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

PG at the 4 Question

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

  • #31
    Re: PG at the 4 Question

    Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
    Wouldn't the lineup be bigger/better with either Rodney or C.J. at the 2 giving us a better primary ball handler like G. Hill or Ellis playing with the 2nd unit and more size in both lineups? This team is beginning to get me stoked for some Basketball!
    GHill and Ellis are only going to be the floor together about 18 minutes per game.

    Assuming GHill is the starting PG, he averages 31 mpg in his career since coming to Indiana. That leaves 17 mpg open at PG. Ellis has averaged 35 mpg for his career. He will just slide over to PG for 17 mpg. The remaining18 mpg is when GHill and Ellis will be on the floor together.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: PG at the 4 Question

      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      No that is not what that means. Its not PG and the gang against the other team. IF PG frees up Monta with his screens then that is very deadly.
      I get this. But this would be achieved without moving PG to the 4, if PG is still gonna get defended by the opposing 3.

      PG lines up at the 3, is guarded by the opposing 3. So we run a 2/3 PnR with Ellis/PG. If they switch, you have a 3 guarding a 2, and a 2 guarding PG.
      PG lines up at the 4, is guarded by the opposing 3. So we run a 2/4 PnR with Ellis/PG. If they switch, you have a 3 guarding a 2, and a 2 guarding PG.


      Sure, it will create more space coming off those screens, as the opposing 4 will be guarding Miles/Budinger/Solo in the corner but it doesn't do anything for PG. Helping PG offensively is what Bird said moving PG to the 4 would accomplish. It won't, unless opposing teams are dumb.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: PG at the 4 Question

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        I get this. But this would be achieved without moving PG to the 4, if PG is still gonna get defended by the opposing 3.

        PG lines up at the 3, is guarded by the opposing 3. So we run a 2/3 PnR with Ellis/PG. If they switch, you have a 3 guarding a 2, and a 2 guarding PG.
        PG lines up at the 4, is guarded by the opposing 3. So we run a 2/4 PnR with Ellis/PG. If they switch, you have a 3 guarding a 2, and a 2 guarding PG.


        Sure, it will create more space coming off those screens, as the opposing 4 will be guarding Miles/Budinger/Solo in the corner but it doesn't do anything for PG. Helping PG offensively is what Bird said moving PG to the 4 would accomplish. It won't, unless opposing teams are dumb.
        You are missing the other option. PG can run the pnr as well and have a screen set for him which would either free him up or force a switch. That to me could be done with CJ or our only big on the floor (JHill) but in either case its not a good situation for the opposing defense because both CJ and PG can hit the three and Jordan Hill is fast enough to be an adequate roll man so if he screens for PG the slow footed Center will not get much help in this case because that PF is guarded CJ on the perimeter.

        So if you want me to break it down like you just did..

        PG lines up at the 4, is guarded by the 3. So we run a 4/5 pnr. IF they switch you have a 3 guarding a 5 and 5 guarding a 4 in this case which is the matchup that Bird is looking for. IF they don't switch then you hit Hill as role man or have the space PG needs to get his shot off.

        Either way you can

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: PG at the 4 Question

          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
          PG lines up at the 4, is guarded by the 3. So we run a 4/5 pnr. IF they switch you have a 3 guarding a 5 and 5 guarding a 4 in this case which is the matchup that Bird is looking for. IF they don't switch then you hit Hill as role man or have the space PG needs to get his shot off.

          Either way you can
          With your above scenario, it works exactly the same if PG is the 3.

          Where PG lines up offensively, for all intents and purposes, won't matter because he'll be guarded by the same defender regardless.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: PG at the 4 Question

            I'd rather have who ever is gonna be the other wing be the de facto 4. Budinger would probably be the best option (assuming he's healthy) and then Solo and then CJ. CJ being the worst defensive option.

            Offensively, it's not going to matter for PG because he'll see the best wing defender regardless if he's a 3 or 4.
            Defensively, I'd rather have PG out on the perimeter guarding the opposing best wing and disrupting the passing lanes since PG gets so many deflections. Putting PG on a post player minimizes his defensive impact.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: PG at the 4 Question

              This all goes back to what I was saying about coaching is overrated. It's sounds more like Bird the president wants to play PG at the four and play small ball. It's his vision. Just like in New York all you hear about is the damn Triangle offense because Phil Jackson is there. He ain't even the damn coach! I swear the media just pushes that out there so badly for some reason.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: PG at the 4 Question

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                Pretty much every EC playoff team utilized a big PF/C combo last year. Even the Cavs and Hawks who utilize 4 men who can shoot, have PF's that can play inside on the block.
                This is not really true for every playoff team in the East and lets take the Hawks for example. Milsap was not used on the block much and ppp on post ups were bad and worse than Jordan Hill just to use a comparison.

                You can go to 82 games and see the line ups used by every team. Bucks used Ilysasova and Parker mostly. Boston on post ups were pretty bad as well from their bigs and I guess Sullinger is the only one half way decent. Hornerts did even post up for Zeller and rarely did for Williams. Raps used Johnson mostly at the 4 and he had 0.67 ppp on post ups but of course he signed with Boston. The Wiz probably post up the most from the wings to the bigs but Nene had the highest post ups but was only 0.74 ppp. Nets used Thad Young mostly at he PF position but I guess I could see an old KG given you problems there.

                So I guess what I am saying is that I am not too worried either way. MOst teams are using those PF as roll man not posting them up all the time. I would be more worried about the rebounding than getting destroyed by Thad young or Milsap on the block.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: PG at the 4 Question

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  With your above scenario, it works exactly the same if PG is the 3.

                  Where PG lines up offensively, for all intents and purposes, won't matter because he'll be guarded by the same defender regardless.
                  Not if he forces the switch. That is the PG on the 5 then and if they don't switch then that puts him with enough room to hit his three or drive in and the opposing big pf who is supposedly on the Chase/Cj out of position to help the Center.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: PG at the 4 Question

                    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                    Not if he forces the switch. That is the PG on the 5 then and if they don't switch then that puts him with enough room to hit his three or drive in and the opposing big pf who is supposedly on the Chase/Cj out of position to help the Center.
                    If PG is the 4, guarded by the 3, and runs a 4/5 PnR with a switch he ends up with the 5 guarding him.
                    If PG is the 3, guarded by the 3, and runs a 3/5 PnR with a switch he ends up with the 5 guarding him.

                    The variable isn't where PG is lined up. The variable is who is guarding PG.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: PG at the 4 Question

                      Re: Paul and deflections

                      I don't think it matters much who PG is guarding. If he's guarding a stronger player, he's going to make their life difficult. If he's guarding a weaker player that nonetheless is a part of the offense, he can pretty easily help off of him and recover.

                      I think some of what makes Paul great is that he can make life difficult for 2 guys at a time because of his length and quickness. He can appear to come way out of position to help off his man but still get back in time. And by the time that happens, the other team just lost 5 seconds off the shot clock and their play is dead in the water. Oh, and the guy trying to make something happen is being guarded by Paul George.
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: PG at the 4 Question

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        This is exactly why if we have to use PG at the 4 (which I'm not on board with) I'd rather see Solo play the 3. I think his size, strength and defensive potential outweighs the offensive potential of Budinger.
                        Solo is not a good defender. I don't know why people keep saying this but he wasn't good defensively this past season. He's average at best.

                        Regarding the original question, I think that the running PG at 4 will work out well against 80% of the league. He's a very good rebounder when he has to play closer to the basket and has the lateral quickness to move, switch, or recover if necessary on defense. There are some matchups that he's going to struggle against but the Pacers can just go with a more traditional PF like Allen or Whittington if necessary.

                        He'll be playing the 4 like Dremond Green and Harrison Barnes have been able to do successfully against bigger players. However, just because PG may play a lot of minutes at the 4 doesn't mean he is locked into that position the entire game.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: PG at the 4 Question

                          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                          Re: Paul and deflections

                          I don't think it matters much who PG is guarding. If he's guarding a stronger player, he's going to make their life difficult. If he's guarding a weaker player that nonetheless is a part of the offense, he can pretty easily help off of him and recover.

                          It's not about who PG is guarding, as so much as where he's physically at on the playing floor. Defenders have more opportunities, and better opportunities, to get deflections/steals when on the wing than they do from the post.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: PG at the 4 Question

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            If PG is the 4, guarded by the 3, and runs a 4/5 PnR with a switch he ends up with the 5 guarding him.
                            If PG is the 3, guarded by the 3, and runs a 3/5 PnR with a switch he ends up with the 5 guarding him.

                            The variable isn't where PG is lined up. The variable is who is guarding PG.
                            Ah I see what you are saying now. The reason why it the high pnr works though is that its harder to switch on a 3/5 than it is on 2/3 (monta and Paul). This is why the point guards like John Wall use it so heavily is because the switch is so undesirable that it forces the big into recover and the defender out of position.

                            The variable may seem like it is the same but the defense has less options on the PG pnr 3/5. Now if Paul runs the screen for MOnta then Monta getting POrtis will generate a favorable look for Ellis since there is no way Portis can stay with Monta.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: PG at the 4 Question

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              If PG is the 4, guarded by the 3, and runs a 4/5 PnR with a switch he ends up with the 5 guarding him.
                              If PG is the 3, guarded by the 3, and runs a 3/5 PnR with a switch he ends up with the 5 guarding him.

                              The variable isn't where PG is lined up. The variable is who is guarding PG.
                              Yeah, the switches by themselves isn't what changes. What changes dramatically is how the defense guards the play. If PG and Miles run a pick and roll, the defense is in a really tough spot. They would usually switch when two wings run it, but that would leave a big isolated against PG. With a big man defender in the pick and roll, they would usually have PG's defender go over the screen and have the big man head back towards the paint. But they can't do that in this case because Miles can easily pop out to the 3 point line. So they will often have to do something exotic with help rotations, which can be broken down.

                              IMO, it's not wrong to say this move would help PG's offensive game even if he's guarded by the same person initially. Teams are going to have to make much tougher decisions against him than they ever have on that end.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: PG at the 4 Question

                                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                                Yeah, the switches by themselves isn't what changes. What changes dramatically is how the defense guards the play. If PG and Miles run a pick and roll, the defense is in a really tough spot. They would usually switch when two wings run it, but that would leave a big isolated against PG. With a big man defender in the pick and roll, they would usually have PG's defender go over the screen and have the big man head back towards the paint. But they can't do that in this case because Miles can easily pop out to the 3 point line. So they will often have to do something exotic with help rotations, which can be broken down.
                                I get all that. My question is, why not have CJ be the 4? (I would prefer Budinger, if he's healthy, due to his size and I think CJ would be a great scoring punch off the bench with Stuckey.)

                                I get the benefits of having a stretch 4, whether it's an 4 playing up or just a *regular* stretch 4 like Copeland. I'm saying I'd rather another player be the 4 for two main reasons. 1. Because Paul will still be guarded by the 3, not the 4 and 2. Because putting PG on a 4, minimizes his defensive impact on the perimeter.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X