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

Foster's shooting

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

  • #16
    Re: Foster's shooting

    Originally posted by Bball
    I've commented quite often about players blowing layups/dunks by saying "He Fostered that bunny"... "Ohhhhh...Nooooo... He Fostered it!"

    Any player can "Foster" a gimme.... but only Foster can do it with regularity.







    -Bball
    Hilarious! Sad, but hilarious!!

    Jeff's never been a scorer. Any time he gets a double-double is from somebody else's missed opportunity or as Naptown points out, "a seemingly easy missed layup or tapped ball underneath the basket". Rarely have I seen him take a wide opened FGA and make it! Next to Scott Pollard, Jeff has the uglist shot I've ever seen! But, he's not here to score the ball. He's here to give everyone else those 2nd-shot attempts. And if he manages to get a putback or two here or there...

    Trouble is, he's not even getting the "gimme's" these days. I think that has to do with the way he views himself - a garbage scorer rather than an aggressive scorer even on those seemingly simple "gimme's". If he would dare to grab the ball and attack the basket or put it on the floor once and go back up with force or take a shot from the floor every once in a while I think his scoring output would increase even if he was scoring from the line vice the field from all the fouls he'd collect. Foster just needs to rethink "Fostering".

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Foster's shooting

      Originally posted by Fool
      I don't understand factoring out "Hail Mary" shot attempts. Those count as rebounds and so positively effect a statistical view of Foster. The fact that they weigh down his FG% would seem to be an evening out of the situation. After all, how useful is a "rebound" that can only be used for a "Hail Mary" attempt at a score? And I definately don't agree with simply reducing his FG attempts by one to account for them, especially since any made "Hail Mary"s are already factored positively into his FG% so just taking a shot attempt off his % is counting all his made ones and taking out all his missed ones (and probably a whole lot more since I doubt these "Hail Mary"s comprise 25% of his shot attempts).

      As for the "what happens eventually" argument, how does that factor in? You already see his offensive rebound numbers and his fg% so you can have a perspective on how often he eventually gets the ball in the bucket (82games has his current "Tip Ins" e% at .364 and comprising 10% of his shot attempts). Is someone else getting a rebound off of a Foster miss supposed to count positively for Foster? Does it count positive for whoever shot the attempt that Foster rebounded in the first place?


      No, but it certainly helps the team. I don't really care whether it positively impacts Jeff or not, that means nothing to me. What does mean a lot to me is the impact Jeff has on the Pacers team. And I've said for several seasons now the Pacers are a better team when Jeff is on the floor. This season was the season, OK, now is the time for jeff to be replaced, well we tried that and look we went back to Jeff. That speaks volumes to me.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Foster's shooting

        Every time I see the title of this thread "Foster's shooting" I think "Did Sjax shoot him?"



        -Bball
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Foster's shooting

          Originally posted by ALF68 View Post
          Finally a voice of reason! I think that the more appropriate question would be, why does the thread starter feel the need to start a thread bashing Foster.
          I don't think Naptown's bashing Foster, but rather trying to point out how the team's PPG would increase if he were to make more of those low-percentage shots as opposed to say Al, Granger, Tinsley or Sarunas missing their high-percentage 3PAs or last second buzzer beaters.

          UB makes a good point in that Foster's offensive rebounds that were initially "gimme taps" that didn't go it but were eventually kicked back out and putback for the score by someone else shouldn't really count against him except...

          When you consider the time of possession wasted by him not scoring the ball in the first place. Now, I seriously doubt anyone will be able to determine just how many additional possessions the Pacers lost because he didn't score the ball on an easy layup and the Pacers eventually lost the game. By contrast, I doubt anyone will be able to say for sure how many games were won by Foster providing that 2nd shot attempt that was putback for the score. So, in all actuality, this "debate" is a wash. But...

          It is interesting to note that someone else who is a fan has noticed the missed opportunities by a beloved players who simply needs to be more aggressive with his game and rethink his approach to those "gimme's".

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Foster's shooting

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            No, but it certainly helps the team. I don't really care whether it positively impacts Jeff or not, that means nothing to me. What does mean a lot to me is the impact Jeff has on the Pacers team. And I've said for several seasons now the Pacers are a better team when Jeff is on the floor. This season was the season, OK, now is the time for jeff to be replaced, well we tried that and look we went back to Jeff. That speaks volumes to me.
            Sure, I understand and would probably agree that overall Foster is a positive for the team (and his shooting can't be that much of a negative when he only shoots 4 times a game anyway). But you were talking about adding in things to a statistical view of Foster to show that his contributions to the offense are a positive in itself, "I'm not saying Jeff is a net plus for the Pacers defense or rebounding - we already know that - but Jeff is a net plus for the Pacers offense." So if you are going to count some of Foster's misses as a positive because they eventually end up in points for the Pacers then you have to do the same when comparing him to the rest of the team (to analyze if he's a net positive to the offense) and I don't think that will end up helping Foster as the rest of the team has Foster rebounding for them while Foster (in the situation you've drawn up) does not.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Foster's shooting

              Isn't it funny to see other people rushing to defend Foster on a legit stat issue. Now you know where I'm coming from with Jackson sometimes.

              BTW, I hope you noticed that when I put a big chunk of blame on him (Jack) for blowing critical chances down the stretch vs the Jazz I was immediately labeled a Jackson hater. Pretty much sums up how insanely biased people can get.

              Me, I'm equal opportunity complainer or supporter. I already noted that even for Jeff this is a terrible stretch of shooting. Normally he's a 50%+ guy.


              As for the tip-ins and stuff, what about all the times he has been FED THE BALL at the rim and missed the shot. That's been part of the problem as well. The DEN game saw his stats padded out, and 2 of his rebounds there were actually tips by OTHER PLAYERS that he got credit for. (edit, incorrect credit given Jeff)

              Frankly I don't feel wrong for expecting the big on the receiving end of a PnR that puts the ball in his hands at the rim to MAKE THE SHOT.

              As for the "how much does it REALLY cost" angle, the point is easily made in defense of Jackson and Tinsley's shooting as well then. If Jack's FG% is good on just 1 more make per then it's only 2 points and that doesn't win games anymore than the extra point or two that Jeff loses with inside misses that need to go down at 55-60%


              Back to Jeff. Just look at the Utah shot chart.
              Disgusting. 3rd quarter, 2 shots at the rim, 2 misses, 2 offensive boards. Subtract the FGMiss from the O-reb. Now he's 0-1 with 4 total rebounds.

              O-rebound on a Tins miss, fouled, 1-2 FTs. A legit chance at a 3pt play even, and certainly no better than an average outcome for the extra possession.

              2 more O-boards, Tins misses layup off of first, Foster misses putback off the other.

              The Utah tally for his 5 offensive boards, ONE POINT.

              His other 2 points did come off FTs on his defensive board. But the bottom line is you had virtually nothing come from his offensive rebounding and no other offense from him at all. So what did he contribute? He gave up a possession on an offensive foul and gave up a FTA on a defensive lane violation (FT missed).

              If he had just scored those 3 buckets inside he might have been looking at only 3 offensive boards, but a 3-3 night with 8 or 9 points (if he makes the and-1).

              Tinsley is shooting better than Jeff this month, and actually lost 3.5% from his FG% with that 3-18 "gem" vs Utah. He was 42.4 coming into the game while Jeff was 36.3 before his 0-3. Jackson came in at 45.4 before going 3-10 vs Utah (and his 30-32 FTs has his PPS at a nice 1.29 for the month, Utah included).

              The point remains that if you take away all the worthless rebounds that become no points due to his miss, or are falsely created by inside misses that should have just been made in the first place then what do you have? A 6 rpg guy getting 6 ppg on 50% shooting.

              Not awful, but not what you'd like from the starting rebounding specialist PF/C. He's clearly had a bad month. It's okay to realize and admit this, doesn't make you a bad fan or a Jeff hater.

              I think the team is playing much better ball with Jeff in the starting lineup. I just think he's been terrible with putbacks the last month or so, something he's had problems with in the past.



              extra example - the NY game
              1 o-board, missed layup (JO board and score)
              1 o-board, missed layup (Marbury rebound)
              1 o-board, kicks out and Pacers get no score on possession
              1 o-board, missed layup (Pacers get team rebound, Saras 14s later makes shot)
              1 o-board, pass and JO misses inside shot
              1 o-board, missed layup (Foster then fouls, NY ball)
              1 o-board, kicks out and Al later misses shot, no score for possession

              So 7 offensive boards, 4 of which were wasted on missed putbacks, 3 others that become nothing. The 2 times his activity inside was in any way part of a score was when JO followed Foster's layup miss for a rebound and score and when the ball got tipped out for a team rebound and eventually became a Sarunas make.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Foster's shooting

                Interesting points by Waxman and NuffSaid (avoiding fouls/FTAs and not seeing himself in an aggressive Dale Davis power finish way).


                ALF, even after the earlier issue you have followed me all over the board and targeted my opinion specifically, often by name. You made your case to the mods about your legit desire to be here and that you in no way had a prior connection to me. I've had you on ignore, maybe try the same solution and live up to your end of the deal.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Foster's shooting

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Isn't it funny to see other people rushing to defend Foster on a legit stat issue. Now you know where I'm coming from with Jackson sometimes.

                  BTW, I hope you noticed that when I put a big chunk of blame on him (Jack) for blowing critical chances down the stretch vs the Jazz I was immediately labeled a Jackson hater. Pretty much sums up how insanely biased people can get.

                  Me, I'm equal opportunity complainer or supporter. I already noted that even for Jeff this is a terrible stretch of shooting. Normally he's a 50%+ guy.


                  As for the tip-ins and stuff, what about all the times he has been FED THE BALL at the rim and missed the shot. That's been part of the problem as well. The DEN game saw his stats padded out, and 2 of his rebounds there were actually tips by OTHER PLAYERS that he got credit for. (edit, incorrect credit given Jeff)

                  Frankly I don't feel wrong for expecting the big on the receiving end of a PnR that puts the ball in his hands at the rim to MAKE THE SHOT.

                  As for the "how much does it REALLY cost" angle, the point is easily made in defense of Jackson and Tinsley's shooting as well then. If Jack's FG% is good on just 1 more make per then it's only 2 points and that doesn't win games anymore than the extra point or two that Jeff loses with inside misses that need to go down at 55-60%


                  Back to Jeff. Just look at the Utah shot chart.
                  Disgusting. 3rd quarter, 2 shots at the rim, 2 misses, 2 offensive boards. Subtract the FGMiss from the O-reb. Now he's 0-1 with

                  O-rebound on a Tins miss, fouled, 1-2 FTs. A legit chance at a 3pt play even, and certainly no better than an average outcome for the extra possession.

                  2 more O-boards, Tins misses layup off of first, Foster misses putback off the other.

                  The Utah tally for his 5 offensive boards, ONE POINT.

                  His other 2 points did come off FTs on his defensive board. But the bottom line is you had virtually nothing come from his offensive rebounding and no other offense from him at all. So what did he contribute? He gave up a possession on an offensive foul and gave up a FTA on a defensive lane violation (FT missed).

                  If he had just scored those 3 buckets inside he might have been looking at only 3 offensive boards, but a 3-3 night with 8 or 9 points (if he makes the and-1).

                  Tinsley is shooting better than Jeff this month, and actually lost 3.5% from his FG% with that 3-18 "gem" vs Utah. He was 42.4 coming into the game while Jeff was 36.3 before his 0-3. Jackson came in at 45.4 before going 3-10 vs Utah (and his 30-32 FTs has his PPS at a nice 1.29 for the month, Utah included).

                  The point remains that if you take away all the worthless rebounds that become no points due to his miss, or are falsely created by inside misses that should have just been made in the first place then what do you have? A 6 rpg guy getting 6 ppg on 50% shooting.

                  Not awful, but not what you'd like from the starting rebounding specialist PF/C. He's clearly had a bad month. It's okay to realize and admit this, doesn't make you a bad fan or a Jeff hater.

                  I think the team is playing much better ball with Jeff in the starting lineup. I just think he's been terrible with putbacks the last month or so, something he's had problems with in the past.



                  extra example - the NY game
                  1 o-board, missed layup (JO board and score)
                  1 o-board, missed layup (Marbury rebound)
                  1 o-board, kicks out and Pacers get no score on possession
                  1 o-board, missed layup (Pacers get team rebound, Saras 14s later makes shot)
                  1 o-board, pass and JO misses inside shot
                  1 o-board, missed layup (Foster then fouls, NY ball)
                  1 o-board, kicks out and Al later misses shot, no score for possession

                  So 7 offensive boards, 4 of which were wasted on missed putbacks, 3 others that become nothing. The 2 times his activity inside was in any way part of a score was when JO followed Foster's layup miss for a rebound and score and when the ball got tipped out for a team rebound and eventually became a Sarunas make.
                  If I wasn't so lazy I could do what you have done to Foster to any player on this team. Take this post for instance, you spend 99% of the post saying how bad Jeff is then at the end you throw him a bone to make it appear that you are being impartial, what a concept.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Foster's shooting

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    Interesting points by Waxman and NuffSaid (avoiding fouls/FTAs and not seeing himself in an aggressive Dale Davis power finish way).


                    ALF, even after the earlier issue you have followed me all over the board and targeted my opinion specifically, often by name. You made your case to the mods about your legit desire to be here and that you in no way had a prior connection to me. I've had you on ignore, maybe try the same solution and live up to your end of the deal.
                    Seth, if you would take the time to read my posts, you would find that they are not even close to following you all over this board. I respond to posts and threads that I believe need to be countered and shed light on, and if your posts just happen to be one of those, than too bad. Why do you believe that you can start a thread bashing Foster and not get some negative feedback on it? UB, more or less responded to your thread in the same vein that I have, and do you call him out for following you all over the board. My problem with this thread is that You want people to believe that you are impartial, while kicking Foster to the curb. Now, I think that you have a tremendous knowledge of the game and compose many good posts, however I think that you discredit yourself with this kind of thread.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Foster's shooting

                      Alf,

                      I'm not sure if you're "shadowing" Naptown or not (stalking is such a strong term and has such a negative connotation ), but the essence of what Naptown's saying is pretty sound. Using the Nugget's game (12/02) as an example:

                      Foster's stat line:

                      FGs: 3-13
                      3P: 0-0
                      FTs: 2-2
                      Rbs: Off-12, Def-6; TOT: 18
                      Pts: 8

                      Now, how many of those 12 offensive rebounds were close in under the basket? And how many of those 13 FGAs were actually attempts at tipping the ball in the basket? For that game, the Pacers lost by 20 pts (101-121), BUT...

                      Had Foster gone 10-13 instead, got to the line and made 6 or 7 FTs...?

                      Foster's revised stat line:

                      FGs: 10-13
                      3P: 0-0
                      FTs: 8-10
                      Rbs: Off-12, Def-6; TOT: 18
                      Pts: 28

                      Those extra 20 pts most certainly would have affected the outcome of the game...kinda depends on how aggressive Jeff was and who among the Nuggest exactly got into foul trouble. (It very well could have been the one player or players who ultimately had an affect on the game in favor of the Nuggest, whereas, more assertive and aggressive play by Foster could have made the Nuggets approach the game alittle differently.)

                      So, I think all Naptown's saying is those "gimme's", which are freebies for the most part because Foster's moving w/o the ball and is therefore freer to roam than Al or JO, should be near instant points for him, and they're not for whatever reason. Alittle more assertiveness with his approach to scoring the ball and a game like this one might not have gotten away.

                      And just to clarify: I'm in no way saying Foster was to blame for this or any other lose this team has had this season. For in this game I used as an example, the 26 TO's killed the Pacers all by themselves. However, just consider for a moment what those additional 8 "gimme's" would have meant to the team had the Pacers took better care of the ball on top of Foster actually making those extra putbacks?

                      (Sidenote: For December, the Nuggets game was the only game where Foster took +10 FGAs. Therefore, I used that game to illustrate how the extra scoring could have changed the outcome of the game. In the other games, Foster took btwn 2-9 FGAs and as such, his extra proposed FGs probably wouldn't have changes the outcome of the game much, if at all. The Nuggets game was, therefore, the best game to use to illustrate how his extra scoring could have impacted the game with a win for the Pacers.)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Foster's shooting

                        Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                        I've it wouldn't even be necessary if he had any basketball skills beyond just having a knack for where the ball is going.
                        Well many fans complain about how Jeff doesn't shoot a high% from the field. I don't really care what the number is. He is shooting 44% from the field. Jeff rarely attemps more than 5 shots a game. For those who say he should be making a lot more of those putbacks just remember that a lot of times he is around a couple other players so those "easy lay-ups" aren't so easy anymore when you have other players around you.

                        Again, Jeff's rebounding is needed so badly on this team. I consider his skill to know where the ball is going a great skill to have. I love role players and guys who can be effective without the ball and Jeff is just that. His value doesn't show up on the stat sheet. It's not his FG%, it's not even his rebounding. Jeff creates possessions with his hustle and energy. He may not always come up with the ball but a lot of times the Pacers will and it all starts with Jeff hustling. I love his hustle. I am not ashamed to brag about having a guy like Jeff on my team either.

                        I have never understood why people need to complain about Jeff and his shooting when he only takes 5 shots a game. Then there are some who say subtract his missed putbacks. Do it. For 10 games someone should keep track of this. For a guy who shoots 5 shots a game it won't be as many as you might think. I'd bet money on it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Foster's shooting

                          Originally posted by rommie View Post
                          Well many fans complain about how Jeff doesn't shoot a high% from the field. I don't really care what the number is. He is shooting 44% from the field. Jeff rarely attemps more than 5 shots a game. For those who say he should be making a lot more of those putbacks just remember that a lot of times he is around a couple other players so those "easy lay-ups" aren't so easy anymore when you have other players around you.

                          Again, Jeff's rebounding is needed so badly on this team. I consider his skill to know where the ball is going a great skill to have. I love role players and guys who can be effective without the ball and Jeff is just that. His value doesn't show up on the stat sheet. It's not his FG%, it's not even his rebounding. Jeff creates possessions with his hustle and energy. He may not always come up with the ball but a lot of times the Pacers will and it all starts with Jeff hustling. I love his hustle. I am not ashamed to brag about having a guy like Jeff on my team either.

                          I have never understood why people need to complain about Jeff and his shooting when he only takes 5 shots a game. Then there are some who say subtract his missed putbacks. Do it. For 10 games someone should keep track of this. For a guy who shoots 5 shots a game it won't be as many as you might think. I'd bet money on it.
                          Good counterpoints.

                          I don't think this problem is particuarly "big" over an entire season. As others, including you, have said, he doesn't shoot very often and he usually finishes up slightly better than 50% from the floor.

                          He usually averages about five ORs and five shots per game. True.

                          My problem is the complete over-reaction to his so-called great OR games, especially where he gets ten or more. In those cases, we've pointed out numerous times that he's merely rebounding his own missed put-back. Sometimes he'll get three or more ORs in one possession. The subtraction I've suggested would generally get us back to five or so legit ORs in the game, which is still impressive, but a much better indication of his overall impact on the game. (vs. over-stating the importance of getting ten-plus OR's that weren't converted into points.)

                          Besides, who was it that said, "Show me a team with a lot of offensive rebounds and I'll show you a team that can't shoot."

                          I don't like having him on the court because I think we need five guys that are capable of actually putting the ball into the basket, and since he doesn't have to be guarded I think his presence - net-net - hurts the team overall.
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Foster's shooting

                            Interesting discussion. In the Utah game me out-missed Utah 14 to 9 on 4 foot and in shots. Tins had the most misses. Does anyone know how many of those resulted in foul shots? Have we shot that bad down low as a team all year or was this above average? I may have to study that if i have the time.

                            I don't see Seth's posts as bashing by the way. He made an observation based on the numbers.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Foster's shooting

                              None of the misses resulted in foul shots, be definition. If you're fouled while shooting it only counts as a FGA if you hit the shot.

                              In other words, if a player misses a shot because he was fouled on the shot, it does not hurt his FG%.
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Foster's shooting

                                Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                                Have we shot that bad down low as a team all year or was this above average? I may have to study that if i have the time.
                                It comes and goes, just about every other game. And it's definitely a problem.

                                Foster's close misses are similar to our inability to finish a lot of fast breaks. I think either would add anywhere from 3 to 5 points per game to our average.

                                I would say about 20-30% of Jeff's putbacks eventually result in a basket; the rest go back the other way with a lot of them resulting in fast breaks for the opponent.

                                His problem is that he's too impatient. He hurries the shot instead of taking a dribble or pump-faking to draw a foul. Sometimes he doesn't even set his feet. And it's a shame because he's so quick off his feet.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X