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

Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

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

  • Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

    So what's the verdict tonight everybody?

    I liked the energy. Good to see Tins have a good game. Quis earned his down the stretch minutes. Hope his activity becomes a constant.

    Too many errors and inability to make plays down the stretch. Jason Kidd is a monster. Three game losing skid. How will come back with a back to back on the road tomorrow?
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

  • #2
    Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

    Glad to see a little fight after a tough start. They hung around and finally got hot in the 3rd quarter. The Pacers are a streak shooting team, as a unit. Very strange.

    Down the stretch the Pacers needed a go to guy and no one stepped up.
    Go Pacers!
    Indy Cornrows

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

      After how many games is it appropriate to stop calling it a slump and start calling it a bad player?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

        Refs were horrible.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

          Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
          After how many games is it appropriate to stop calling it a slump and start calling it a bad player?


          16
          I'm in these bands
          The Humans
          Dr. Goldfoot
          The Bar Brawlers
          ME

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

            Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
            After how many games is it appropriate to stop calling it a slump and start calling it a bad player?
            Don't know. Your mind is obviously already made up though. I don't think Jack is a bad player. I don't think he's a good player either. But I think he has played reasonably well in most aspects other than shooting. And, as we know, he's never been a particularly good shooter.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

              Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
              Don't know. Your mind is obviously already made up though. I don't think Jack is a bad player. I don't think he's a good player either. But I think he has played reasonably well in most aspects other than shooting. And, as we know, he's never been a particularly good shooter.
              I'm willing to accept that he's not a bad player, but if he has never been a particularly good shooter, perhaps he should be taking 11 shots a game? That's all I'm saying...

              Plus, since we all know Tinsley can't shoot, we're gonna need someone in the backcourt to start making shots...and Marquis Daniels sure ain't gonna get the job done.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

                Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                I'm willing to accept that he's not a bad player, but if he has never been a particularly good shooter, perhaps he should be taking 11 shots a game? That's all I'm saying...

                Plus, since we all know Tinsley can't shoot, we're gonna need someone in the backcourt to start making shots...and Marquis Daniels sure ain't gonna get the job done.
                Well, this bigger point I can certainly agree with. We don't have anybody that can consistently hit from outside. Seems Granger is developing into the closest thing we've got. I don't personally like the idea of him at SG though. I'd prefer to see him more involved offensively in a combination that did not include both JO and Al.

                As to Jackson's FGAs, I think that will be reduced as the season progresses due to (hopefully) the continued emergence of Daniels. What I could live with from Jackson is just cutting down on the 3s. More drives to the hoop, midrange jumpers, and post ups.

                I think the overall key, as is being discussed in the starting 5 thread, is finding rotations/combinations that fit better as far as who does and does not command the ball. Right now we've got 4 guys in our starting five that want to dominate it and a coach who seems to see DG's role as more marginal on offense. IMO opinion he should be the 3rd option with Quis/Jack/ and Tins then splitting things up after that, but I'm not calling the shots.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

                  Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                  I'm willing to accept that he's not a bad player, but if he has never been a particularly good shooter, perhaps he should be taking 11 shots a game? That's all I'm saying...

                  Plus, since we all know Tinsley can't shoot, we're gonna need someone in the backcourt to start making shots...and Marquis Daniels sure ain't gonna get the job done.
                  1 from the arc.
                  5 from the paint.

                  What's the problem again? It's not like the guy is chucking tons of misses from the outside. One of those misses was a classic baseline give and go and he got right to the rim and missed it. There was some pressure there, but still. The key is that shots at the rim are what you want, and they help keep other teams from running (long rebounds, defenders pulled toward baseline) and give your guys a chance to come to the basket for the follow-up.

                  He dished 4 assists to 1 TO. He continues to load up on steals as well. Jack is doing what a shooter in a slump is supposed to do, limit the outside looks and find other ways to impact the game.

                  If he wasn't doing those things he would be on the bench. There is a reason why Sarunas didn't play vs NJ after his awful play vs Boston.

                  What I could live with from Jackson is just cutting down on the 3s. More drives to the hoop, midrange jumpers, and post ups.
                  Facts from NJ:
                  Granger 2-8 from 3
                  Jack 0-1 from 3

                  Jack took 5 of his 11 shots from IN THE PAINT. Jack took 19 3PA in the first 3 games, only 16 in the next 6, so his outside attempts have dropped in half.

                  Meanwhile Granger's 3P% is 32% if you take away the 5-6 vs Chicago. Last year Danny shot it for 32% for the entire season. So IMO until you see him bring a few more 3-5 and 4-6 nights from deep, he probably shouldn't be chucking up 8. He has yet to prove that he's AS GOOD as Jack from 3, let alone better.


                  So let's just drop the baggage brought to the table and evaluate these guys on what they have been doing so far THIS year. If Danny gets to 20 games with a 36+ 3P% then I'll buy in, and if Jack returns to shooting more than 1-2 from the arc per game (at a poor % that is) then I'll get on him about that too.

                  Jack's shot has been really hurting them, but not because of how many takes. Those are down. The fact is they really need him taking 11-12 and MAKING 45% of them. You gotta have at least a few moderate outside threats.

                  Maybe if Danny gets to that 20 game spot and really has proven he has a consistantly strong 3P shot, then you can seriously back down the takes Jack gets. One strong game vs Chicago is not enough though.


                  Grades from the last week or so...

                  Daniels - A. Outstanding all-around impact, continues to impress with his ability to find his way into the paint off the dribble. Has started hitting outside looks too.

                  Al - A. He rebounds stay too low, but its not for lack of effort from what I've seen. His scoring has kept them in games. After those first few games he's been on fire.

                  JO - B. His shot has been lacking lately, but like Jack he's making a big contribution on defense (those blocks, wow) and he's been showing great energy at the glass. One concern, has he perhaps lost a bit from his speed and jumping? Seems possible to me.

                  Tinsley - C-. He's getting a little better about selecting his looks and backs off after a few misses, but his creative playmaking hasn't really been there very much lately. Standard iffy defense, but you do see him trying to help attack the rebounds more which is nice.

                  Granger - B-. At times he is brilliant, but he still plays a young game and hurts things just as much as he helps. Fans are so excited about him as the young talent they overlook this stuff, but it gets pretty ugly at times. I like him and think he'll keep getting better. But so far, not a starter.

                  Jack - B-. Apart from a poor start vs Boston he's been great at everything except actually putting the ball in the hoop. Getting him on track, just to his normal averages, would be a monster help

                  Armstrong - A. His 3 ball is nuts, his energy is fantastic. He's exactly what you like to see off the bench.

                  Foster - B. He's been great at times, but his rebounds aren't there every night (see Boston) and the rest of his game is still limited. He's not quite starter material, but he might be a better fit to start for the Pacers who have too many offensive options starting right now.

                  Harrison - C-. I think he's taken a step backward and he really hasn't been the post force the Pacers desperately need him to be.

                  Sarunas - D. He's had a couple of good games, but he looks totally overwhelmed most nights.

                  Rawle, Greene, Powell, Baston - incompletes, though Rawle does attack the basket well and I feel generally comfortable when he hits the floor. Baston looked a little better vs NJ which was a nice surprise. Nothing special but not a liability either. Powell is still a little rough. Greene showed some promise and I'd like to see some more PT for him since PG is a trouble spot.


                  Those were by my expectations for each player, but just overall positive impact on the court from a Pacers view (plenty of other NBA players would be getting A's, at least 2-3 for every team).

                  All I can say is thank god for the Dallas trades. No way AC would be matching Daniels level of overall contribution right now, and Armstrong has been really dynamic, just what the doctor ordered.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

                    What's up with this troll Whiteone who is always calling out race?

                    But anyway, great post Naptown_Seth...

                    I completely agree with you about Jackson. He has been doing great, well as good as a guy can who is in a shooting slump. Think if he had been hitting 45-50% of his shots all this time, like we know he should be. He would probably be our MVP. I think this slump is actually helping him by forcing him to focus on the other aspects of the game. And he will be a much better player for it when his shot returns.

                    And yes Granger shouldn't be jackin up so many, but alot of his shots are the correct play with the shotclock running down, I'd still like to see him fake it and step in for the mid ranged jumper.

                    I think for alot of folks it's hard to really evaluate Jackson and Granger fairly. Granger is the golden boy, and Jackson has all that baggage.

                    Anyway, good refreshing post and it mirrored my own thoughts

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      1 from the arc.
                      5 from the paint.

                      What's the problem again? It's not like the guy is chucking tons of misses from the outside. One of those misses was a classic baseline give and go and he got right to the rim and missed it. There was some pressure there, but still. The key is that shots at the rim are what you want, and they help keep other teams from running (long rebounds, defenders pulled toward baseline) and give your guys a chance to come to the basket for the follow-up.

                      He dished 4 assists to 1 TO. He continues to load up on steals as well. Jack is doing what a shooter in a slump is supposed to do, limit the outside looks and find other ways to impact the game.

                      If he wasn't doing those things he would be on the bench. There is a reason why Sarunas didn't play vs NJ after his awful play vs Boston.


                      Facts from NJ:
                      Granger 2-8 from 3
                      Jack 0-1 from 3

                      Jack took 5 of his 11 shots from IN THE PAINT. Jack took 19 3PA in the first 3 games, only 16 in the next 6, so his outside attempts have dropped in half.

                      Meanwhile Granger's 3P% is 32% if you take away the 5-6 vs Chicago. Last year Danny shot it for 32% for the entire season. So IMO until you see him bring a few more 3-5 and 4-6 nights from deep, he probably shouldn't be chucking up 8. He has yet to prove that he's AS GOOD as Jack from 3, let alone better.


                      So let's just drop the baggage brought to the table and evaluate these guys on what they have been doing so far THIS year. If Danny gets to 20 games with a 36+ 3P% then I'll buy in, and if Jack returns to shooting more than 1-2 from the arc per game (at a poor % that is) then I'll get on him about that too.

                      Jack's shot has been really hurting them, but not because of how many takes. Those are down. The fact is they really need him taking 11-12 and MAKING 45% of them. You gotta have at least a few moderate outside threats.

                      Maybe if Danny gets to that 20 game spot and really has proven he has a consistantly strong 3P shot, then you can seriously back down the takes Jack gets. One strong game vs Chicago is not enough though.


                      Grades from the last week or so...

                      Daniels - A. Outstanding all-around impact, continues to impress with his ability to find his way into the paint off the dribble. Has started hitting outside looks too.

                      Al - A. He rebounds stay too low, but its not for lack of effort from what I've seen. His scoring has kept them in games. After those first few games he's been on fire.

                      JO - B. His shot has been lacking lately, but like Jack he's making a big contribution on defense (those blocks, wow) and he's been showing great energy at the glass. One concern, has he perhaps lost a bit from his speed and jumping? Seems possible to me.

                      Tinsley - C-. He's getting a little better about selecting his looks and backs off after a few misses, but his creative playmaking hasn't really been there very much lately. Standard iffy defense, but you do see him trying to help attack the rebounds more which is nice.

                      Granger - B-. At times he is brilliant, but he still plays a young game and hurts things just as much as he helps. Fans are so excited about him as the young talent they overlook this stuff, but it gets pretty ugly at times. I like him and think he'll keep getting better. But so far, not a starter.

                      Jack - B-. Apart from a poor start vs Boston he's been great at everything except actually putting the ball in the hoop. Getting him on track, just to his normal averages, would be a monster help

                      Armstrong - A. His 3 ball is nuts, his energy is fantastic. He's exactly what you like to see off the bench.

                      Foster - B. He's been great at times, but his rebounds aren't there every night (see Boston) and the rest of his game is still limited. He's not quite starter material, but he might be a better fit to start for the Pacers who have too many offensive options starting right now.

                      Harrison - C-. I think he's taken a step backward and he really hasn't been the post force the Pacers desperately need him to be.

                      Sarunas - D. He's had a couple of good games, but he looks totally overwhelmed most nights.

                      Rawle, Greene, Powell, Baston - incompletes, though Rawle does attack the basket well and I feel generally comfortable when he hits the floor. Baston looked a little better vs NJ which was a nice surprise. Nothing special but not a liability either. Powell is still a little rough. Greene showed some promise and I'd like to see some more PT for him since PG is a trouble spot.


                      Those were by my expectations for each player, but just overall positive impact on the court from a Pacers view (plenty of other NBA players would be getting A's, at least 2-3 for every team).

                      All I can say is thank god for the Dallas trades. No way AC would be matching Daniels level of overall contribution right now, and Armstrong has been really dynamic, just what the doctor ordered.
                      I'm with you on Jack, although I'm not opposed to him coming off the bench. I made a post in another thread pointing out his contributions in other cats beside shooting.

                      I did, however, float the idea of him ratcheting back the 3PAs but I was basing it on his numbers for the year. Something like 22% compared to DG's over 40% on effectively the same number shots. Maybe NJ 1 attempt for Jack shows he's trying to do that at least until he can find a better stroke.

                      I actually think Jack and Quis in certain contexts can be effective on the court at the same time.
                      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                      -Emiliano Zapata

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

                        Originally posted by Whiteone View Post
                        refering top deleted post
                        What are you doing? Just because you disagree with some of Seth's grades, why are you suggesting it has anything to do with race.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

                          I think this slump is actually helping him by forcing him to focus on the other aspects of the game.
                          Yeah, I think you might be right about that. I also suspect that the clampdown on arguing with refs is helping, and that the Rio backlash has him on extra good behavior in an attempt to get his rep back in shape a little.

                          Hopefully it will stick. He's a much, much better player when he's focused.

                          But the shooting I just can't figure. New ball? Or is he pressing? Or is he due for a mega-streak that gets his numbers back up to average?

                          He did force too many from the outside last night, but a couple were end of clock bailouts and a few came after makes when he was obviously starting to feel like he was warming up (heat check).

                          It didn't feel like nine, and with him a 3-9 night is usually pretty freaking annoying. Of course the box doesn't look as bad for Tins and Sarunas as the game itself did. Not great lines for either of them, but they both played pretty poorly most of the night. Guess the box doesn't have room for negative numbers.


                          BTW, game #2 of Danny hitting the 3 well. Keep it up and prove that shot. My only concern is that his offense is starting to become a "camp the arc" style, and he's way too talented to leave it at that. A guy like Jack (and plenty of other outside shooter types) also brings whatever inside game he has.

                          At this point DG is starting to slip into James Jones mode, one dimensional offensive threat.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

                            During the broadcast the alluded to the idea it's a wrist injury that's turned his shooting from bad to awful.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Official Pacers-Nets Postgame Thread

                              Originally posted by Alpolloloco View Post
                              infraction deleted
                              You can't go running around calling everyone a troll with absolutely no justification. Seth ALWAYS completely backs up his opinions with legitimate evidence. If you want to counter his statement, make one that actually consists of relevant information.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X