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

Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games. Updated post #106 with a good article

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

  • #91
    Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

    Originally posted by Rogco View Post
    I think there is a misconception about the three point line. Of course the introduction of the three pointer changed how the game is played, but not by taking away any single part of the game. Instead it added an additional element. It allows for more excitement at the end of games (as leads can be erased quicker), and greatly increases the pressure on defenses to get back and to defend more space. The increase in the three point shot has not lead to an increase in points per game (quite the opposite, nearly a drop of 10 or more points per game, with a 20 point dip through a large chunk of the 90s) or true shooting percentage. The thing is there are still 2 point shots, still dunks, and still everything else that was prominent in the early 80s. If anything, the main effect of the three point shot is it has decreased the amount of free throws attempted per game. IMO, watching a guy shoot free throws is not a very exciting part of the game, so I don't really have a problem with it.
    3's can certainly erase a deficit quickly. And that's obviously the perception of what it does. But I wonder how many time a deficit wouldn't be as large in the first place without 3's in the game? We've all seen games where some team gets hot from 3 early, and snowballs you.

    Also, I wonder how many late game deficits are actually increased when the opposing team starts spraying and praying and actually makes the hole bigger versus shoots themselves back into the game?
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

      I think I would say it like this, "Love it or hate it, some of the best teams in 2014-15 used the 3 point shot to win games."

      One of the beauties of basketball is there's no one right way to play it; multiple approaches can be utilized to great effect, if you have the right players and coaches to do so effectively/efficiently.

      This year, we saw multiple teams who can kill teams with 3's (though let's not forget that that's not the only thing those teams were good at; they have to have multiple dimensions of quality in order to be that successful). We also saw Memphis be pretty good with a very different style, to name the obvious example.

      The NBA evolves every season for various reasons, and it's reflected in changes to the rosters, changes in styles, coaches adjusting their sets and individual plays, and what the players decide to work on in their individual games. Not to forget that each year coaches come, go, or adjust, as do the players, and sometimes even the front offices/owners. Rules change, and each season the league/referees choose their points of emphasis, which also plays a role. It all adds up, and no matter what the results are, philosophically it's always a struggle between teams trying to enforce their will and simultaneously trying to oppose the will of their opponent.

      Lately, one of the most notable changes has been a greater quantity and quality of players who can shoot from long range, which in turn makes the 3 a more efficient option, something that GMs and coaches of course realize. The three point shot is an obvious and sensible choice for a lot of teams right now, and I don't see players losing this ability, but of course the moment (if and when) enough new players enter the picture who are exceptionally talented in ways that focus on elite post play, things will change again because coaches will want to maximize that talent, and then that forces the other coaches to adjust to counter it.

      How good or bad that is depends on personal taste and the team's overall efficiency at doing whatever it is the team hopes to do.

      Personally, I'm up for just about any style that strikes me as well-done. If it's players who create and hit their own shots at a high level, that's cool. If it's a team that can take and make a ton of 3's, that's cool. If the top talent on the team is terrific at dribble-penetration, that's cool. If it's a team that just dominates the paint by hitting a high % and finding the open man/cutter when doubled, that's cool too. Also cool, a team that is filled with good passers who just work the ball around and find whatever the most open shot is before they take it and often make it. Whatever the case may be, odds are they are not one-dimensional and are a mixture of the above anyway.

      For me, the type of basketball I tend to dislike is whenever a team is just not very good at whatever they're trying to do; it doesn't really matter to me which style it is. Whether they're one dimensional, or just so-so at multiple things, or terrible all around, once they face good defense, it's almost always going to get ugly.

      Essentially, basketball is always going to come down to some given mixture of talent, execution, health, and probably some luck; it's just a matter of what shape or form it all takes and whatever those given multiple dimensions end up being.

      Oh, and hi everyone.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

        Oh hello.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

          Great point Hicks. Glad to see you post again.

          The 90's were influenced by Shaq and teams had to have some beef in the paint just to contend with him. Otherwise, he shoots 100% from the floor. If another completely dominating physical presence enters the league, that will shift things once again. The current style isn't "the best" necessarily. It's just the most effective at this stage of NBA history.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

            Steph leading the revolution

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...kets/27891693/

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

              Somebody from another board brought this up: The real revolution that led to this change in offensive play was Tom Thibodeau's defense with the Celts in 2008.

              Recall that the Illegal Defense rule was eliminated by the league in 2001/2002. So teams could play pretty much any type of defense they wanted. Teams would throw out a zone defense for a few minutes here and there just to throw off an opposing offense's rhythm, but it wasn't used very widely.

              But Tom Thibodeau was the first guy to realize utilize the new defensive rules when he joined the Celtics. He'd zone up parts of the floor, and most of the time it'd be on the strong side of the floor. He'd commit a "half" defender on the strong side against an offensive player that was good one on one. So now in the playoffs, you have situation where someone like Harrison Barnes can guard Zach Randolph with "Half" of a defender (Bogut or Draymond Green) always lurking nearby.

              This wouldn't have been possible with the rules in the 80s/90s. Back then, you'd have to defend a guy like Z-Bo straight up with a legit bigman.

              So now teams have really taken to that concept of zoning up the strong side. Now you also have more players than ever that can defend multiple positions and can constantly switch. Multi positional defenders are what's currently en vogue and it adds to the defensive complexity of things.

              So offensive had to re-invent themselves to counter this, and the 3 is a big part of that strategy. Whatever the case, you simply can't play offense these days the way you did in the 80s/90s. Unless you've got a once in a generation game changing big like Shaq/Kareem/Wilt, you can't just play the same with the same dumbed down offensive strategies of the older era. Defenses these days are just a lot more complex and varied for that. Again, it goes back to the elimination of the Illegal D rule and then Tom Thibodeau figuring out how to take advantage of that.
              Last edited by d_c; 05-25-2015, 04:34 PM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                Zach Lowe's article this morning seemed appropriate to share here. Basically going over many things already discussed, plus the fall and potential rise of the post up game, along with going away from stretch 4's and emphasizing what's called playmaking 4's. Including a lot of quotes from big time NBA people and accompanying video examples. Very good read:

                http://grantland.com/the-triangle/we...u-its-rebirth/

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                  Originally posted by d_c View Post
                  Somebody from another board brought this up: The real revolution that led to this change in offensive play was Tom Thibodeau's defense with the Celts in 2008.

                  Recall that the Illegal Defense rule was eliminated by the league in 2001/2002. So teams could play pretty much any type of defense they wanted. Teams would throw out a zone defense for a few minutes here and there just to throw off an opposing offense's rhythm, but it wasn't used very widely.

                  But Tom Thibodeau was the first guy to realize utilize the new defensive rules when he joined the Celtics. He'd zone up parts of the floor, and most of the time it'd be on the strong side of the floor. He'd commit a "half" defender on the strong side against an offensive player that was good one on one. So now in the playoffs, you have situation where someone like Harrison Barnes can guard Zach Randolph with "Half" of a defender (Bogut or Draymond Green) always lurking nearby.

                  This wouldn't have been possible with the rules in the 80s/90s. Back then, you'd have to defend a guy like Z-Bo straight up with a legit bigman.

                  So now teams have really taken to that concept of zoning up the strong side. Now you also have more players than ever that can defend multiple positions and can constantly switch. Multi positional defenders are what's currently en vogue and it adds to the defensive complexity of things.

                  So offensive had to re-invent themselves to counter this, and the 3 is a big part of that strategy. Whatever the case, you simply can't play offense these days the way you did in the 80s/90s. Unless you've got a once in a generation game changing big like Shaq/Kareem/Wilt, you can't just play the same with the same dumbed down offensive strategies of the older era. Defenses these days are just a lot more complex and varied for that. Again, it goes back to the elimination of the Illegal D rule and then Tom Thibodeau figuring out how to take advantage of that.

                  Yes all true, except there was another coach who coached the Pacers who started that style of defense a couple of years before Thibs.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                    Rarer than a unicorn...

                    Comment


                    • Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      Zach Lowe's article this morning seemed appropriate to share here. Basically going over many things already discussed, plus the fall and potential rise of the post up game, along with going away from stretch 4's and emphasizing what's called playmaking 4's. Including a lot of quotes from big time NBA people and accompanying video examples. Very good read:

                      http://grantland.com/the-triangle/we...u-its-rebirth/

                      excellent article. My take-away from it is teams most have multi-talented players at every position. They must be able to defend, shoot, pass, dribble, play-make, rebound. This is perhaps not new, but it used to be teams could have a specialist. A defender, a shooter, a play-maker, a post defender. Can't do that anymore, you need 5 players on the court who can do as many things as possible and the best teams (Warriors) have the greatest number of multi-dimensional players.

                      Obviously Paul George fits this perfectly. but the rest of our roster, I don't think we have enough of those players. They don't have to be as overall talented as PG,
                      Last edited by Unclebuck; 05-26-2015, 11:07 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        excellent article. My take-away from it is teams most have multi-talented players at every position. They must be able to defend, shoot, pass, dribble, play-make, rebound. This is perhaps not new, but it used to be teams could have a specialist. A defender, a shooter, a play-maker, a post defender. Can't do that anymore, you need 5 players on the court who can do as many things as possible and the best teams (Warriors) have the greatest number of multi-dimensional players.
                        Yup. And perhaps this is driving the move towards small ball. Big men who are both tall and multi-skilled are extremely rare. It is simply easier to build a multi-talented team with smaller guys.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          excellent article. My take-away from it is teams most have multi-talented players at every position. They must be able to defend, shoot, pass, dribble, play-make, rebound. This is perhaps not new, but it used to be teams could have a specialist. A defender, a shooter, a play-maker, a post defender. Can't do that anymore, you need 5 players on the court who can do as many things as possible and the best teams (Warriors) have the greatest number of multi-dimensional players.

                          Obviously Paul George fits this perfectly. but the rest of our roster, I don't think we have enough of those players. They don't have to be as overall talented as PG,
                          Haha, all true, except there was another coach who coached the Pacers who wanted that style of roster a couple years before JOB (and Carlisle)

                          Comment


                          • Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                            Haha, all true, except there was another coach who coached the Pacers who wanted that style of roster a couple years before JOB (and Carlisle)
                            Players who could play multiple positions has been a philosophy of our GMs for more than a decade, coach in and coach out. It has actually only been comparatively recently that we tried to narrow our focus to guys who could do one thing really well instead of multiple things at an OK level. That's more an effect of trying to find the missing piece of a win now team rather than a change in philosophy.
                            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


                            • Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                              Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                              Haha, all true, except there was another coach who coached the Pacers who wanted that style of roster a couple years before JOB (and Carlisle)
                              NO ..... not .............THE QUICK.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                excellent article. My take-away from it is teams most have multi-talented players at every position. They must be able to defend, shoot, pass, dribble, play-make, rebound. This is perhaps not new, but it used to be teams could have a specialist. A defender, a shooter, a play-maker, a post defender. Can't do that anymore, you need 5 players on the court who can do as many things as possible and the best teams (Warriors) have the greatest number of multi-dimensional players.

                                Obviously Paul George fits this perfectly. but the rest of our roster, I don't think we have enough of those players. They don't have to be as overall talented as PG,
                                This is really what I've been seeing more than say the three point shot being such a focal point. You just need skilled players at all positions. Being tall and strong just isn't enough anymore for a big man.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X