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

TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

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

  • TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

    I've pulled the Pacers-centric portion. You can read the entire article here: http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...tive-defenders

    The other Pacers

    We know Roy Hibbert is really good at defense. We know his Pacers have been one of the best defenses ever thus far. When Kevin Pelton (Insider) wrote about this the other day, he pointed out that the Pacers were giving up fewer than 94 points per 100 possessions in a league that averages 106. No other team is close. So the Pacers are killing it.

    And as I just dug through NBA.com/stats looking at player combinations, there's no arguing Hibbert is the dominant reason. In fact, if you take every two-player combination in the league, from every team, the best combination out of all of those thousands, in terms of holding opponents to the fewest points per possession, is the Pacers' Roy Hibbert and David West.

    In and of itself that does not prove they are the two best defenders. Far from it. But it would be just about impossible for them to be so high on the list while being lousy at defense. And that they belong there is affirmed by this: The second best combination out of the whole league? Hibbert and Paul George. Fourth best is Hibbert and George Hill. Amazingly, Pacers account for nine of the league's dozen most effective two-player defensive combinations, and Hibbert is part of most of 'em.

    Just as it's impossible to argue Hibbert is anything but great on defense, it's also impossible to argue that he's the only reason the Pacers are good. The Pacers' center is only playing 30 minutes a game, and the Pacers are good on defense all night.

    This is not a question of the starting five carrying everybody. None of the Pacers' five-man lineups, in fact, are in the league's ten most effective defensively. It really is a team effort.

    When Hibbert is on the bench, the Pacers give up 98.7 points per 100 possessions, which would still be a top 10 NBA defense.

    Of course, George, who has been discussed as a candidate as both MVP and a first-team all-NBA defense, is a big part of that. Even though he's the epicenter of the Pacers' offense -- in a role where many players would catch their breath on defense -- George expends serious energy guarding some of the league's finest scorers. Despite those challenges, he's still a mainstay among the Pacers' best defensive combinations. When George sits, opponents score a little better than when Hibbert sits.

    But you know who else has been on the floor for long minutes of great defense for the Pacers? Almost everybody. David West, C.J. Watson, George Hill, Orlando Johnson, Lance Stephenson,Luis Scola -- these are not the Pacers' most famous defenders. I have named eight Pacers in this article. Put any three of those players together on the court, and Pacers are playing good defense.

    When any or all of them are on the court, the Pacers as a team average better defensive performance than the Spurs, who are the league's second-best defensive team.

    It's almost impossible to find any combination of Pacer players that is bad on defense. It's amazing. (3-point specialist Chris Copeland might be the one exception. He has not been great on defense, the statistics say, but he is also new to the team and has averaged less than four minutes a game so it's hard to know what the future holds for him.)

    Clearly, coach Frank Vogel knows something.
    "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

    "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

    "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

  • #2
    Re: TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

    Amazing stats about Hibbert. It's just my opinion but I see Hibbert as more important to this team then PG simply because he effects the game plan of the opposing team more. If we remove PG we lose a lot of games but I thing we lose more if we remove Hibbert from the lineup. I'm glad we have Paul locked down but my biggest concern in the near future isn't Lance or Danny next summer, it's Hibbert when he opts out the following Summer. If we ever had a reason to go into the LT we have to do it to keep Hibbert.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

      Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
      Amazing stats about Hibbert. It's just my opinion but I see Hibbert as more important to this team then PG simply because he effects the game plan of the opposing team more. If we remove PG we lose a lot of games but I thing we lose more if we remove Hibbert from the lineup. I'm glad we have Paul locked down but my biggest concern in the near future isn't Lance or Danny next summer, it's Hibbert when he opts out the following Summer. If we ever had a reason to go into the LT we have to do it to keep Hibbert.
      If we're winning, and Vogel is still here, then he will not opt out. Take that to the bank.

      Sent from my LG-G2 using Tapatalk

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

        Originally posted by docpaul View Post
        If we're winning, and Vogel is still here, then he will not opt out. Take that to the bank.
        Really ?? He'll opt out in a nano-second to land himself another contract. Unless he gets injured, there's no way he'll miss out on another 3, 4 5 years of guaranteed cash.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

          Originally posted by gummy View Post

          This is not a question of the starting five carrying everybody. None of the Pacers' five-man lineups, in fact, are in the league's ten most effective defensively. It really is a team effort.

          I am confused a little. How can that be and yet we are the best defensive team overall and have the best two man combos.

          can someone explain

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

            Originally posted by gummy View Post
            . When George sits, opponents score a little better than when Hibbert sits.

            I think if we had taken a forum poll 80% would have figured it to be just the opposite. Even though it is worded a little strangely, according to this it suggests that PG is more important to our defense than Roy.

            At the forum party last summer a question was asked, who is more valuable PG or Roy. Not who ius better, but more valuable. Most argued Roy because of his overall impact on defense being greater than PG. Well according to this article that might not be true. (I argued that PG is more valuable, but even I probably would have said that Roy has a greater impact on defense than does PG)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I am confused a little. How can that be and yet we are the best defensive team overall and have the best two man combos.

              can someone explain
              It is very possibly because while other teams have a great defensive 5-man unit, other combinations fall off drastically OR that unit doesn't play together much. It's similar to the way you might have the #1 defender on the team and yet give up points other places.

              or, simplistically:

              average of 1st and 6th 5-man unit would be 3.5
              average of 2nd and 3rd 5-man unit is 2.5

              having the second and third units means you have a better overall defense than if you have the first and sixth.
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

                Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                If we're winning, and Vogel is still here, then he will not opt out. Take that to the bank.

                Sent from my LG-G2 using Tapatalk
                I love Roy but he and his agent showed us the last time that money is the force. Roy will opt out and if we want to keep him he'll be getting a contract close to 20 mil.to start and over 20 mil in the end. If we want to win we have to do it.
                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

                  Anyone have an explanation as to why according to this PG is more important to our defense than Roy. Or am I mireading this?


                  When George sits, opponents score a little better than when Hibbert sits.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I am confused a little. How can that be and yet we are the best defensive team overall and have the best two man combos.

                    can someone explain
                    If you run the top DRtg 5 man units, the Pacers have 2 of the top ten (8 and 9). However, all ten of those lineups have played only about 20-30 minutes together. In other words, not a lot.

                    So, he had some kind of per-game or total-minutes-played filter on there. He doesn't mention that, which is bad form on his part if you ask me.

                    Let's filter out any lineup that hasn't played at least 200 minutes together (a little less than 10 minutes a game together per game).

                    Oh, look at that. The Pacer's starting 5 is #1.

                    Let's kick it down to 100 minutes.

                    Pacers are now #2 to this Bobcats lineup:
                    Henderson,Gerald - Jefferson,Al - Kidd-Gilchrist,Michael - McRoberts,Josh - Walker,Kemba
                    Setting the filter to 50 minutes makes a Pacers lineup #9.

                    We are out of options. My guess is that his filter was very low. He wrote this article yesterday, so teams shuffled around a bit on the low end of the spectrum.

                    Either that, or he ran the numbers with no filter at all and they shifted a bunch with last night's action.

                    Pay attention to your sample sizes, professional NBA writers!
                    The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                    RSS Feed
                    Subscribe via iTunes

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Anyone have an explanation as to why according to this PG is more important to our defense than Roy. Or am I mireading this?

                      The difference between Orlando Johnson's defense vs. Ian Mahinmi's?
                      The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                      RSS Feed
                      Subscribe via iTunes

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

                        ^^ that's it, value above replacement. Not that when Orlando comes in for Paul he always guards who Paul was guarding. It seems like more often than not Lance takes over who Paul was guarding, if Lance is on the floor.

                        Which shows how good PG is, since Lance is no slouch.

                        The lesser dropoff to Mahinmi may be a little misleading since I think Frank is pretty careful to not put Ian in when he has an especially tough matchup, and as we discussed in another thread, probably no other position on the court has such a big dropoff in talent as starting center vs. backup center. Even though there's not that many really good centers, the number of even marginally capable backup centers is very low so Ian's individual matchup is not overwhelming and he can focus on helping out.
                        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-12-2013, 12:44 PM.
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: TrueHoop piece about defense with Pacers section

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          Anyone have an explanation as to why according to this PG is more important to our defense than Roy. Or am I mireading this?

                          Skewed result based on the percentage of perimeter shots teams have to take against the Pacers? It would be more effective when Paul goes out and would not suddenly change to inside drives when Roy goes out.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X