense was never great, especially in a team setting.

                George Hill guarded as well as he could, we will always be at a disadvantage against super-quick guards, what George Hill needed to do was be more aggressive on the offensive end, so Lillard would have to work on the defensive end. Also CJ had way worse defense. Not sure why Hill hasn't been aggressive after the Wolves game. Didn't help Hill had to play the most minutes due to Lance foul trouble.

                You might want to go back to last year and rewatch tape and look up his defensive numbers. His points allowed were among the leagues best last year.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                  Here's a simple fix that could be made right now to add the Pacers to an ABC game...take out the Bulls/Knicks game on April 13th, and put in the OKC/Pacers game instead.
                  "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                  ----------------- Reggie Miller

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I have posted this several times before, but I don't think you can blame Hill for our weakness (if there is one) on our pick and roll coverage. Our scheme is designed so that Roy stays as close to the basket as possible (and that makes sense) but when you do that you give up something and you often make our point guard look bad.

                    So I would argue strongly that it is not George Hill's fault at all. There is a reason why teams put Roy in a lot of pick and rolls. That is our biggest defensive weakness.

                    if we trapped every pick and roll, our point guards would look terrific, but that would make our weakside forward look like he is lost half the time.

                    Botton line is we ask a lot of our point guards in defending the PnR. we have determined it is better to give up a mid range jumper (hopefully contested) than a drive into the lane

                    While I agree with this there are times that Hill can actually go under the screen taking away the drive. It was almost like Chris Paul and Lillard knew once they got their screen they could go all the way to the basket because there was no way hill was catching them. If Chris Paul wasn't fighting a hamstring issue we probably would of lost that game as he missed 3 gimmies that are pretty much his bread and butter.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      Who would have thought such a poor defender helped keep John Wall, Derrick Rose, Kyrie Irving, and Chris Paul under their season scoring averages. A few halfs of slow decision making on the pick & roll doesn't change that. The fact of the matter is that if a PG can knock down a high percentage of mid range J's off the pick and roll time after time, then they're going to score rather well because that is the shot (the most difficult shot in the game mind you) that the pacers are willing to give up. The law of averages says that a guard won't be able to beat our team taking that shot, and in every game this season but two..we've been right.

                      Bottom line: lets not overreact to a 4 point loss on the road against a good offensive team.
                      Hill did not play against Cleveland. That was CJ Watson that was giving irving fits. Against Chicago he allowed rose to go 6-11 from 3 and 7-16 from the field. Its also known that Chris Paul was nursing a hurt hamstring.

                      Is hill a good defensive player? Yes, but he is also the weakness on the pick and roll right now. 2 teams in a row have exploited it and there will be more to come.

                      As far as over reacting, I do not overreact. They could of won this game and I still would of pointed out some of the bad things that were done or that have been a trend.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                        On a side note, Wes Matthews is earning 6.5 million (if he gets season bonus) this year, so expect Lance to get a similar contract, of around 5 years / $26.84 million.

                        http://www.spotrac.com/nba/portland-...sley-matthews/

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                          You know now that I think about it Wes Matthews was guarding Danny Granger the night Danny went off for 44 vs. the Jazz.



                          I bet Matthews hates playing the Pacers.


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            The Knicks did start last season pretty well 18-5. They did win 5 more games last season than the pacers. They do have a true recognizeable star on their team. Pacers did not especially when the schedule came out in late July.

                            So the Pacers beating them 4-2 is a massacre?? (no one ever suggested the Bulls massacred the Pacers when they best us 4-1 in 2011)

                            They don't pick the teams willy nilly, through their research they believed the Knicks were a better ratings draw than the pacers. (Knicks are awful now, so things have changed)

                            Also keep in mind the TV broadcasters pick the teams they want. Unless it is in their contract with the NBA they aren't going to show the Utah Jazz. If the NBA tells them to show the Utah Jazz, they aren't going to show the Utah Jazz unless they are contractually obligated to do so.

                            I suppose I find it understandable that the Knicks were scheduled 6 times and the pacers none.
                            My guess is that their "research" consisted of them saying, "New York is the largest market in the United States, so let's put them on a lot. The Pacers play in a tiny market.....meh."

                            We know that New York didn't earn the 6 ABC games to our 0 through pure basketball merits. Yes, the Pacers-Knicks series was a massacre from the standpoint that the 54 win Knicks believed it was their destiny to play the Heat in the ECF's. It was a way different set of circumstances than our 2011 series with Chicago because we were a 37 win 8 seed who were getting our first playoff experience against the 62 win 1 seed. No one in their right mind would have ever picked the Pacers to win that series. However, plenty of people were expecting the 54 win Knicks to beat the 49 win Pacers. By that context, yes, it was a massacre. The Knicks were never a threat to the Pacers in that series. They had a fourth quarter in Game 2 where they couldn't miss and then were able to take advantage of Hill's absence in Game 5. Outside of that, it was complete and utter domination at the hands of the Pacers.

                            The NBA is shoving the Knicks down our throats because for years they have been DESPERATE for that franchise to come back to life. There's no doubt that having a good team in NYC is a nice thing for the NBA. The problem is that unlike the Lakers, Heat, or Bulls, NO ONE across the rest of the country cares about the Knicks. The only people outside of New York who like the Knicks are NY transplants who have moved elsewhere. In most parts of the country, it is generally considered socially unacceptable to be a Knick fan. They haven't won a championship since 1973. They've never had a Jordan-Shaq-Bird-Magic-Kobe-Lebron type star on their team. There is nothing appealing about them aside from the fact that they play in a cool arena in Midtown Manhattan.

                            The NBA very much influences the teams that are on national TV. They make the schedules. There would be nothing to put on ABC if the league didn't schedule the games. The league and its TV partners work together to schedule the national games that they think are most appealing. It is like this in every sport.

                            ABC appearances by team:

                            Knicks - 6
                            Heat - 6
                            Lakers - 5
                            Bulls - 5
                            Thunder - 4
                            Clippers - 2
                            Spurs - 1
                            Rockets - 1

                            So the defending WCF champion Spurs have one game, the Rockets have one, and the Clippers have two. The rest of the games are split between the same 5 teams: OKC, LAL, Chicago, Miami, NY. It's all so boring and predictable. This is one of many reasons why a league like the NFL runs circles around the NBA. The NFL understands that its league exists beyond 5 teams. If you prove through your play on the field that you're worth putting on prime time, then the NFL gives you SNF and MNF games (see the Colts this year). Meanwhile, the ECF finalist Pacers have 0 ABC games, the WCF finalist Grizz have 0 ABC games, and the WCF champion Spurs have 1 ABC game. Yes, the NBA is very fair and rational when it comes to giving teams those ABC games. We gotta have the Knicks on 6 times because people across the country are just dying to watch that team who got manhandled in the semis!

                            Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem if it was a 5 to 3 ratio in favor of the Knicks. But 6 to 0 when the 0 team eliminated the 6 team and then went to Game 7 of the ECF's? Come on, that's bad. If a league's main goal is to deliver a quality product to it's national audience, then there is simply no justifiable reason for putting the Knicks on ABC 6 times to our 0 when we pounded the Knicks and made the Conference Finals.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-03-2013, 04:23 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                              Originally posted by dohman View Post
                              Hill did not play against Cleveland. That was CJ Watson that was giving irving fits. Against Chicago he allowed rose to go 6-11 from 3 and 7-16 from the field. Its also known that Chris Paul was nursing a hurt hamstring.

                              Is hill a good defensive player? Yes, but he is also the weakness on the pick and roll right now. 2 teams in a row have exploited it and there will be more to come.

                              As far as over reacting, I do not overreact. They could of won this game and I still would of pointed out some of the bad things that were done or that have been a trend.
                              Good point on the CLE game, as I forgot that was CJ. And it's our gameplan to not let the point guard shoot the 3, and to push him to Roy on the inside. The reason CP3 and Lillard had success was because they hit tough, pull up mid-range J's. That's easily the most difficult shot in the game, and a defense can't stop EVERYTHING--especially against scoring guards.

                              I guess when I said don't overreact, I moreso meant don't let the fact that a guard or two scored relatively efficiently make your view of GH's defense waver. It's all a part of the game plan.

                              And on a side note: if D.Rose wants to pull 11 3's, you let him pull 11 3's and don't think twice about it. He was hot that one night (that's what happens with good players) but it'd never happen again.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                It's a self fullfilling prophecy at this point, in that they don't put the smaller markets on TV because they don't get good draws, while announcers for said TV companies like to ***** about how boring small market games are. Neither creates a very good atmosphere of picking people up, which is probably why people aren't picked up. Could you imagine trying to buy a car from someone who keeps telling you all the negative things about the car, and hardly ever venturing into the positives?

                                I think people just want good basketball, the front of the jerseys be damned, myself. Doesn't take a fancy degree to figure out that the Knicks were going to be awful. Watching them peter out last year, only to go after older players on their way out, shouldn't really have been all that great of evidence of how wonderful a product they were going to give.
                                I share in your frustration. Let's just tease apart the points here though.

                                One, announcer bias is just that, announcer bias. Whether they're doing so to indirectly validate the broken model of "big market = lots of national TV time", or whether they are so narrow minded as to actually believe that the best games to watch are those from the big markets is not worth talking about. There are announcers that are more pure basketball purists, as well and don't share this bias.

                                Anyone that watched our game last night and didn't feel entertained has screws loose. No matter what team you happen to pull for.

                                Second, there's a solution to the self fulfilling prophecy. The presumptions here are that NBA wants to "market" all of it's teams on national TV as that's good for the NBA, and that television networks are incentivized in the current business model to draw as many viewers as possible, and that naturally biases them towards large market games. So, the NBA could try to take control of network game selection by offering discounts in return for gaining leverage in game selection. The NBA could rationalize this as part of the "marketing budget".

                                At the end of the day, my gut tells me that the NBA values more immediate profit margins from networks above long term potential blanket team marketing, because the smaller markets (with SA the notable exception) haven't shown consistent success on a team by team basis, and as such it's risky to invest this way as a long term profit generating strategy.
                                Last edited by docpaul; 12-03-2013, 04:47 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X