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

A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

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

  • A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

    I predicted this would be George Hill's big year. Of course before the season even started he gets hurt and it wasn't until late January before he finally got completely healthy again.

    By then I feared he wouldn't have enough games to prove how good he was, but he had an incredible season anyways.

    Even now tho, people still don't have a completely accurate perspective of how good he was this year.

    Here's the comparison between Hill and everyones favorite should be perennial allstar, Mike Conley:

    I like the comparison between the two, because I've always thought the two were very similar players in a lot of aspects. Both have nearly the same experience tho Hill is 1 year older. Both Naptown guards are characterized by playing smart, careful, unselfish games. Both guards do a fantastic job of being the captains of their teams and keeping their teammates involved. They dictate the pace of their team, and carefully involve their teammates, making sure no one goes without touches.

    However, because of our skewed perspective, it is Conley who gets universal praise around the NBA, and Hill who's simply an afterthought.

    In fairness tho, Conley has had the opportunity to do what he's done for the last 3 years, while Hill has repeatedly had to fight bad coaching strategies that kept the ball out of his hand. With this past season being the first season he's really got the chance to show what he can do, he shined. He put up better numbers than Mike Conley across the board. More points, more efficiently, more assists, less turnovers. This, with Hill struggling to find his shot. It wasn't a surprise either- Hill has always been very good at getting to the rim, but has been relegated to a fifth option, spotting up almost his entire time in Indiana. With the chance to do more with the bar, it wasn't a surprise to see him once again successfully attack the rim with ease.

    It's never been a surprise, because as much as people complain about a lack of talent, Hill's always had talent in spades. He's got the size and physicality most NBA points would dream of. It's the reason he scored an easy 61% shooting at the rim this year, while guards like Steph Curry took years before they learned how to score at the rim. Hill can drive and use his body and long arms to score easy layups, while nearly every layup Curry attempts is an awe inspiring display of skill, simply because he has too- he doesn't have the size and physicality to give himself easy drives to the rim.



    I've also included shot charts comparing Hill and Conley.

    Hill:



    Conley

    Last edited by mattie; 05-18-2015, 04:52 AM.

  • #2
    Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

    I can't seem to get the shot charts posted. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

      Here you go

      Hill


      Conley


      Though I'm not sure what your point is with the shot charts.
      Last edited by wintermute; 05-18-2015, 05:05 AM. Reason: removed images which are now in first post

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
        Here you go

        Though I'm not sure what your point is with the shot charts.
        Thanks.

        I mentioned how good Hill was at scoring at the rim. I wanted the shot charts to prove my point. That's all.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

          Originally posted by mattie View Post
          In fairness tho, Conley has had the opportunity to do what he's done for the last 3 years, while Hill has repeatedly had to fight bad coaching strategies that kept the ball out of his hand. With this past season being the first season he's really got the chance to show what he can do, he shined.
          Please stop pushing this narrative about George Hill being held back by Frank Vogel. George Hill dedicated himself to improving his game over the past offseason and came into training camp with a different attitude and aggressiveness than years before. He recognized that the team needed more from him, and he delivered in a big way. He deserves a lot of credit for that, and by suggesting that he's the same player he's always been is a disservice not only to Frank Vogel but also to George Hill himself.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

            Frank has proven himself to be one of the better coaches in the NBA, and the only person to blame for George Hill having an off year in 2013-2014 is George Hill.
            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

              Originally posted by LG33 View Post
              Please stop pushing this narrative about George Hill being held back by Frank Vogel. George Hill dedicated himself to improving his game over the past offseason and came into training camp with a different attitude and aggressiveness than years before. He recognized that the team needed more from him, and he delivered in a big way. He deserves a lot of credit for that, and by suggesting that he's the same player he's always been is a disservice not only to Frank Vogel but also to George Hill himself.
              I have to agree with mattie, at least as far as 2013-14. Vogel wanted George and Stephenson handling the ball more and GHill being more in the role of a 3 point threat to spread the floor. As GHill stated last fall, he sold that piece of real estate.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

                Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                Frank has proven himself to be one of the better coaches in the NBA, and the only person to blame for George Hill having an off year in 2013-2014 is George Hill.
                You can have a good coach and a good player and yet have a strategy that doesn't maximize that player's ability. It isn't always about "coach sux" or "player sux".
                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


                • #9
                  Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

                  Originally posted by LG33 View Post
                  Please stop pushing this narrative about George Hill being held back by Frank Vogel. George Hill dedicated himself to improving his game over the past offseason and came into training camp with a different attitude and aggressiveness than years before. He recognized that the team needed more from him, and he delivered in a big way. He deserves a lot of credit for that, and by suggesting that he's the same player he's always been is a disservice not only to Frank Vogel but also to George Hill himself.
                  I understand that most people believe that George Hill simply turned into a different player this year. I get that. I don't believe it one bit.

                  Now sure, I believe he as a player has slowly grown into what he is today, with small nuanced improvements to his game, but overall, He's essentially the same player that he was in 12-13 but with more opportunities.

                  The biggest change you'll see over Hill's career is in his second season in Indiana he GREATLY improved his 3point range. He used to be a corner three only threat. Now oddly enough, he isn't even good from the corners and hasn't been for a long time.

                  There is no doubt he's slowly become a much better passer. He's the best passer he has ever been today. But I'd argue that merely the reps themselves improve that- In other words, give him the ball and ask him to create and over time he'll become much better at it. In fact, if you notice this season which is the first season where he was truly given the ball, his assists went up as the season went on. And not because of increased minutes either, as he was dominating the ball more and more, he found more ways to get his teammates involved. I have ZERO doubt he would have done the same thing in the 13-14 season had he been given the ball.

                  If you compare his numbers from 12-13 to this season you'll see this: His points went up at roughly 5ppg per 36. But his assists went up only 1.6APG per 36. I'd argue the assists were merely a by product of more attempts! Noticing he shot 59% at the rim as a rookie, and 61% this year, his ability to get to the rim hasn't changed one bit.

                  I know people want to talk about his supposed growth by I don't see it. I see a massive change in his role from year to year, but other than his three point shooting? He has not changed much at a shooter.

                  Now don't get me wrong- I do get annoyed when people seem to ignore the progress and growth of players- Dwayne Wade and Kobe came into the league both with the inability to dribble with their left hand. MJ, who's remembered as having maybe the greatest mid range jumper of all time, couldn't shouldn't worth a ****. Players constantly grow-

                  But I'd love for someone to point out one thing that you saw Hill improve upon last year to this past year? His dribbling? No. It was about to the same. I don't see anything new. His shooting? Well he actually shot worse this year from long distance. His worst long distance shooting since he was a rookie. His passing? Again, he makes a lot of the same passes that we saw him make in 12-13. Only THIS year? He's not subjected to making entry passes to post players but instead was given the ball.

                  I respect what you and nearly everyone else is saying but I disagree- Hill's role reversal is the primary reason his numbers are up.

                  If you see here, you'll notice in his second year in the league Hill was very good at getting to the rim, just as good as he showed this past season:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

                    Originally posted by LG33 View Post
                    Please stop pushing this narrative about George Hill being held back by Frank Vogel. George Hill dedicated himself to improving his game over the past offseason and came into training camp with a different attitude and aggressiveness than years before. He recognized that the team needed more from him, and he delivered in a big way. He deserves a lot of credit for that, and by suggesting that he's the same player he's always been is a disservice not only to Frank Vogel but also to George Hill himself.
                    Or you could say, "He was asked to do more, because the team needed him to do more."

                    Which would dovetail right into the roles George was asked to play, which is exactly mattie's point.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      You can have a good coach and a good player and yet have a strategy that doesn't maximize that player's ability. It isn't always about "coach sux" or "player sux".
                      THIS.

                      I think Frank Vogel is a FANTASTIC coach.

                      I also think he's had a lot of troubling figuring out how to create an offense- Not all of it is entirely his fault either. You can't blame him for trying to create a post oriented offense that originally worked in 11-12- But Roy and David both didn't necessarily deliver on their end of the bargain.

                      I've also criticized the lack of shooting on this team for a long time. We should note, that they havne't exactly had that many people on the team that could shoot anyways. You could blame Larry for that. Or Danny's injury....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

                        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                        Frank has proven himself to be one of the better coaches in the NBA, and the only person to blame for George Hill having an off year in 2013-2014 is George Hill.

                        Originally posted by LG33 View Post
                        lease stop pushing this narrative about George Hill being held back by Frank Vogel. George Hill dedicated himself to improving his game over the past offseason and came into training camp with a different attitude and aggressiveness than years before.

                        George Hill and Lance Stephenson swapped roles as the offense's primary ball handler/initiator during our back to back ECF seasons. This led to less opportunities with the ball in Hill's hands.

                        I tend to agree with Mattie in that G.Hill has always been a talented offensive player, as he showed during 2012/2013, and during his tenure as a Spur. This offseason he definitely pushed himself to the limit and improved his game, but there isn't a single thing we saw him do this year, that he hadn't shown he could do in the past - when given the opportunity.

                        The biggest change with Hill this year from last wasn't his skill, it was his aggressiveness and confidence in knowing that he was going to have the ball as opposed to chilling in the corner waiting for a kick out pass.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

                          I honestly don't see a single thing George Hill has improved on in the last 2 years.

                          There are raw players, that make massive improvements over their careers, and then sometimes there are guys that come in that essentially stay the same over the course of their career. Guys like David West and George Hill. Other than nuanced shooting improvements, their games didn't change, and I'd argue it isn't from a lack of work. I'd argue they essentially had well rounded games when they came in the league.

                          Now Hill is a better, shooter, passer and defender than he was 6 years ago, but all of those improvements are small improvements, and hard to notice.

                          Meanwhile, PG now and PG 4 years ago don't even look like the same player. But then look at the difference at PG and Hill's career. Hill was a god in highschool. PG hadn't made his mark yet. Then he had a massive growth spurt, which meant he needed to put on a lot of muscle to fill out his now lanky body. He wasn't that great of a ball handler, mostly probably because of this growth, you grow a lot, you have to adept to that height, it means you in a way need to relearn how to dribble.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

                            Look at George Hill from a year ago:

                            Other than Lance Stephenson being out this game, what's the difference? What am I missing?



                            He threw up 37-9-8 that game.

                            I get it's one game. But that's my point. They gave him the opportunity he produced. He's always had the ability. If he didn't have the ability he wouldn't be able to put up a game like that-

                            And note- That game wasn't an example of George Hill getting "hot". It was a ton of layups, assists to David West, and little floaters, the same plays he's been doing for years. There was just more of it. It wasn't like he just got hot and hit 10 3's. He just shot more. And attacked more.

                            Because Lance was out.
                            Last edited by mattie; 05-18-2015, 10:26 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A look back at George Hill's 14-15 Season

                              Check out what George Hill has to say for himself.

                              http://www.indycornrows.com/2015/5/5...and-the-pacers

                              Mere opportunity wasn't the reason for the upgrade in production, though, as Hill explained in his post-season Pacers.com interview. Nope, the regular season results were a product of the work put in over the summer when Hill stayed home and work with a member of the Pacers' staff to improve his game.

                              "I worked with one of our workout guys, Mike DiBenedetto here last summer," Hill explained. "He did a good job with me, really working out every day, working on my game."

                              Not only did Hill's individual numbers improve, but so did the team when Hill was on the floor. Hill only played in about half (43) of the Pacers games but when he was available the Pacers won 60 percent (26-17) of their games.

                              "Mike was the key," Hill said. "He really stayed on me all summer, not letting me take days off, not letting me settle. He pushed me every day."

                              After putting in the time last summer, Hill was able to put in work on the floor. With the return of Paul George, Hill's role will change, but maintaining those type of numbers and remaining a key cog on the offensive end will remain critical as the Pacers expect to move back toward the top of the Eastern Conference.

                              So if it ain't broke, don't fix it. DiBenedetto is a do-whatever-you-need member of the Pacers staff who does most of his work in the video room but, following a path carved by Frank Vogel, not all of his work. So he will be ready for the call when Hill is ready to work.

                              "I'm going to do the same thing this year, work with him all summer and hopefully take my game from where it is now to another level."

                              If successful, Hill might be able to take the Pacers to another level, as well.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X