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 defense and rim protection

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

  • #46
    Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    Of course we won't completely fall off. We have one of the best defensive players in the league, and a solid system.
    I think outside of top 10 is quite the fall off when we were top 3.

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    I still think we will miss Ian. Especially in games when Myles is in foul trouble and we have no shot blocking presence.
    My point has been when Ian was in foul trouble, we played Lavoy or JHill at center like 90% of the time in the regular season and our defense was fine.

    There's this vision that we were swapping Ian and Turner all season (like Roy and Ian) and that's not what happened at all.

    So if we were okay with Ian playing 25 mpg, we should be fine with Turner getting closer to 30.

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    As Wintermute said, I believe we will be slightly above average when it's all said and done. But minus a quantam leap by Myles, I can't see us being elite defensively.
    And I'm saying our defense can still be top 10, maybe top 5 w/o a quantum leap from Turner. He can be a similar guy and we can still be one of the best defensive teams in the league.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

      Myles Turner played 48 minutes last year w/o Lavoy, Ian or JHill on the court. Turner was almost always the 4 next to those guys.

      Basically, Thadeous replaces Turner, Turner replaces Ian, Al Jefferson replaces Lavoy/JHill. Biggest difference is Turner will be playing more than Ian's 25 mpg.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        Common misconception. The problem with those JOB teams was offense, ranking on average as a bottom 10 team in offensive efficiency.

        On defense the team was ranked 11th, 19th, 15th and 12th even w/ JOB not emphasizing defense and playing some players that weren't exactly known for D.

        http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/year/2009
        In my opinion, to say that those defensive rankings are misleadingly high is an understatement at best. The amount of times that opposing teams had their bench players on the floor or that opposing starters basically were on cruise control while playing against those Pacers teams renders the statistics that generated the rankings almost as useless as +/- or "per 48" for garbage time guys.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

          Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
          In my opinion, to say that those defensive rankings are misleadingly high is an understatement at best. The amount of times that opposing teams had their bench players on the floor or that opposing starters basically were on cruise control while playing against those Pacers teams renders the statistics that generated the rankings almost as useless as +/- or "per 48" for garbage time guys.
          So were the Warriors rank as a top defensive team misleading? It shakes out the same for everybody.

          Our defense is #2 over about 20 years sense Burke has been on board, it is what it is.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
            EDIT3: Just to be clear, I think Obie level of defense (11-15) is achievable for this team. But top 3 like last year? Probably not after the roster and coaching changes.
            This team talent-wise is much better defensively than those JOB teams. Troy Murphy.
            Danger Zone

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
              In my opinion, to say that those defensive rankings are misleadingly high is an understatement at best. The amount of times that opposing teams had their bench players on the floor or that opposing starters basically were on cruise control while playing against those Pacers teams renders the statistics that generated the rankings almost as useless as +/- or "per 48" for garbage time guys.
              I don't think this is really true. Those Pacers teams were below average, not terrible. And they were up and down on how many blowouts they had. In JOB's first year, the Pacers were near the bottom of the league in 10+ point finishes. In his second year, they had the fewest in the league (and 21 games decided by 3 points or less!). In his 3rd year, they were one of the highest in that category, but had a strangely good record of 20-28 in 10+ finishes compared to their overall record.

              I could see that argument when looking at a 15 or 20 win team. But a team that was averaging 32-36 wins a season is not going to have tons of opponents just sleepwalking through the game.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                Why is that a problem when our defense was one of the league's best?

                That's selective, and perhaps a bit propped up by what happened in November. This was also a team that gave up 94 PPG when winning and 109 PPG when losing, a variable of more than 15 points. As you know, they scored 103 per game when winning and only 100 per game when losing, a much smaller variable.

                This was a team that could only play good defense some of the time, not all the time.

                Result Win 45 45 38.7 83.4 8.5 22.9 18.0 23.4 9.8 45.7 21.6 9.3 4.9 14.5 19.1 103.9 34.8 84.3 7.6 25.6 16.5 21.7 10.5 43.1 19.4 7.4 3.9 15.7 20.3 93.5
                Loss 37 37 37.9 87.3 7.6 23.2 16.7 22.2 11.0 42.4 20.8 8.8 4.6 14.1 21.1 100.1 40.6 85.6 9.2 23.9 18.6 24.9 10.9 46.3 22.6 8.1 5.2 14.6 20.6 108.9
                Here are the W-L results for the 42 games in which the Pacers gave up more points than their average:

                1 20 2015-12-08 GSW L 123 131 44 100 .440 14 33 .424 21 26 .808 16 44 23 8 3 16 18 52 95 .547 16 35 .457 11 15 .733 10 46 29 10 6 15 19
                2 41 2016-01-17 @ DEN L 126 129 48 82 .585 9 20 .450 21 30 .700 9 33 27 10 6 15 29 46 91 .505 10 26 .385 27 38 .711 17 42 25 12 4 17 26
                3 18 2015-12-03 @ POR L 111 123 38 88 .432 13 30 .433 22 24 .917 15 41 18 4 3 12 17 44 85 .518 18 36 .500 17 20 .850 15 48 26 11 3 15 20
                4 19 2015-12-05 @ UTA L (1 OT) 119 122 40 93 .430 12 29 .414 27 34 .794 12 44 17 10 2 15 34 43 92 .467 8 23 .348 28 37 .757 19 54 21 7 3 15 30
                5 43 2016-01-22 @ GSW L 110 122 44 95 .463 3 17 .176 19 27 .704 15 44 22 11 4 13 20 43 90 .478 14 33 .424 22 25 .880 14 50 31 9 4 17 24
                6 32 2015-12-31 MIL L 116 120 41 82 .500 13 30 .433 21 26 .808 7 35 27 9 6 19 25 45 77 .584 6 14 .429 24 35 .686 6 34 18 12 10 16 25
                7 72 2016-03-26 @ BRK L 110 120 37 77 .481 11 24 .458 25 30 .833 6 31 24 15 4 19 26 42 77 .545 5 11 .455 31 36 .861 7 40 24 13 1 20 23
                8 22 2015-12-12 @ DET L 96 118 41 82 .500 3 16 .188 11 18 .611 5 33 17 7 2 16 16 45 90 .500 13 29 .448 15 19 .789 10 46 26 11 6 14 18
                9 40 2016-01-15 WAS L 104 118 38 80 .475 3 17 .176 25 32 .781 6 35 19 9 3 13 12 51 98 .520 11 25 .440 5 10 .500 17 54 26 8 2 15 29
                10 53 2016-02-10 CHO L 95 117 40 92 .435 4 18 .222 11 15 .733 12 39 19 7 4 11 14 45 87 .517 12 28 .429 15 19 .789 10 45 24 6 8 13 13
                11 69 2016-03-19 OKC L 111 115 40 83 .482 9 22 .409 22 30 .733 8 34 28 11 2 12 18 42 80 .525 10 28 .357 21 26 .808 9 45 26 8 4 18 25
                12 75 2016-03-31 ORL L 94 114 36 86 .419 7 19 .368 15 21 .714 17 49 18 11 4 19 18 48 90 .533 5 16 .313 13 18 .722 13 44 26 6 6 13 18
                13 2 2015-10-29 MEM L 103 112 37 78 .474 12 30 .400 17 24 .708 10 38 23 7 4 20 22 41 82 .500 7 16 .438 23 29 .793 12 42 26 12 5 14 25
                14 48 2016-02-01 CLE L (1 OT) 106 111 43 101 .426 8 27 .296 12 14 .857 17 44 24 11 7 16 23 44 88 .500 7 22 .318 16 23 .696 10 45 22 8 3 16 19
                15 59 2016-02-28 POR L 102 111 40 93 .430 3 14 .214 19 25 .760 19 52 21 7 5 9 17 41 81 .506 14 24 .583 15 21 .714 8 45 19 4 7 12 20
                16 79 2016-04-08 @ TOR L 98 111 37 83 .446 8 27 .296 16 20 .800 9 33 22 7 7 9 28 37 68 .544 10 22 .455 27 38 .711 5 36 21 4 5 16 19
                17 78 2016-04-06 CLE W 123 109 45 80 .563 16 31 .516 17 22 .773 9 38 25 9 1 14 24 35 74 .473 8 29 .276 31 34 .912 7 33 15 7 3 10 19
                18 28 2015-12-23 SAC L 106 108 41 89 .461 12 32 .375 12 20 .600 6 38 20 14 4 11 16 46 89 .517 4 23 .174 12 16 .750 6 49 28 6 4 16 16
                19 44 2016-01-23 @ SAC L 97 108 36 86 .419 7 19 .368 18 25 .720 9 41 18 7 10 10 26 38 85 .447 5 16 .313 27 36 .750 13 52 19 7 4 14 22
                20 62 2016-03-04 @ CHO L 101 108 37 90 .411 9 28 .321 18 21 .857 12 46 23 10 4 10 24 38 79 .481 13 31 .419 19 23 .826 7 41 20 4 9 11 19
                21 37 2016-01-10 @ HOU L (1 OT) 103 107 43 90 .478 9 31 .290 8 10 .800 5 39 33 12 5 18 21 39 89 .438 14 38 .368 15 23 .652 10 49 24 11 3 22 21
                22 1 2015-10-28 @ TOR L 99 106 32 86 .372 9 23 .391 26 31 .839 8 40 23 14 3 13 30 36 80 .450 7 18 .389 27 39 .692 9 50 19 8 2 20 24
                23 14 2015-11-24 @ WAS W 123 106 44 80 .550 19 26 .731 16 23 .696 7 41 25 11 20 18 38 83 .458 13 33 .394 17 24 .708 10 40 27 9 1 21 18
                24 27 2015-12-21 @ SAS L 92 106 38 90 .422 7 19 .368 9 15 .600 13 48 21 5 3 14 15 46 89 .517 6 20 .300 8 9 .889 7 45 27 8 7 9 14
                25 47 2016-01-30 DEN W (1 OT) 109 105 44 100 .440 9 27 .333 12 16 .750 14 49 26 6 10 15 22 40 87 .460 4 18 .222 21 25 .840 8 45 24 10 3 19 22
                26 57 2016-02-24 NYK W 108 105 46 91 .505 3 15 .200 13 16 .813 9 43 22 8 4 8 19 35 77 .455 13 26 .500 22 25 .880 8 38 22 4 5 13 17
                27 65 2016-03-12 @ DAL W 112 105 38 81 .469 9 28 .321 27 29 .931 9 42 24 10 6 14 25 41 85 .482 8 22 .364 15 18 .833 7 40 30 7 1 13 21
                28 80 2016-04-10 BRK W 129 105 48 86 .558 11 27 .407 22 27 .815 14 58 34 10 4 20 22 35 91 .385 14 37 .378 21 26 .808 11 36 24 12 4 15 21
                29 51 2016-02-06 DET W 112 104 41 76 .539 6 11 .545 24 29 .828 8 41 21 7 1 16 25 38 79 .481 12 33 .364 16 31 .516 11 38 14 7 3 14 26
                30 66 2016-03-13 @ ATL L 75 104 33 87 .379 5 24 .208 4 7 .571 7 38 24 9 5 16 14 40 85 .471 15 30 .500 9 10 .900 9 50 27 11 6 15 13
                31 10 2015-11-13 MIN W 107 103 41 86 .477 10 25 .400 15 23 .652 12 40 23 9 5 11 9 42 83 .506 7 20 .350 12 13 .923 8 39 16 5 15 19
                32 16 2015-11-29 @ LAL W 107 103 34 83 .410 9 27 .333 30 37 .811 9 50 17 4 5 15 18 38 99 .384 11 33 .333 16 22 .727 15 54 17 6 5 10 27
                33 34 2016-01-04 @ MIA L (1 OT) 100 103 37 94 .394 8 28 .286 18 25 .720 14 55 18 4 3 10 26 34 90 .378 5 22 .227 30 39 .769 15 52 14 5 6 7 23
                34 39 2016-01-13 @ BOS L 94 103 37 91 .407 5 30 .167 15 20 .750 13 48 18 12 3 17 20 40 90 .444 9 26 .346 14 20 .700 14 49 24 7 2 19 18
                35 31 2015-12-30 @ CHI L (1 OT) 100 102 37 97 .381 7 22 .318 19 24 .792 16 46 18 14 7 12 21 37 86 .430 6 18 .333 22 27 .815 14 53 15 6 10 21 19
                36 50 2016-02-05 @ ATL L 96 102 38 91 .418 13 31 .419 7 9 .778 19 53 23 6 4 19 18 39 76 .513 10 27 .370 14 20 .700 3 32 29 10 5 15 16
                37 55 2016-02-21 @ ORL W 105 102 41 82 .500 9 24 .375 14 21 .667 5 44 26 7 6 21 25 38 91 .418 7 25 .280 19 29 .655 11 45 27 12 3 14 23
                38 76 2016-04-02 @ PHI W 115 102 44 84 .524 8 23 .348 19 23 .826 6 48 27 9 4 13 24 34 83 .410 16 37 .432 18 26 .692 8 38 23 3 1 16 22
                39 7 2015-11-08 @ CLE L 97 101 39 90 .433 6 18 .333 13 19 .684 12 47 22 5 4 7 20 38 83 .458 8 24 .333 17 25 .680 11 48 25 5 4 10 20
                40 56 2016-02-22 @ MIA L (1 OT) 93 101 36 92 .391 5 15 .333 16 25 .640 7 45 17 8 6 12 26 38 100 .380 2 13 .154 23 34 .676 20 66 19 8 8 14 24
                41 68 2016-03-17 TOR L (1 OT) 94 101 35 91 .385 8 28 .286 16 23 .696 9 48 21 9 7 14 32 32 88 .364 7 22 .318 30 38 .789 15 57 11 5 5 14 21
                42 73 2016-03-27 HOU W 104 101 41 87 .471 9 26 .346 13 20 .650 15 50 25 9 6 13 23 38 85 .447 7 33 .212 18 27 .667 11 44 17 7 3 14 18
                They were 12-30 when giving up 101 or more.

                So to call them one of the league's best defenses is very, very selective when the easiest way to predict whether last year's team would win or lose was to watch how it played (or didn't play) defense in the first quarter.

                The question Nate doesn't get to answer, since Bird has had another summer to work on the makeover: Was it miraculous coaching that Frank got this messy team to be a very good defensive team about 1/2 the time, where they had a stellar 33-7 record? Or was it poor coaching that Frank couldn't motivate this gifted defensive team to give any effort the other half the time, where they had an awful 12-30 record.

                The biggest identity of the 2015-16 Pacers will be its defensive bipolarity. To call at team that inconsistent "one of the league's best" might be the ultimate cherry-picking example. Especially since they got more inconsistent on defense as the season progressed after a really impressive November.



                EDIT: sorry about the format of the second table, all I wanted was the first 7 columns. Couldn't figure out how...
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

                  I just disagree with all of that. You could go through every team and do the same thing.

                  At the end us the season, the Pacers were a top 3 team in defensive efficiency. No way around it.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

                    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                    I just disagree with all of that. You could go through every team and do the same thing.

                    At the end us the season, the Pacers were a top 3 team in defensive efficiency. No way around it.
                    Find another team with a +/- of 15 points on the defensive side.

                    Bottom line is that they were a top-1 defensive team about 1/2 the time, which was a significant decline from the previous couple of seasons, and a middle-of the pack team about 1/2 the time, which averaged out to #3 overall and was why their record was pretty close to .500 all season long except for the hot start in November.


                    Spurs, #1 in DRtg:

                    Result Win 67 67 0 40.9 82.4 7.4 18.6 16.6 20.7 9.2 44.4 25.3 8.3 6.1 12.4 17.5 105.9 34.9 81.8 6.3 19.8 14.5 19.5 9.3 39.6 20.2 7.1 3.7 14.3 19.4 90.7
                    Loss 15 0 15 36.4 84.9 5.0 17.9 15.3 19.2 10.2 41.5 20.9 7.9 4.9 13.1 17.5 93.1 39.2 81.7 8.1 20.5 16.5 20.1 8.5 44.5 23.5 7.7 4.4 14.1 19.6 102.9

                    Only 15 losses, so less data to work with on the L side, and a 13 point differential on offense (vs. the Pacers 3 point differential on offense), so there are more variables around why the Spurs lost a few (but not many games) vs. the Pacers situation.

                    ATL, #2,

                    Result Win 48 48 0 40.7 84.7 10.2 27.8 16.6 20.8 8.3 43.2 27.5 9.7 6.2 13.5 18.9 108.3 35.6 85.5 7.9 24.5 16.2 21.6 11.6 44.8 21.1 7.6 4.6 16.1 18.5 95.3
                    Loss 34 0 34 35.7 84.0 9.5 29.1 14.3 18.9 8.3 40.5 22.9 8.3 5.5 16.0 19.5 95.1 39.4 86.9 8.8 24.4 17.4 22.7 11.4 49.0 23.4 10.1 5.6 14.5 18.0 104.8
                    Potentially a better comparison. Similar to the Spurs, a 13 point differential on offense in games they won and a smaller differential than the Pacers (only 9 PPG) on defense.

                    So far you're 0-2. I'll keep going.

                    #4, Boston

                    Well, they're closer to the Pacers situation with a 14 point difference on defense, but still a 7 point difference on offense vs. the Pacers three point difference on offense. So it isn't as easy to say that defensive inconsistency was the Celtics Achilles heel like it was for the Pacers.

                    Result Win 48 48 0 40.9 89.7 8.7 25.3 18.2 22.9 11.5 46.9 26.0 9.4 4.8 13.1 21.1 108.6 35.5 85.3 7.0 23.3 18.8 24.9 11.4 44.9 19.8 7.7 5.4 16.4 20.5 96.8
                    Loss 34 0 34 36.9 88.6 8.8 27.2 19.0 24.4 11.6 42.1 21.6 8.8 3.5 13.9 23.1 101.6 40.4 84.7 9.0 23.4 20.9 27.6 11.4 47.6 22.6 7.4 5.6 15.0 21.6 110.6
                    #5, LAC

                    This wouldn't have anything to do with all the injuries they had, would it? Just not a good comp to use at all.

                    Result Win 53 53 0 39.2 82.4 9.7 25.6 18.5 26.4 8.8 43.8 23.5 8.9 5.9 12.1 20.3 106.7 35.3 85.5 6.9 22.5 17.4 23.9 12.1 46.2 19.9 6.8 2.9 15.0 22.5 94.9
                    Loss 29 0 29 36.7 82.4 9.7 28.8 17.5 26.0 8.9 38.8 21.6 8.1 5.1 13.0 23.1 100.5 39.5 83.3 9.6 24.7 21.4 27.2 11.2 47.6 23.6 7.6 3.6 14.1 22.5 109.9
                    #6, GSW,

                    Only 9 losses, I think the big difference (17PPG) in offense is probably the bigger driver in that small sample size.
                    Result Win 73 73 0 43.2 87.1 13.5 31.7 16.9 22.2 9.8 46.5 29.4 8.4 6.1 14.7 20.7 116.8 38.5 89.5 7.6 23.6 18.5 24.5 11.5 43.4 21.9 8.6 4.0 13.8 19.9 103.1
                    Loss 9 0 9 37.3 88.8 10.0 30.6 14.6 19.1 11.0 43.6 25.2 8.7 5.6 16.4 21.1 99.2 42.2 88.3 9.2 22.4 19.2 24.9 10.9 47.6 24.6 9.4 5.0 13.9 19.6 112.9
                    Lastly, your 2016 champions, #10 in DRtg:

                    Result Win 57 57 0 40.0 83.9 11.2 29.5 16.7 22.2 11.0 45.7 24.2 7.1 4.0 12.6 19.5 108.0 35.7 81.8 7.4 22.4 16.4 21.9 9.4 39.5 21.0 7.2 4.2 13.2 20.9 95.3
                    Loss 25 0 25 35.6 84.2 9.7 29.9 15.1 20.6 9.8 41.8 19.4 6.0 3.6 13.5 22.2 95.9 39.3 82.9 9.0 23.4 17.7 24.2 9.1 44.5 22.3 7.2 5.0 12.2 20.0 105.3
                    A 12 PPG differential in offense and a 10 PPG differential in defense.


                    Nope. Not helping you much. The Pacers were more inconsistent defensively and more consistent offensively than any of these examples.

                    The Pacers were way to inconsistent defensively, which is why their record was in the middle even with the hot November start and strong April finish.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

                      Coincidentally, two articles came out today on the defense...



                      This Pacers team, as constructed, is probably not going to lead the league in defensive points allowed, or points per possession, or any of the other numbers Pacers fans are used to pointing to. Larry Bird, however, has been telling anyone who will listen that he wants to play faster, and that this can benefit the defense as well.

                      The Pacers current, best five-man unit employs a band of four ball thieves and Myles Turner, who has the chance to be an elite shot blocker. All four of Jeff Teague, Monta Ellis, Paul George, and Thad Young had a steal rate of over 2% last year, and all have been near 3% in recent years. Contrast that to George Hill (1.6%) and Lavoy Allen (0.8%), and it’s easy to see the beginning of something. Throw in the fact that Myles Turner put up a block rate of over 5%, and this defense could be capable, but not in the ways Pacers fans are used to.



                      Yet what gives Bird the most confidence next season about his team’s defense is not a particular player, but the calm, soft-spoken assistant coach on the bench: Dan Burke.

                      When Bird decided not to retain Vogel in May, he said his biggest free agent target was Burke, who is known in the NBA as one the leading defensive gurus. Bird stressed it was essential that Burke return for his 20th season with the Pacers even before he promoted Nate McMillan to head coach. Bird said in May it was Burke and his defensive scheme – not Vogel – that was the main reason for the Pacers’ defensive success.

                      Bird has faith Burke will orchestrate yet another top-10 defensive team with Teague and Ellis playing the majority of the minutes next season.

                      “We will have a small backcourt because of the height of the two guys, but we do have a lot of speed, which should be able to get into the passing lanes,” Bird said. “I look forward to watching Dan Burke work with these guys. I think he’ll do an amazing job with them. You don’t have to be the fastest. You just have to be the smartest sometimes and be in the right positions. I think he’ll put the players in the positions to defend well.”
                      Play Video

                      Pacers insider Nate Taylor discusses Jeff Teague after his press conference on Monday, July 11. Clark Wade/IndyStar

                      Ellis showed last season with the Pacers that he was not a defensive liability, finishing 10th in the league with 1.85 steals per game.

                      Teague proved to be an effective defender last year with the Atlanta Hawks, a team that finished with the second-best defensive rating at 98.8 points per 100 possessions. The best quality about Teague’s defense in Atlanta was his ability to stay in front of the player he was guarding. Opponents shot just 39.9 percent against Teague, according to nba.com, third best among players who appeared in at least 75 games.
                      If we do go with this starting unit, I'm not worried about Turner or Paul George obviously.

                      I haven't see a lot of Thad, but everything I've heard from his former team's beat writers is he can defend the 4 well, rebound in the right system and even give Paul George a break and guard Lebron types.

                      Teague's defensive numbers look good, and he played next to Korver, who is okay but not a strong defender.

                      That leaves Ellis, who was not that bad last year and can get steals as highlighted in the first article.

                      I think we can potentially be a really good defensive group. I'm going to go ahead and go on the record and say closer to top 5.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

                        Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
                        Find another team with a +/- of 15 points on the defensive side.

                        Bottom line is that they were a top-1 defensive team about 1/2 the time, which was a significant decline from the previous couple of seasons, and a middle-of the pack team about 1/2 the time, which averaged out to #3 overall and was why their record was pretty close to .500 all season long except for the hot start in November.


                        Spurs, #1 in DRtg:

                        Result Win 67 67 0 40.9 82.4 7.4 18.6 16.6 20.7 9.2 44.4 25.3 8.3 6.1 12.4 17.5 105.9 34.9 81.8 6.3 19.8 14.5 19.5 9.3 39.6 20.2 7.1 3.7 14.3 19.4 90.7
                        Loss 15 0 15 36.4 84.9 5.0 17.9 15.3 19.2 10.2 41.5 20.9 7.9 4.9 13.1 17.5 93.1 39.2 81.7 8.1 20.5 16.5 20.1 8.5 44.5 23.5 7.7 4.4 14.1 19.6 102.9

                        Only 15 losses, so less data to work with on the L side, and a 13 point differential on offense (vs. the Pacers 3 point differential on offense), so there are more variables around why the Spurs lost a few (but not many games) vs. the Pacers situation.

                        ATL, #2,

                        Result Win 48 48 0 40.7 84.7 10.2 27.8 16.6 20.8 8.3 43.2 27.5 9.7 6.2 13.5 18.9 108.3 35.6 85.5 7.9 24.5 16.2 21.6 11.6 44.8 21.1 7.6 4.6 16.1 18.5 95.3
                        Loss 34 0 34 35.7 84.0 9.5 29.1 14.3 18.9 8.3 40.5 22.9 8.3 5.5 16.0 19.5 95.1 39.4 86.9 8.8 24.4 17.4 22.7 11.4 49.0 23.4 10.1 5.6 14.5 18.0 104.8
                        Potentially a better comparison. Similar to the Spurs, a 13 point differential on offense in games they won and a smaller differential than the Pacers (only 9 PPG) on defense.

                        So far you're 0-2. I'll keep going.

                        #4, Boston

                        Well, they're closer to the Pacers situation with a 14 point difference on defense, but still a 7 point difference on offense vs. the Pacers three point difference on offense. So it isn't as easy to say that defensive inconsistency was the Celtics Achilles heel like it was for the Pacers.

                        Result Win 48 48 0 40.9 89.7 8.7 25.3 18.2 22.9 11.5 46.9 26.0 9.4 4.8 13.1 21.1 108.6 35.5 85.3 7.0 23.3 18.8 24.9 11.4 44.9 19.8 7.7 5.4 16.4 20.5 96.8
                        Loss 34 0 34 36.9 88.6 8.8 27.2 19.0 24.4 11.6 42.1 21.6 8.8 3.5 13.9 23.1 101.6 40.4 84.7 9.0 23.4 20.9 27.6 11.4 47.6 22.6 7.4 5.6 15.0 21.6 110.6
                        #5, LAC

                        This wouldn't have anything to do with all the injuries they had, would it? Just not a good comp to use at all.

                        Result Win 53 53 0 39.2 82.4 9.7 25.6 18.5 26.4 8.8 43.8 23.5 8.9 5.9 12.1 20.3 106.7 35.3 85.5 6.9 22.5 17.4 23.9 12.1 46.2 19.9 6.8 2.9 15.0 22.5 94.9
                        Loss 29 0 29 36.7 82.4 9.7 28.8 17.5 26.0 8.9 38.8 21.6 8.1 5.1 13.0 23.1 100.5 39.5 83.3 9.6 24.7 21.4 27.2 11.2 47.6 23.6 7.6 3.6 14.1 22.5 109.9
                        #6, GSW,

                        Only 9 losses, I think the big difference (17PPG) in offense is probably the bigger driver in that small sample size.
                        Result Win 73 73 0 43.2 87.1 13.5 31.7 16.9 22.2 9.8 46.5 29.4 8.4 6.1 14.7 20.7 116.8 38.5 89.5 7.6 23.6 18.5 24.5 11.5 43.4 21.9 8.6 4.0 13.8 19.9 103.1
                        Loss 9 0 9 37.3 88.8 10.0 30.6 14.6 19.1 11.0 43.6 25.2 8.7 5.6 16.4 21.1 99.2 42.2 88.3 9.2 22.4 19.2 24.9 10.9 47.6 24.6 9.4 5.0 13.9 19.6 112.9
                        Lastly, your 2016 champions, #10 in DRtg:

                        Result Win 57 57 0 40.0 83.9 11.2 29.5 16.7 22.2 11.0 45.7 24.2 7.1 4.0 12.6 19.5 108.0 35.7 81.8 7.4 22.4 16.4 21.9 9.4 39.5 21.0 7.2 4.2 13.2 20.9 95.3
                        Loss 25 0 25 35.6 84.2 9.7 29.9 15.1 20.6 9.8 41.8 19.4 6.0 3.6 13.5 22.2 95.9 39.3 82.9 9.0 23.4 17.7 24.2 9.1 44.5 22.3 7.2 5.0 12.2 20.0 105.3
                        A 12 PPG differential in offense and a 10 PPG differential in defense.


                        Nope. Not helping you much. The Pacers were more inconsistent defensively and more consistent offensively than any of these examples.

                        The Pacers were way to inconsistent defensively, which is why their record was in the middle even with the hot November start and strong April finish.
                        I don't need to find another team that gave up 15 more points in losses because the stat is meaningless to me in the context of this discussion. IDC if you lose by 1 point or 15 points in the regular season because it equals the same loss. And we were still a top defensive team.

                        Are you going to argue we weren't actually a 7th seed because we were giving up too many points in losses?

                        Our inconsistency issues were 100% effort based and probably why Vogel lost his job.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

                          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                          I don't need to find another team that gave up 15 more points in losses because the stat is meaningless to me in the context of this discussion. IDC if you lose by 1 point or 15 points in the regular season because it equals the same loss. And we were still a top defensive team.

                          Are you going to argue we weren't actually a 7th seed because we were giving up too many points in losses?

                          Our inconsistency issues were 100% effort based and probably why Vogel lost his job.
                          Right, and that effort was on defense.

                          Glad we agree.

                          When they played defense, they could have contended for a #1 seed and #2 record overall.

                          You don't get the same predictable outcome for that team if you sort on offense.

                          The only reason it doesn't mean anything to you is because it doesn't fit with your story.

                          This isn't lose by "1 point or lose by 15 points" in any individual game. Based on that sentence, you've totally misunderstood the data. Which might explain how you were able to process all of it so quickly before dismissing it.

                          The Pacers were a very bad team (12-30) in games in which they gave up 100 points or more, which was slightly more than 1/2 the games they played.

                          No other team near the top of the defensive rankings had the same flaw.

                          When they were good, they were very, very good. On pace to win 65 games. And when they weren't very, very good, they were low-20's win-rate awful.

                          Again, we can debate the impact of coaching. I though it was impressive that Vogel got that ugly roster to play good enough defense to go 33-7 when holding opponents under 100. But I can see the argument that Vogel get's the blame for them going 12-30 when they didn't put up much effort defensively since he proved he could coach that lousy roster to defensive greatness some (1/2) of the time.
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

                            Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
                            Right, and that effort was on defense.

                            Glad we agree.

                            When they played defense, they could have contended for a #1 seed and #2 record overall.

                            You don't get the same predictable outcome for that team if you sort on offense.

                            The only reason it doesn't mean anything to you is because it doesn't fit with your story.

                            This isn't lose by "1 point or lose by 15 points" in any individual game. Based on that sentence, you've totally misunderstood the data. Which might explain how you were able to process all of it so quickly before dismissing it.

                            The Pacers were a very bad team (12-30) in games in which they gave up 100 points or more, which was slightly more than 1/2 the games they played.

                            No other team near the top of the defensive rankings had the same flaw.

                            When they were good, they were very, very good. On pace to win 65 games. And when they weren't very, very good, they were low-20's win-rate awful.

                            Again, we can debate the impact of coaching. I though it was impressive that Vogel got that ugly roster to play good enough defense to go 33-7 when holding opponents under 100. But I can see the argument that Vogel get's the blame for them going 12-30 when they didn't put up much effort defensively since he proved he could coach that lousy roster to defensive greatness some (1/2) of the time.
                            You have to remember, I'm the guy who thinks Vogel had a 50+ win team that could have made ECF. So there are no arguments here with consistency.

                            But at the end of the day, you are what the sum of all those games are, and in the end, we were a top 3 team in defensive efficiency.

                            And I don't really blame Vogel. A coach shouldn't have to hold players accountable for them to put forth effort, but thems the breaks. And I guess that's why some coaches get more consistency out of players.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

                              The rim protection stat in the original stat is shaky at best. That's a pretty flimsy cslculation.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Pacers defense and rim protection

                                You do realize this team was 29-2 when giving up 94 or fewer PPG, right? Including playoffs.

                                They only had 15 games where they gave up between 95 and 101 PPG, going 7-8. So you can break down the inconsistency impact on defense even further if you want to.

                                Along with the 12-31 record when giving up more than 101 (including playoffs.)

                                Go ahead. Keep saying this isn't meaningful. That will be fun.

                                Fine, I'll break it down further.

                                They were 2-22 when giving up 106 or more.

                                So they were 10-9 when giving up between 101 and 105.

                                The standard deviation on that team's defense was way, way, way too high to look at one stat, DRtg, and conclude they were a great defensive team.
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X