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

Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #1

    Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

    http://www.indycornrows.com/2016/9/1...ing-for-pacers

    From struggling to crack Frank Vogel’s 10-man rotation after starting 78 games the prior season to knocking down 11 of his last 19 attempts from behind the arc and inking a four-year, $48 million contract with the New Orleans Pelicans, Solomon Hill’s 2015-16 season was chock-full of oddities. Granted, replacing his 4.2 points per game and yet-to-be determined “improved” shooting should be a piece of cake for Indiana’s suddenly (and supposedly) offensive-minded roster, but having the added benefit of Hill’s elite-level defense would no doubt aid the Pacers in being able to have their cake and eat it, too.

    Take, for instance, the second half of a late-March meeting with the Houston Rockets, wherein James Harden poured in 24 points on 66 percent shooting. Left reeling, Paul George decided to switch a ball-screen set by Trevor Ariza for Harden with Hill. Rather than allowing himself to be deceived by the former MVP candidate's patented change of direction, the tough defender used his physical strength to stand his ground. When Harden tried to cross him over, Hill knocked the ball loose and tied him up. What could have resulted in more freebies or an easy, 97-96, go-ahead basket, became a momentum-stealing play for the Pacers.

    Hill was similarly employed as Indiana’s stopper against Kevin Love during Indiana’s final regular season meeting with the Cleveland Cavaliers. With Lavoy Allen starting at power forward, the Cavaliers wisely used Love as a pick-and-pop threat early and often. After he had scored his fourteenth point in the first quarter, Vogel swapped in the more agile Hill to cover the capable stretch-shooter out beyond the three-point arc, a move which, ultimately, prevented Love from adding to his scoring total for the remainder of the half.

    Solomon Hill doesn’t possess Thaddeus Young’s grittiness around the rim or C.J. Miles’ shooting stroke, but his ability to lend Paul George a helping hand defending elite scorers may end up proving irreplaceable next season.

    Here are the problems each available wing defender presents when considered as an option to lighten George’s burden:

    C.J. Miles:

    As one of the few off-ball threats on Indiana’s roster, Miles needs to be protected at all costs. His willingness to bite the metaphorical bullet by switching from the wing to power forward came at great cost to his body last season.

    "I was in great shape to play my position (on a wing), but not in great shape to get beat up," Miles told Pacers.com's Mark Montieth. "I had never been in that position before, I had never been hit that way, at least that much for a period of time. It wore me down, and I was trying to figure out how to keep from getting hit (while playing).

    "It was slowing me down and taking me away from the extra work I like to do. I was trying to make sure I had the legs and energy to heal up and play in the game. It was tough; it was different. And we were starting to win games, so I definitely wasn't going to complain about it. If that's what I had to do to make us better, that's what I had to do."

    As it turned out, doing what was best for the team did not end up being what was best for Miles, as he missed 18 games as a result of a sore back, sore shoulder, and lingering calf injury. Adding insult to injury, a three from Miles was only worth 0.65 points during the month of January.

    All of which indicates that having the streaky, self-sacrificing sharpshooter take spot minutes defending George’s man would likely only serve to repeat last season’s mistakes. Considering that bigger, more versatile wings will likely look to punish Miles on the block, where he ranked in the 53rd percentile defending post-ups last season, the 6-foot-6 shooter would be better preserved spacing the floor than borrowing the trouble of his fellow east coast splash brother.

    Glenn Robinson III:

    Despite his high-flying athleticism and 6-foot-10 wingspan, Robinson III oftentimes lacks the awareness and physicality that made Hill such a valuable trump card off the bench.

    Here, the 22-year-old provides little resistance against the craftiness and larger frame of Danilo Gallinari:


    In addition to being taken to task on the block, Robinson III’s tendency to chase the ball underscores his inexperience.

    For instance, while there are plenty of egregious errors committed in this defensive possession against the Charlotte Hornets, his decision to leave Nicolas Batum wide open behind the arc in order to converge on Frank Kaminsky in the paint is, arguably, the most head-scratching.


    With plenty of room to grow, youth will need to be more of a friend than an enemy to Glenn Robinson III for him to be seriously relied upon in a pinch against elite scoring threats.

    Thaddeus Young:

    When Thaddeus Young was introduced by the Pacers earlier this summer, he mentioned that he thought he could alleviate some of Paul George's defensive burden by enabling the two-way star to "kind of pass those guys off” to him.

    “Sometimes, he would have to guard certain guys the whole game, LeBron (James) or Carmelo (Anthony),” Young said, as was transcribed by the Indy Star’s Nate Taylor. “Now he has the ability to kind of pass guys off to me. And I can guard those guys.”

    It may have been a relief to hear a player be so readily willing to accept the mantle of being Paul George’s complement, but legitimate questions should remain as to whether Young will actually be capable of containing players like James or Anthony on the perimeter.

    A cursory review of Brooklyn’s regular season meetings with the New York Knicks and Cleveland Cavaliers reveals that Young rarely switched onto either team’s headliner in an effort order to avoid stranding Joe Johnson, and later Bojan Bogdanovic, on an island with either Kristaps Porzingis or Kevin Love.

    Below is one of the few opportunities the lefty power forward was afforded to check Anthony 1-on-1:


    Young is incredibly agile for his position and boasts a lengthy 6-foot-11 wingspan, but he was still victimized by Anthony’s quick first-step driving out of the pick-and-roll.

    In extremely limited sample size, Young was not particularly effective staying in front of opponents on the perimeter, as he placed in the 50th percentile league-wide when defending the pick-and-roll ball-handler. Comparably, opponents shot less than 30 percent when Solomon Hill was the defender.


    With increased opportunity, Young may prove to be Indiana’s best option to spell Paul George and protect C.J. Miles from excessive wear-and-tear, but using Solomon Hill as an inexpensive defensive specialist clearly would have been preferable.

    Belaboring that the Pacers missed the mark by deciding not to exercise Solomon Hill’s $2.3 million player option is unnecessary now that the fourth-year player has signed an eye-popping contract with another team. Still, it is notable that the ramifications of that hasty decision last November will likely now be shouldered most by Paul George, who already will be without George Hill’s disruptive length and Ian Mahinmi’s rim protection in the starting lineup.

    Improving the team’s offensive efficiency was presumably done with the intent of lessening George’s two-way burden. However, if Indiana’s ability to outrun opponents, without the benefit of multiple off-ball threats, is negated by the team’s leaky defense, then (shudder) the opposite may actually end up being true.
    Sittin on top of the world!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

    I have a feeling that we will see more of a Thad/Myles Frontcourt rotation than one with Myles/AlJeff frontcourt. It would be nice to see a lineup with pg13/Thad/Myles/AlJeff but I have feeling that AlJeff's rim protection is going to be lacking.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

      I think we'll be fine. Solo got very limited minutes. I don't think we're going to be missing much of him
      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

        ^ Yeah, that. Also, GR3 can do it if he puts his mind to it.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

          Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
          I think we'll be fine. Solo got very limited minutes. I don't think we're going to be missing much of him
          I fully agree... Solo didn't play enough to make a difference.
          I'm not perfect and neither are you.

          Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
          Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

            We are going to miss George Hill's defense A LOT more than Solomon Hill.

            I'm still having a real difficult time understanding how a backup who played 14.7 minutes a game against scrubs, only shot 32% from 3 and scored 4.2 points per game will be making 12M/yr. It's just unbelievable. Factor in that he's an energy player moving out of his exuberant youth, and you really have to wonder who will get fired for that signing.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              We are going to miss George Hill's defense A LOT more than Solomon Hill.

              I'm still having a real difficult time understanding how a backup who played 14.7 minutes a game against scrubs, only shot 32% from 3 and scored 4.2 points per game will be making 12M/yr. It's just unbelievable. Factor in that he's an energy player moving out of his exuberant youth, and you really have to wonder who will get fired for that signing.
              That's a good point. We're really going to be missing Hill's defence. Can't wait to hear what people will have to say about our (projected) back court defence (Teague and Ellis).
              "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

                I don't think Teague is going to be a major drop off from GHill defensively. They're both virtually the same size and similar defensive metrics.

                The question with pairing Teague and Monta is on offense.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

                  Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                  I don't think Teague is going to be a major drop off from GHill defensively. They're both virtually the same size and similar defensive metrics.

                  The question with pairing Teague and Monta is on offense.
                  The issue is that Monta, rather than Hill, will be guarding the other SG. I agree offense is also affected because Hill plays better off the ball. At the same time, Teague can create and dish and is always aggressive. Hill is none of that. It might be closer to a wash on offense. I think we take a clear step back on D.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    The issue is that Monta, rather than Hill, will be guarding the other SG. I agree offense is also affected because Hill plays better off the ball. At the same time, Teague can create and dish and is always aggressive. Hill is none of that. It might be closer to a wash on offense. I think we take a clear step back on D.
                    The overall gain on offense will be far from a wash. Name the number of consistent scorers PG has played with. I can't get beyond DWest. Teague is will probably be the best offensive player PG has played with. And this will be the most weapons PG has ever had. Teague, Thad, Turner, Al Jefferson, Monta.

                    As far as the defense. We were really good defensively last year but wildly inconsistent. We could not guard spread units. And Ghill couldn't guard fast point guards. That's a bad mix. But so is being undersized at the 2. So I can see it going either way, but I'm thinking while our defensive effeciency may drop our defense will win us more games this year with consistency.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

                      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                      The overall gain on offense will be far from a wash. Name the number of consistent scorers PG has played with. I can't get beyond DWest. Teague is will probably be the best offensive player PG has played with. And this will be the most weapons PG has ever had. Teague, Thad, Turner, Al Jefferson, Monta.

                      As far as the defense. We were really good defensively last year but wildly inconsistent. We could not guard spread units. And Ghill couldn't guard fast point guards. That's a bad mix. But so is being undersized at the 2. So I can see it going either way, but I'm thinking while our defensive effeciency may drop our defense will win us more games this year with consistency.
                      I am concerned that Hill was an important 3 point shooter who played off the ball. I think that will be a factor. I think we will be weaker from 3. At the same time, it will be very, very nice to have a true PG who understands how to pass the ball and is aggressive. Let's hope he brings that and more to Indy. I recall one series where GHill just couldn't handle Teague who simply looked to be a higher level player along the lines of Paul. Teague can be dominant.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        I am concerned that Hill was an important 3 point shooter who played off the ball. I think that will be a factor. I think we will be weaker from 3. At the same time, it will be very, very nice to have a true PG who understands how to pass the ball and is aggressive. Let's hope he brings that and more to Indy. I recall one series where GHill just couldn't handle Teague who simply looked to be a higher level player along the lines of Paul. Teague can be dominant.
                        Teague shot the same percentage as GHill from 3 at pretty much same clip. Difference is Teague can do so much more on offense that GHill.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

                          Back to Solo. How in the world does losing a guy pose a challenge to our D when he only played about 1 quarter a game normally against backups? We brought on Thaddeus Young who may have some holes in his D but in some areas he has looked pretty good defensively against starters and often all-stars. I think Solo would look pretty bad if he had to deal with starters all the time like Thad.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

                            I agree with this article. We have no above average to great perimeter defenders outside of PG. Last year we had three.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Replacing Solomon Hill's defense poses challenge for Pacers

                              Is this a joke?
                              Lifelong pacers fan

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
                              Working...
                              X