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

What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

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

  • What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

    A new season. A new coach. And perhaps a new style.

    When team president Larry Bird announced assistant coach Nate McMillan's promotion to the head coaching chair this spring, there were instantly questions about what type of basketball the Pacers would be playing.

    However, both Bird and McMillan seemed unwilling to get into the details of style, insisting that they would need to see what type of roster was assembled. It was clear though, that Bird wanted a team that scores more points than in past years, so an uptempo attack seemed to be the stated goal.

    But the logical question that followed that was: why McMillan? His teams in Seattle and Portland typically played at one of the slower paces in the league, a measurement of the average amount of possessions a team is generating per 48 minutes. The higher the number, the faster the team is playing.

    McMillan's best regular season team, the 2008-09 Portland Trail Blazers, who won 54 games, had both McMillan's best points per 100 possessions (113.9) and slowest pace (86.6).



    In McMillan's final year of head coaching prior to this upcoming season, his team began to push the tempo a bit more, with a pace of 91.5, 15th in the league, but the group's offensive efficiency dipped down from 108.8 to 105.7, finishing the year with a record of 28-38.

    However, it would be unfair to say McMillan can only run slow-it-down offenses, for two reasons. First of all, it was simply a slower league when McMillan was coaching. There were outliers like Mike D'Antoni's Suns teams, but for the most part, shot clock bleeding basketball was still the tool of choice.

    As the league has evolved to incorporate more speed, tempo, and 3-point shooting, it's safe to say McMillan's thinking about offense has evolved as well.

    Secondly, the group of players that McMillan had on his slowest, but most efficient, Portland team necessitated a slower style of play. Forwards like LaMarcus Aldridge, Greg Oden, and Brandon Roy, were not about to break out a seven-seconds-or-less offensive attack, so McMillan built the offense around maximizing possessions, which the group did better than any other team in the NBA.

    So how can we project how the team will look based on McMillan's past?

    For one, you can bet that he won't put players in situations that are too far out of their comfort zones. Over his 12 years of head coaching, McMillan has seemed to tailor his styles of play around his personel, rather than putting square pegs in round holes.

    This means that we could see the starting unit employ a fast-paced scoring attack, while the bench unit — likely headlined by Al Jefferson — might slow things down, while still scoring efficiently. This changeup could be the equivalent of an off speed pitch in baseball, forcing opposing defenses to adjust to the switch up in style.

    Defensively, McMillan's trend lines look like the group can hold steady as one of the league's top units. It helps that defensive specialist Dan Burke is staying on the staff, but looking at McMillan's seven-year stay in Portland, the defense improved every single year.


    With an experienced group of players on his roster and the newly acquired Jeff Teague leading the offense, there are still plenty of questions about what exactly the team will look like on the floor. But one thing that seems clear from McMillan's coaching history is that he will find a way to put the players in the best position to maximize their skill sets — the mark of any good coach.

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/what-...-coaching-past
    We will be more consistent on defense this year and MUCH better on offense. This team is good.

  • #2
    Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

    Using a single team trend line to come up with whether or not a team would stay among the top in the league doesn't make any sense. For example, yes the defensive ratings do get better every year in Portland but Nate's final season's def rating of 106.4 would have earned them the 18th spot in the league.

    Here's their defensive rankings by the rest of the seasons under Nate:
    10-11: 13th
    09-10: 15th
    08-09: 14th
    07-08: 17th
    06-07: 26th
    05-06: 28th

    So he took a bottom defensive team and turned them into an average defensive team. I'm not sure how that squares out that he'll keep them at the top, going off of Nate's record. And you can say "well Dan Burke" but Dan Burke doesn't do it himself either. Under his defensive specialization, the Pacers were an average defensive team during the JOB years.

    So like most things, it's going to come down to the players and I don't think the Pacers will have the guys to stay at the top. They might be top of the average (around 10) but we'll find out.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

      There's some good points in that article, but there's some definite stat twisting to achieve the author's objective. For example, I wanted to figure out what metric the author was using to make the claim that McMillan's Portland teams improved every season. I finally figured it out. He's using raw defensive efficiency.

      And while that's technically true, it tells you nothing about how good a team's defense was without comparing it to the league. And when you do that, the stat breaks down. In McMillan's last year of Portland, his team finished 23rd in defensive efficiency. It was only his best raw number because that was the lockout year and offense was down across the board.

      His trend line really shows you very little about how the Pacers defense will fare. His Portland defenses finished 28th, 26th, 17th, 13th, 15th, 14th, and 23rd. There's no real trend there.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

        I think those average defensive teams under JOB had more to do with who he was playing. When you put that into perspective Burke D was pretty impressive at average and even top 10.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Using a single team trend line to come up with whether or not a team would stay among the top in the league doesn't make any sense. For example, yes the defensive ratings do get better every year in Portland but Nate's final season's def rating of 106.4 would have earned them the 18th spot in the league.

          Here's their defensive rankings by the rest of the seasons under Nate:
          10-11: 13th
          09-10: 15th
          08-09: 14th
          07-08: 17th
          06-07: 26th
          05-06: 28th

          So he took a bottom defensive team and turned them into an average defensive team. I'm not sure how that squares out that he'll keep them at the top, going off of Nate's record. And you can say "well Dan Burke" but Dan Burke doesn't do it himself either. Under his defensive specialization, the Pacers were an average defensive team during the JOB years.

          So like most things, it's going to come down to the players and I don't think the Pacers will have the guys to stay at the top. They might be top of the average (around 10) but we'll find out.
          I'm thinking top 10 at least, but we were top 3 last year yet wildly inconsistent.

          I think our defense may not be top 5 this year in effeciency but help us win more games if that makes sense.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
            I think our defense may not be top 5 this year in effeciency but help us win more games if that makes sense.
            Uh no, that doesn't make sense.

            Maybe you mean improvement in offense can make up for a worse defense, and thus help win games. But a worse defense by DRTG can't be better than a higher ranked one, by definition.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
              Uh no, that doesn't make sense.

              Maybe you mean improvement in offense can make up for a worse defense, and thus help win games. But a worse defense by DRTG can't be better than a higher ranked one, by definition.
              Well no, you can rank lower in efficiency and still win more games with your defense.

              A great example are the last year Warriors. Obviously they were better on offense, but their defense was much better than ours. They were versatile and could play big down low, while also guarding spread lineups, yet they ranked 4 to our 3.

              The Pacers defense collapsed so often last year late in games it was ridiculous.

              Defensive efficiency is the points allowed per 100 possessions. When you're the lowest scoring team in the top 10, it kind of inflates your ranking.

              Don't get me wrong, we were a top defensive team, but it's very possible we drop in defensive efficiency while we are more consistent thus winning more games.

              Where's ChicagoJay?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

                Why would we assume that this team would be more consistent defensively? Also, the defensive peak of this squad is lower when compared to last years team that was able to place 3rd in spite of their"inconsistencies"

                We not only lost 3 of our best defenders from last season, but we lost 3 of our most versatile defenders as well.

                Figuring out our current best defender at the two spot is a scary proposition to consider. A 2nd year player is our best defensive big, and we have nobody to give PG a rest defensively against offensively strong wing playes.

                Paul and Dan Burke are so good, we won't become a bottom tiered defensive team. However we wont be a top defensive team either.

                I think we will be somewhere in betweem 10 and 15 defensively. Where that leaves us in the win collumn ia anyones guess.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

                  Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                  Defensive efficiency is the points allowed per 100 possessions. When you're the lowest scoring team in the top 10, it kind of inflates your ranking.
                  No it doesn't.

                  Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                  Don't get me wrong, we were a top defensive team, but it's very possible we drop in defensive efficiency while we are more consistent thus winning more games.
                  That doesn't make sense. At all.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    Why would we assume that this team would be more consistent defensively? Also, the defensive peak of this squad is lower when compared to last years team that was able to place 3rd in spite of their"inconsistencies"
                    I didn't say you should assume that, just my opinion since we should have a more consistent lineup, no CJ Miles or Lavoy starting a PF, and a coach that holds players accountable.

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    We not only lost 3 of our best defenders from last season, but we lost 3 of our most versatile defenders as well.
                    Who are the 3?

                    Ian - Now replaced by Turner, they rarely played with out each other as Turner's primary role in the regular season was starting PF. I think Turner can be just as good protecting the rim if not better. Ian rim protection numbers weren't top of the league or anything.

                    GHill - Replaced by Teague. And if you want to talk about defensive efficiency, Hawks were a better team last year and I would say Ian/Horford is a wash but ATL has no PG. Teague is as good or VERY slight downgrade at defense. Every person I've listened to who writes for the Hawks says he's a good defensive player and size/metrics reflect that.

                    Solo - Didn't play much, so not sure how he will be missed.

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    Figuring out our current best defender at the two spot is a scary proposition to consider. A 2nd year player is our best defensive big, and we have nobody to give PG a rest defensively against offensively strong wing playes.
                    I think it's hilarious that we now have nobody that can give PG a rest. It's as if Solo has been Tony Allen off the bench for all these years!

                    Look, we have guys we can throw at Lebron types to give PG a rest. We didn't lose our Lebron stopper guys.

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    Paul and Dan Burke are so good, we won't become a bottom tiered defensive team. However we wont be a top defensive team either.

                    I think we will be somewhere in betweem 10 and 15 defensively. Where that leaves us in the win collumn ia anyones guess.
                    Man, I wish we could go back and watch 82 games and have everyone who thinks we were unstoppable on defense last year put a check next to the games they really felt that way.

                    We will win more games, we will have the players and coaching to do so and that includes a more consistent defense.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

                      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                      No it doesn't.

                      That doesn't make sense. At all.
                      I can't find it but ChicagoJay broke down all of our losses and how many points we gave up and compared that to the other top 10 teams and argued that we weren't a top 10 defense.

                      I disagreed, because it all balances out. But agreed that we were wildly inconsistent for a top 3 defensive team.

                      Hopefully he can chime in or find his post.
                      Last edited by freddielewis14; 09-14-2016, 03:45 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

                        I guess we'll find out soon enough. People are pretty much on record thinking the moves will makes us worse defensively and offensively and it just won't work. And I'm on record think we're a really good team that will improve on 45 wins. Only a few more weeks...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

                          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                          I can't find it but ChicagoJay broke down all of our margins of defeat compared to the other top 10 teams and argued that we weren't a top 10 defense.

                          I disagreed, because it all balances out. But agreed that we were wildly inconsistent for a top 3 defensive team.

                          Hopefully he can chime in or find his post.
                          Every team is inconsistent now and then. That's the whole point of taking a whole season's DRTG - the noise is averaged out. What's great about ORTG and DRTG is, if you subtract them you get winning margin, which correlates very well with W-L record. Case in point: the Pacers predicted W-L record last year was 46-36 (based on ORTG and DRTG) and the actual record is 45-37.

                          Basically what it says is that, if we consistently score more points than the opponent does, we'll have a better W-L record. It's that simple.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

                            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                            Every team is inconsistent now and then.
                            Yea, we were may more inconsistent than most teams.

                            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                            That's the whole point of taking a whole season's DRTG - the noise is averaged out. What's great about ORTG and DRTG is, if you subtract them you get winning margin, which correlates very well with W-L record. Case in point: the Pacers predicted W-L record last year was 46-36 (based on ORTG and DRTG) and the actual record is 45-37.
                            What was Chicago's projected wins? They were worse than us offensively and WAY worse than us defensively yet only loss the less games. That pretty much proves my point.

                            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                            Basically what it says is that, if we consistently score more points than the opponent does, we'll have a better W-L record. It's that simple.
                            Well sure, not what I'm discussing.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: What Can We Learn From McMillan's Coaching Past?

                              Pacers - #3 in defense #23 in offense = 45 wins
                              Bulls - #15 in defense #25 in defense = 42 wins

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X