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

Tinsley's Shooting

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

  • Tinsley's Shooting

    The Pacers are 9-4 when Tinsley shoots less than 10 shots.

    This means they're 8-12 when he shoots more than 10 shots.

    I like Tins. He's a good player and he's played admirably this year, but his shooting is out of control. Over the past 5 games he's 29 for 80. That's about 37%. With the current lineup, he should be the 4th option. There's also some players off the bench (Granger, Daniels, Sarunas) that I'd rather see shoot the ball. Tinsley has the playmaking ability to be a great point guard, he just needs to realize that 10 assists are just as good as 10 baskets.
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

  • #2
    Re: Tinsley's Shooting

    I'll go a little bit further with it but with Al. The other player people have been down on.

    Al has sat two games this year, one a win and one a loss.

    The Ps are 16-13 when he shoots atleast 10 times, and 0-2 when he doesn't.

    During the 15 losses though, Al is shooting 47.57% on 88-185 shooting. That's 11.56 fga per game.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tinsley's Shooting

      Great. First Foster got shot, now Tinsley. This poor team...
      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


      • #4
        Re: Tinsley's Shooting

        Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
        Great. First Foster got shot, now Tinsley. This poor team...
        That's good a$$ comedy.


        On the topic, obviously I ran out the December shooting for Tinsley vs the other 5 main scorers that showed he was taking more shots despite being the worst shooter of the bunch.

        A shoot first PG can be annoying period, but any player taking 18 a night at a 33-35% rate is hurting the team. Toss in 4-5 turnovers every game too? Brutal.

        He's got to get his game under control.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tinsley's Shooting

          Watch Tinsley closely. He has a nice handle and good dribble penetration. Other than that, he does not add much.

          What I see is overrated or maybe under-used passing skills. More often than not, he dribbles the ball down and just dumps it to another player. There might be a post-up, or if there is ball movement Tinsley is often not part of it. He never seems to drive and kick. If he is part of the ball movement, it is usually a pass that most any PG could make. This seems to explain why his assists totals are so lame.

          Also, he does not seem to be directing the offense once he gets it down the floor. Many of the assists are being made by other players...which explains his low assist totals and the team's above average totals. It's almost like his playmaking skills are a small part of what he adds to the floor...even though he is thought to be a great playmaker.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tinsley's Shooting

            Pitty I have not been able to watch a lot of games this year. Sometimes though just looking at stats you get the result of the problem not what the problem is. When a team is playing poorly.. no energy, not running plays properly, little movement then generally the point guard ends up taking too many shots by default. I grant you Tin's has a bad habit of trying to one up the other point guard but some times it is not his fault. You can complain that he doesn't do enough drive and dish but if the rest of the team just stands and watches while he drives and makes no effort to find the open spot on the court then tin's is forced to take the shot. Like I said I haven't seen enough games to make any kind of call on just what is happening but I will say that I am sure Rick's offense is not built around Tin's leading the team in shots taken.
            You didn't think it was gonna be that easy, did you? ..... You know, for a second there, yeah, I kinda did.....
            Silly rabbit..... Trix are for kids.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tinsley's Shooting

              98% of Jamaal's shots come when the other players pass them up. He is often the only one willing to take those shots. Yes we do better when he is passing than when he is shooting but he has also hit a LOT of clutch shots for this team. He is not a good shooter but he is getting better. Every player has stretches where they just dont shoot well. Especially when that was an area they have to work on to begin with.

              When Jamaal shoots poorly you all want to cruicify him, its like you have not watched other players before. EVERYONE from Reggie, to Michael, to Steve Kerr has bad shooting nights.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tinsley's Shooting

                Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                98% of Jamaal's shots come when the other players pass them up.
                LOL. That is completely false. I would say it does happen, but not anywhere near 98% of the time. In fact, some games the majority of his shots are one-on-one post-ups when no one else touches the ball.

                Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                He is often the only one willing to take those shots. Yes we do better when he is passing than when he is shooting but he has also hit a LOT of clutch shots for this team.
                Granted, the team does not have a "go to" player...and he attempts to be that man. "Attempts" is the key word. ...and perhaps he does hit a few clutch shots merely on volume. However, he is not the best person to take the shot considering he is 13th in FG% on the team. ...and his placement on this list has little to do with him being the last ditch resort and a lot to do with him being a poor shooter.

                Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                He is not a good shooter but he is getting better. Every player has stretches where they just dont shoot well. Especially when that was an area they have to work on to begin with.
                Agreed, he is not a good shooter, but he is not getting better. In fact, he is getting worse. His FG% has gone from 41.8 two years ago to 40.9 last year to 38.6 this year. His 3pt % is down to 32% after being at over 37% for two straight years two years ago. I don't consider this progress. I also think his decision-making is getting worse. His assists totals are poor and below his career avg.

                Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                When Jamaal shoots poorly you all want to cruicify him, its like you have not watched other players before. EVERYONE from Reggie, to Michael, to Steve Kerr has bad shooting nights.
                I don't want to crucify him. I just want a different PG who can play D and is not highly overrated on offense.

                BTW, a bad shooting night for Reggie Miller came when he missed shots moving 100mph from 22' out. Jamaal can go completely cold when his feet are planted and no one is in the gym.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tinsley's Shooting

                  Tinsley's great passes have been less frequent this year. Those plays where he wowed the crowd by making a killer Mark Jackson caliber pass. It's happened, but just not like it used to.

                  That's what I loved most of all about his game. That and the handles to get the ball to wherever it needed to be. I'm fine with 7-9 FGAs per game from him, a couple from 3 to keep teams honest, a couple in the post to punish the PG, a couple of lane drive floaters. Sprinkle throughout usually as the alternate shot on a regular set.

                  But as a #1 option on a lot of sets, especially without shooting it better than the 35% range over the long haul (ie, not just a bad night or cold spell), it's just not a smart strategy.


                  Tinsley can and has played way better than this. Is it too much to ask for the health AND the ability at the same time? I don't say this out of greed for wins even, I just happen to love watching GOOD TINS play the game. I'll pay to watch that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tinsley's Shooting

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    Tinsley's great passes have been less frequent this year. Those plays where he wowed the crowd by making a killer Mark Jackson caliber pass. It's happened, but just not like it used to.

                    That's what I loved most of all about his game. That and the handles to get the ball to wherever it needed to be. I'm fine with 7-9 FGAs per game from him, a couple from 3 to keep teams honest, a couple in the post to punish the PG, a couple of lane drive floaters. Sprinkle throughout usually as the alternate shot on a regular set.

                    But as a #1 option on a lot of sets, especially without shooting it better than the 35% range over the long haul (ie, not just a bad night or cold spell), it's just not a smart strategy.


                    Tinsley can and has played way better than this. Is it too much to ask for the health AND the ability at the same time? I don't say this out of greed for wins even, I just happen to love watching GOOD TINS play the game. I'll pay to watch that.
                    This is part of the point I was trying to make in my post regarding the JO/Smith article. JT seems caught in between what we need. He has playmaking ability and the ability to get other guys good shots but we have not seen it consistently this season. He can penetrate and control the ball, but can't really finish. At least he is willing. fficeffice" />>>
                    >>
                    The Pacers lack a go-to guy on the perimeter and Tinsley tries to fill the void. However that is not what he is best at and he only succeeds at a 38% clip. Not good enough, but where else do we go? >>
                    >>
                    We need another guard to step up (trade?) and help Tinsley. More than likely any trade will involve Tinsley so we are still stuck. He is valuable in the right situation, but can we get the right situation without giving him up? >>

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tinsley's Shooting

                      Fair point Storm. There is an overall sense of searching for some structure with the team. They clearly have found some comfort zones where they understand the roles, but at other times they look lost and unsure just how they want to attack things next.

                      And Tins has been one to try and fill voids like that if they are there. Jackson too, which makes his control more impressive to me. Last year he would shoot 18 times just like Tins has done lately.

                      The key to me is for Rick to replace Tinsley's current choices with some new options. I think vs Atlanta we saw just that, a LOT more cuts to the lane off the low post (and not just JO...consider Tinsley's missed layup off the Al post pass across the lane), as well as a bit more semi-drive and dish from Tinsley.

                      Having a different way to "bail out" of broken plays can help reduce bad choices like long chucks or other awkward shots. There is too much talent not to have some legitimately strong "final options" that are moderately decent shots.


                      Let's give Tins credit on tonight's game as well - 5 FGAs to 5 assists and 1 turnover.

                      Add to it Jackson getting 6 assists, some of those off of Tinsley's own work to initiate good plays. Nice game creating things in the backcourt.


                      They may not be smooth about things, but WHAT Jack and Tins tried to do in tonight's game (as well as Al and Danny at times, even Saras with some catch and drives) in terms of coming to the ball, punishing Atlanta when they cheated spaces rather than leaving long passing lanes ripe for the defensive picking, and overall movement is NEW and BETTER basketball than what they were doing this time last year.

                      They are frustrated because they know they have the talent. The key for Tins et al is to not let that frustration get the best of them, keep trying to work together and realize that everyone on the roster is after the same goal - a title.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tinsley's Shooting

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth
                        The key to me is for Rick to replace Tinsley's current choices with some new options.
                        It still boggles my mind why we don't run more pick and roll. We have very few players that can get to the rim on their own, and we have a large number of guys who, as screeners, can both effectively cut to the hoop with strength or "pop" for an 18-footer (JO/Al/even Danny). I know Tins isn't Tony Parker or Mike Bibby and surely isn't the quickest guy in the world. But even so, he seems to make good decisions and seems to have the ability to get to the paint on the few occasions we do run the pick-and-roll.

                        How 'bout it Rick?
                        Read my Pacers blog:
                        8points9seconds.com

                        Follow my twitter:

                        @8pts9secs

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tinsley's Shooting

                          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                          It still boggles my mind why we don't run more pick and roll. We have very few players that can get to the rim on their own, and we have a large number of guys who, as screeners, can both effectively cut to the hoop with strength or "pop" for an 18-footer (JO/Al/even Danny). I know Tins isn't Tony Parker or Mike Bibby and surely isn't the quickest guy in the world. But even so, he seems to make good decisions and seems to have the ability to get to the paint on the few occasions we do run the pick-and-roll.

                          How 'bout it Rick?
                          I thought the same thing last night. We do run some PnR but it is always to setup another type of play. We could have done some damage with traditional PnR's last night IMO.

                          I guess it isn't in RC's plan or he doesn't like Tinsley running it. Saras and DH used to run it.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X