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

Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

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

  • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    Remember, this was every game for a two month stretch during the regular season. I know exactly how Bird felt during those losses because I was watching them thinking the same thing "We shouldn't be losing these games." And like you said, in the end it comes down to coaching. Frank wasn't good enough, which is why he's gone.

    As much as I like Frank as a person (and it feels like everything said about him is prefaced with what a great guy he is) I don't think he'll ever be a championship coach. You have to be more creative or more tactical than Frank is.
    Kenny Smith has a theory that I thought was interesting. He thinks that if you lose by more than 7 that's on the players for not bringing the effort or not being as good, but under 7 then it's on the coaching staff. Chuck thought it was BS, but it makes some sense to me. We lost a lot of games down stretch and you can't pin all those on the players IMO.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      You have every right to believe that consistency is more about motivation but I disagree. Consistency is a skill. Or, to be more precise, it's a trait that augments your skills. In order to be consistent at something you first have to be truly good at something. For example, if you're not a truly good defender you'll never manage to become consistently good at it. Similarly, if you're not a truly good offensive player then you'll never manage to be consistent offensively.

      The Pacers do not have truly good offensive players. PG is a fantastic all-around player, one of the best (if not the best) NBA Pacers and one of the top 10 players in the league but he isn't there offensively. Not yet at least.
      Isn't there offensively? Did you miss the playoffs?




      And before the injury...




      And this article really breaks down just how good PG is offensively. He has to create SO much, it's really incredible when you see the breakdown...

      Pick and Roll: Kawhi Leonard Vs Paul George

      http://bballbreakdown.com/2015/12/21...s-paul-george/

      Top 10 scorer a year after his leg injury. Second leading scoring average in the playoffs. Dude is 100% a great offensive player.

      To think you don't believe PG is even good on offense shows the overall disconnect.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

        It's just opinion, but I really like their work. Maybe other value their opinion too. But Here's BB take on Leonard or Paul George...




        I'm baffled people think Paul George isn't good offensively. What??

        Missed an entire year, comes back and is the 10th leading scorer while having to initiate just about everything we did last season. Rarely gets assisted. Could you imagine PG in a better offensive system? Or maybe a better point guard, or maybe just using GHill properly or maybe both of those things.

        If there is one thing to hope for, its that our already elite scorer was doing so in a bad offense and is about to blow up with more efficient game plans.
        Last edited by freddielewis14; 05-15-2016, 09:54 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

          I didn't know Nuntius even cared about offense?

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

            I agree Toronto was better from a depth standpoint, but our starting unit was better, our star player was better, our perimeter D was better, and the series simply was set up perfectly for the taking. Bird obviously thinks Vogel should have been able to get us beyond it. And he's watching the Toronto - Miami series thinking, we may be a flawed team but we could have taken this series as well. Rather meh on McMillan, but hope it works out.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

              Sounds like a lot of issues Frank purportedly had...except even worse.
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                I agree Toronto was better from a depth standpoint, but our starting unit was better, our star player was better, our perimeter D was better, and the series simply was set up perfectly for the taking. Bird obviously thinks Vogel should have been able to get us beyond it. And he's watching the Toronto - Miami series thinking, we may be a flawed team but we could have taken this series as well. Rather meh on McMillan, but hope it works out.
                And they owned us in the paint just like they did Miami

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  Anything that is less than 45 wins and an ECF berth should be considered a failure. Those are the expectations Bird had for Frank, so the guy replacing him should have the same expectations.
                  You guys are being unrealistic and creating a goal that isn't anything that Bird said himself for the next coach. Especially when you try and project it to next season and refuse to consider short term losses might be part of the process versus where the team is at the end of next season in their progress. Or where they are 2 seasons from now.
                  It's all part of a process.
                  Vogel had his process, and ultimately he didn't show much offensive growth and/or control of the team. Nor did his X and O's and game management look all that impressive. Which could be on his X and O knowledge and ability to teach, or could be on his ability to control the team. Ultimately, it might not be Vogel's command of the game that cost him his job versus a lack of command of the players.
                  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


                  • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    No, it didn't cost us more than one game. That's complete hyperbole.

                    Although I disagree with the idea, it could be debated that it cost us game 5. We were still up 7 with the ball when the G2 zone re-entered the game.
                    That's the thing, Vogel let Toronto build a wave of momentum before he finally sent G2 back into the game. It was much too late. Game 5 was in the books. Toronto had nothing left. Only way they could get back into the game, and gain some confidence, is if we played our backups. Frank gave them confidence by playing our bench players, which previously surrendered a big lead in the second quarter. Basically, Frank had no reason at all to go back to the reserves to start the fourth quarter. Once we realized the bench was not going to build or hold the lead, which was apparent very quickly, Frank should have put the starters right back in. Instead, he waited for the last possible moment to take out the reserves. He was coaching reactively, not proactively. Seems like a stubborn and arrogant coaching move he used, which cost us the game and the series.
                    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                      Looking at McMillain's last few playoff runs as head coach, looks like he plays an 8 man rotation compared to Vogel's 10.

                      Aldridge played 43 mpg Gerald Wallace 37 mpg in 2010-2011 playoffs
                      Aldridge played 38 mpg and Andre Miller 35 mpg in 2009-2010 playoffs
                      Aldridge and Brandon Roy played 39 mpg in 2008-2009 playoffs

                      Paul George and George Hill played 34 mpg this past playoff series.

                      Granted, Blazers lost all 3 games in 6. But if you're someone who wants a coach that will tighten the rotation and play their best players major minutes in the playoffs, it looks like Nate would do that.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                        Haven't read through all 18 pages of this, but firing Vogel to make this move doesn't seem to be worth it to me. We already had McMillan.
                        "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          Anything that is less than 45 wins and an ECF berth should be considered a failure. Those are the expectations Bird had for Frank, so the guy replacing him should have the same expectations.
                          Sigh...I'll say it again. Reaching the ECF THIS season probably became a realistic goal after seeing how weak of a 2 seed Toronto really was. Neither Boston or Miami scared me in the second round. The only team that had a REAL chance of getting to the NBA Finals was the Cavs.

                          This was first year where I felt that playoff seeding didn't really matter in East.

                          As for the 45 wins...I don't see why they can't get 45 wins next season. Given how many close games they lost and should have won, they should have won 50 games this season and had home court advantage during the playoffs.


                          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            Isn't there offensively? Did you miss the playoffs?


                            No, I didn't. That's why I said that he thankfully can elevate his play in the playoffs. But in the RS he really isn't consistent.

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            And before the injury...


                            Look at the date in that tweet. We were 35-9 when BBallbreakdown tweeted that. Yes, PG was amazing in that first half of the season. He wasn't able to keep it up. He hit a rough patch and then the team imploded.

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            And this article really breaks down just how good PG is offensively. He has to create SO much, it's really incredible when you see the breakdown...

                            Pick and Roll: Kawhi Leonard Vs Paul George

                            http://bballbreakdown.com/2015/12/21...s-paul-george/

                            Top 10 scorer a year after his leg injury. Second leading scoring average in the playoffs. Dude is 100% a great offensive player.

                            To think you don't believe PG is even good on offense shows the overall disconnect.
                            That article is great and thank you for posting that. Both of them make great points. I actually agree with them on a lot of points. Aso, James Holas is making the same argument I'm making about consistency.

                            Allow me to quote it for you:

                            Originally posted by James Holas
                            Your point about sustainability is spot on, too. Paul George looked like a world beater for the first half of the ’13-’14 season (23.6 ppg, 46.4%, 39% from three) then he kinda fell off a cliff the last 40 games (19.6 ppg, 37.7%, 33% from three). Consistency is crucial to being elite. But we can’t give Kawhi (14.8 ppg, 44%, 32% from deep his first 39 games, almost 19 ppg on 54% and 40% fthree point shooting over his last 25 games) a pass for doing the same in reverse last year, can we?
                            That's exactly what PG's offensive game is missing. Consistency. It's the only thing that stops him right now from being an absolute superstar.

                            I also 100% agree with the two following comments:

                            Originally posted by Jesse Blanchard
                            You’re right, Kawhi isn’t initiating his own offense at the same rate as George. Leonard is assisted on 52.6 percent of his two-point field goal attempts, and George only 30.3 percent. Likewise, more of George’s three-point attempts come from his own means (65.9 percent assisted to 94 percent for Kawhi). But that speaks to the sustainability I was talking about. When times get tough from a one-on-one standpoint, there are those easy, assisted buckets to fall back on. Going one-on-one that often isn’t always a great thing.
                            Originally posted by James Holas
                            Paul George? He’s the alpha and omega of what they do in Indiana. And it’s not always about efficiency: PG has cooled off his last 6 games or so (37%, 30% from 3 over that span) but the Pacers are 4-2 with wins over Eastern threats Miami and Toronto. Indy and Vogel are making it work with smoke, mirrors, and a lot of Ian Mahimni and C.J. Miles. Crown Paul George for that.
                            Holas' last comment ties in what my overall belief about this team is. Paul George needs more help. The talent we have around him right now isn't enough. Larry Bird has done him a disservice lately. He has to acquire better players or else we'll never be able to take that next step.

                            PS: It's also important to note that this article was written back in December. We all know that PG was playing amazing basketball back then. Once again, though, he wasn't able to keep it up. As I said before, consistency is the #1 thing that PG lacks right now.
                            Last edited by Nuntius; 05-15-2016, 10:49 PM.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                              Lowry has played over 39 minutes per game in the playoffs. Pacers aren't in the ECF because Vogel played one of the most efficient volume scorers are second leading scorers of this year's playoffs 34 minutes mpg. When your offense sucks, you have to play PG much more.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                Lowry has played over 39 minutes per game in the playoffs. Pacers aren't in the ECF because Vogel played one of the most efficient volume scorers are second leading scorers of this year's playoffs 34 minutes mpg. When your offense sucks, you have to play PG much more.
                                To play devil's advocate: What if he is the most efficient volume scorer because he isn't overplayed and is playing fresh more so than other big time players?
                                "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X