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

Quarter season report

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

    Quarter season report

    With a significant fraction of the season in the books, time to see how this season stacks up vs last season. This is a mostly statistics-based analysis.

    Let's start with some basics.

    The Pacers are currently on pace to win 39 games (last year 45). Given the higher expectations this year, the season has been disappointing so far.

    ORTG: 104.1 (21st) Last year: 104.6 (25th)
    DRTG: 107.8 (17th) Last year: 102.9 (3rd)
    Pace: 98.2 (9th) Last year: 96.6 (11th)

    The Pacers are playing somewhat faster, which was one of Larry's goals. However, the hoped for boost on offense has simply not materialized. We are actually scoring less points per possession that last year's scoring challenged team. And the defense has simply cratered. Defense (or the lack of it) is why the Pacers' margin of victory has gone from a mediocre +1.7 (11th) to a horrific -3.7 (25th). In other words, we're probably worse than our record suggests, and our record isn't pretty to start with.

    Breaking down the offense using 4 factors:

    eFG%: 0.498 vs Last year 0.497
    TOV%: 13.4 vs Last year 13.5
    ORB%: 20.4 vs Last year 23.4
    FT/FGA: 0.197 vs Last year 0.205

    The number that jumps out here is how bad the Pacers are at offensive rebounding - and last season's team wasn't particularly good either. We're shooting about the same as last year, turning it over the same as last year, and getting slightly fewer free throws than last year.

    Interestingly, the Pacers are also shooting the 3 less than last year, which is not what you'd expect from a fast pace team. The Pacers are slightly less accurate from 3 (34.6%) than last year (35.1%).

    On the plus side, we are getting more possessions (possibly due to increased steals) and assisting at a much higher rate. No one will mistake these Pacers for offensive juggernauts though.

    Breaking down the defense using 4 factors:

    Opp eFG%: 0.509 vs Last year 0.489
    Opp TOV%: 14.3 vs Last year 14.3
    DRB%: 73.2 vs Last year 76.0
    Opp FT/FGA: 0.211 vs Last year 0.205

    A theme is emerging. The Pacers can't rebound to save their lives. The DRB% is dead last in the league. Playing small takes its toll.

    The Pacers are still one of the stingiest teams at defending the 3 (Opp 3P% 33%) but we are giving up 2P shots at a whopping 51.4% (27th). Curiously, our block shot rate is up (5.8/g vs 4.8/g), but I guess that proves there's more to rim protection than just blocking shots.

    About the only thing the Pacers do well on defense is forcing turnovers and getting steals. But both of those were also true last year.

    Lineups:

    The main starting lineup (Turner-Young-PG-Ellis-Teague) has played the most minutes by far, but it hasn't been good. It's a net -4.1/100 possession. To be frank, it's not really working, for a lot of reasons which have been discussed to death.

    The second most used lineup is the PG injury lineup (with GR3 replacing PG) and surprisingly it is a +16.7 with a fairly decent amount of minutes. That's... very good actually. And it wasn't just beating up on weak teams either, since that stretch included quality wins vs OKC and LAC. It's patently ridiculous to claim that GR3 is somehow better than PG, but it's clear that the chemistry with that lineup works better than with the regular starters.

    The other frequently used lineups all suffer from low minute totals (small sample size), but I'll just point out in passing some of the best performing ones:

    Jefferson-Allen-GR3-Stuckey-Brooks +31.0
    Turner-Young-PG-Miles-Teague +33.9
    Turner-PG-Miles-Ellis-Teague +42.4

    Might not be a bad idea for Nate to tinker with the lineups some more.

    Individual Performers:

    Individual player ratings is still one of the more controversial topics in stats, so I'll just throw out a bunch of them and let people make up their own minds.

    Counting stats
    PG 20.4 ppg 7.1 rpg 3.6 apg
    Teague 15.1 ppg 3.8 rpg 6.6 apg
    Turner 14.4 ppg 7.4 rpg 2.2 bpg 52.7% fg%
    Miles 12.7 ppg 47% 3p%
    Young 11.8 ppg 53.2% fg%

    PER
    Miles 20.6
    Turner 20.0
    PG 19.1
    Teague 18.8
    Seraphin 17.5

    WS/48
    Miles .182
    Turner .152
    Teague .113
    PG .104
    Young .091

    RPM
    Turner 1.73
    Miles 1.68
    Teague 1.35
    PG 1.23
    Young 0.66

    Seems like the same names keep popping up. Maybe this is less controversial than I thought.

    End notes:

    Last season's Pacers were criticized for losing a lot of close games. But the flip side is that they were rarely ever blown out. They lost all of 5 games last season where the losing margin is 15 or greater. This season? There are already 7, and we are only a quarter of the season in.

    Closing thoughts:

    It hasn't been pretty. Injuries have played a part, especially CJ(!) missing time. And ok, PG too. Not sure that we can address the problem of the boards. We lost a lot of beef from from last year (Mahinmi, J. Hill, Lavoy's role reduced). Playing Seraphin would help. Al Jeff should as well, but it seems that he is still playing his way into shape. Turner tries (rebound numbers are up) but alas that's just not his forte.

    But mostly this feels like a team still struggling with its identity. We're playing a smallball style that is ineffective offensively and has massive holes defensively. Something's got to give.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Quarter season report

    The rebounding numbers are disturbing. Almost impossible to be a good team if you can't rebound the ball.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Quarter season report

      Nice work.

      Info on the different line ups is interesting.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Quarter season report

        Great reporting but I got a question, why are you calling it "smallball" when the PG is taller than last year and the PF is only 2 inches shorter than the one that started for half season last year (Lavoy) and is obviously bigger than CJ Miles?

        Also Turner is about the same height as Ian.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Quarter season report

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Great reporting but I got a question, why are you calling it "smallball" when the PG is taller than last year and the PF is only 2 inches shorter than the one that started for half season last year (Lavoy) and is obviously bigger than CJ Miles?

          Also Turner is about the same height as Ian.
          Where do I start

          1. You try using justification that the PG is taller and the PF is shorter to say that we aren't playing smallball? That doesn't even make sense
          2. Teague is shorter than G. Hill lol probably by mote than their listed height.
          3. The term smallball isn't about height. The warriors play small ball and their lineup is between 6'3 and 7'0.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Quarter season report

            Great thread and good information. The rebounding numbers are scary. The other numbers arent surprising given the players that we have.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Quarter season report

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              Where do I start

              1. You try using justification that the PG is taller and the PF is shorter to say that we aren't playing smallball? That doesn't even make sense
              2. Teague is shorter than G. Hill lol probably by mote than their listed height.
              3. The term smallball isn't about height. The warriors play small ball and their lineup is between 6'3 and 7'0.
              Teague is taller there is not questions about that and GS plays small ball because they play Green at center most of the time(he is 6'6").
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Quarter season report

                An up tempo, smallish ball team that pushes pace without good 3 point shooters...the fact that we are shooting less 3s than last year is actually terrible. The personnel we have is not ideal for our scheme and direction.
                //

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Quarter season report

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Teague is taller there is not questions about that and GS plays small ball because they play Green at center most of the time(he is 6'6").
                  Draftexpress is your friend if you want to find measurements

                  Jeff Teague - 6' 0.25" (w/o shoes) 6' 1.5" (w/ shoes)
                  George Hill - 6' 1.25" (w/o shoes) 6' 2.5" (w/shoes)

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Quarter season report

                    I see this years Pacers and Colts teams being similar. Stumbling out of the gate and then finishing strong once they finally start to gel(and hopefully less injuries!) Once PG and Luck finally get in a rhythm and more comfortable with their respective teams then watch out!

                    At least that's what I hope!

                    Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Quarter season report

                      I mean it's basically the same team as last year. By that I mean it was a flawed team then and it's a flawed team now. Slightly worse off because we couldn't replace Mahinmi with someone with his strengths including his athleticism/D. I think the Teague/Hill things is roughly a wash as far as how it plays out in terms of performance and impact within the context of the team. You just substitute as different skill set but get about the same overall affect. I say that liking what Teague brings, and especially what I think he could be if surrounding by the right pieces.
                      Last edited by D-BONE; 12-07-2016, 09:57 PM.
                      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                      -Emiliano Zapata

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Quarter season report

                        Wow, the offensive rebounding is surprising to me. I thought we were for sure better this season because we attack the offensive glass a lot more this season than last. That's a pretty telling stat. And part of it is probably because of less Lavoy.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Quarter season report

                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                          Wow, the offensive rebounding is surprising to me. I thought we were for sure better this season because we attack the offensive glass a lot more this season than last. That's a pretty telling stat. And part of it is probably because of less Lavoy.
                          I think one key component is rebounding on both sides of the ball is highly-effort based. This team just doesn't bring consistent, high-level intensity.
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Quarter season report

                            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                            Last season's Pacers were criticized for losing a lot of close games. But the flip side is that they were rarely ever blown out. They lost all of 5 games last season where the losing margin is 15 or greater. This season? There are already 7, and we are only a quarter of the season in.
                            Yikes! Great write-up, though, wm. Always appreciated!

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Quarter season report

                              Until our starting center learns how to rebound, the Pacers will continue to suck at rebounding. In tonight's game vs Phoenix, Myles had only 4 rebounds in 28 minutes. Not acceptable. I'm really hoping this is an age/strength issue as opposed to the alternative. Myles has been better than expected so far, and it's hard to gripe about his game, but his rebounding must get better
                              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X