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

Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

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

  • #46
    Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
    JO can be a good-great offense player as well as great-excellent defensive player. I'll take that as my franchise any day of the week.

    Exactly when Kobe scored 45 against the Wizard didnt Arenas have 60 and they lost even if you say Arenas scored 60 and they won they still gave up 45 points to one guy. Id rather take 39 Points and great defense over 60 and allowing the other guy to score 45.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

      How often do you see Tim Duncan and KG go off for 40-plus? JO is in good company.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

        Originally posted by ThA HoyA View Post
        Exactly when Kobe scored 45 against the Wizard didnt Arenas have 60 and they lost even if you say Arenas scored 60 and they won they still gave up 45 points to one guy. Id rather take 39 Points and great defense over 60 and allowing the other guy to score 45.

        Best assessment of how valuable JO's performance was and make's a great point by putting things in perspective. Good post

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

          Listening to the game on the radio all I heard from Slick was airball when it came to Tinsley's shooting and he didn't give the impression that these were heroic shots. He gave the impression of WTF.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

            It looked to me like we stopped going to Dunleavy in the fourth quarter. We did run plays for him in the first half. Dunleavy played well and played hard on defense.

            Regarding Danny, defensively he didn't take the night off, but he got nothing going offensively.

            We need both Danny and Mike D to contribute to win.

            I didn't think the crowd was all that great, but, yeah, in comparison to what we've seen most of the year, it was good. What would you say: there were 10 or 15 percent Bulls fans? Too high?

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

              Danny looked like he was scared to take shots during the game, i noticed a couple of times when he was wide open for 3's he would pass it inside to JO or back out to Tinsley...I dont know if its a coaching tactic or what but it just seems like he is so afraid to take shots...dont know whats up.
              If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
              [/center]
              @thatguyjoe84

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                Originally posted by ThA HoyA View Post
                Exactly when Kobe scored 45 against the Wizard didnt Arenas have 60 and they lost even if you say Arenas scored 60 and they won they still gave up 45 points to one guy. Id rather take 39 Points and great defense over 60 and allowing the other guy to score 45.
                Kobe didn't guard Arenas (and vice versa) and JO rarely guards the opponent's best big man. He's having a very good season defensively, but I'm just surprised that other than that 50-something point game he had last(?) season, he's never had 39 in a game until the last game. Especially since he's a 76% shooter from the FT line. Maybe it's because he is always playing with injuries.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                  JO also rarely hoists 25 shots. As much as JO haters think every play goes through him (and allegedy by his own demands), it doesn't really work that way.

                  JO was Miller-esque in how he took over the late 4th. Remember how Reggie's 25 point 4th vs NY was so amazing? Well JO just had a 14 point half a quarter and scored it from freaking everywhere and with the game on the line. Just as amazing. Truly a Miller moment effort.

                  Listening to the game on the radio all I heard from Slick was airball when it came to Tinsley's shooting and he didn't give the impression that these were heroic shots. He gave the impression of WTF.
                  He had 1 or 2 that were iffy, but DA had 3 attempts right away that were more iffy (even if he made one) in terms of timing and circumstance.

                  The PxP confirms that I'm not full of it on his 1 3pt shot even if you don't believe me that it was kicked out to him with 1 second on the clock and with him 5 feet behind the line. PxP shows Pacers getting possession 22-23 seconds prior to that FGA by him.

                  Tinsley wasn't free of bad moments by any stretch, but relative to his teammates and especially the PG position he was just fine. As I said this was the best PnR defense by him (or JO and Foster) that I've seen all year. Very aggressive, staying ahead of the play and cutting everything off.


                  BRich - you know that Tins didn't chuck all his 3's within 3 minutes of playing time, you were there. He missed a couple inside that were good takes and bad misses, I'll admit that and have been. He needed to make that late layup, though that came when the Bulls denied the entry to JO in the post first and Tins tried to make something from nothing (which he almost did). 1 of his 3 3pA was desperation by another player forcing him to take it. So you have 2 attempts in more time than DA had for his 4, and his 4 were all by his choice 100%, calling his number over running a play at all at least 2 of the times.

                  It's just not even close. Tins' problem was not chucking 3s, it was missing a couple of shots in the paint, just like Foster missed the tip-in too. No free pass for missing those, but that was the worst thing he did. He never passed the ball blatently to a red jersey like the guy was on the Pacers, DA did that 2 possessions in a row.



                  Danny is slumping and it shows when he passes up shots. That's the bottom line on that issue. Often he'll take and miss one and when he sees a similar shot after that he passes it up. He's losing offensive confidence I think.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                    Originally posted by brichard View Post
                    Naptown,

                    I've got to tell you that I almost think you are trying to disagree with the popularity of DA just to be a non-conformist. Your use of statistics here is accurate, but you are painting about the most negative use of them as you possibly can.

                    You mention that the Pacers quickly go down with the insertion of DA and that they Pacers increase their lead when he leaves. What you fail to mention is that the overall net effect when he was in is that the Pacers go up a point. When he arrived in the first half they were down, and when he left they had the lead. And for as close a game as it was, that is significant.
                    Really? Check again.

                    For the game Tins was +1 on the +/-, DA was -8. You watched that happen and left with the impression that DA kept giving the Pacers the lead while Tins kept costing them leads.

                    The numbers don't match that. Scoreboard rules on this one, sorry. The FACT is, even if the +/- is caused by other factors, that the team did better when Tins was out there than when DA was out there. Period.

                    Now to add to that I brought up stats and specific plays. I noted his great steal and that he made that 2nd 3pt attempt...his only bucket of the game. But when you shoot it 6 seconds into the clock with the team down 6 and you are a 30% shooter that's not smart play. It proves my point that while he does hustle and does give the team energy, it is OUT OF CONTROL energy much of the time. It's a wildfire that burns the bad and the good at the same time.

                    He's not hurting the team, but he's not helping it like you think he is. You are giving him a +10 for a diving steal and a -2 for passing it a Bulls player point blank right at the rim. I'm calling both of them equal. Well he only made 1 diving steal and 1 basket, but he threw 2 possessions away all on his own. Then add in the other misses and defensive gambles and being undersized when players want to shoot over him and you have a -8 night.

                    It's no different than "feeling" like the Pacers won the game. You may feel that way, but in reality they didn't. I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty enough that it feels like they won.

                    If Jermaine can't get an outlet pass out at 6'11" then something is wrong. When you get board and if he is triple teamed, then that means we have a pretty nice break going. JO shouldn't be holding the ball down where he can get it swiped by 6' 4" point guards.
                    You were at the game and saw the play. Is that how you remember it? You think that's truly a legit view? Ben Wallace was one of the 3, but because the two guards kept JO from moving the ball away from Ben you made it possible for Ben to steal it. It had nothing to do with JO holding it down low, it had to do with JO not being able to bring the ball down and away from Ben because 2 other guys were attack him on that side.

                    Your view on this is just really wrong, I'm sorry. If I was coaching some kids on this I wouldn't say "go ahead and leave him and let him throw a desperate, triple-teamed hail mary since you are open". That's not a good pass to make and often gets stolen. That's why you attack the rebound like that. And that's why a teammate stays back and helps. He warns the other guy that he's not safe, that his man is sneaking in, and he makes himself available to recieve the pass.

                    Forget Tins and DA, ANY team at ANY level is going to have the same issue if they don't help on the play. When teams press you can't just run to the other end and say "throw it deep, I'm open". What, the defense is just retarded suddenly and doesn't know they are giving up that option? Of course not. They know that a defender has time to come to a pass like that hanging in the air so long, and that long passes are risky in general due to accurracy.

                    You are supposed to SHOW HANDS to a guy with the ball, make him clearly aware of where you are. It's no different than a smart player coming to a pass rather than waiting back on it to get there only to have a defender cut on it. (the difference between Williams and Danny right now)


                    There is 100% no freaking way that an RC coached team that has Tinsley always shouting out where he is and making himself available to the rebounder is suddenly supposed to feature both PGs (DA/McLeod) just running to the other end even though their defender is still back there.

                    JO is 6'11", but his FACE isn't. And even a guard can put a hand in his face. He can't jump because if he doesn't see where his guys are right away then it's a travel. He can't dribble because he's pinned on all sides (baseline behind him). He was getting almost fouled with physical contact (I think Hinrich did smack him on the forearms the 2nd time). This isn't a penalty kick where his height has room and time to see over guys.

                    Cripes, why do you think the Bulls attacked like that? Because it works. And DA/McLeod should have known better, especially when it happened a 2nd time.


                    When those 2 left JO they turned it into 3 on 1. Now are you really going to prove to anyone that any player, even Kobe, is going to be successful on 3-1 situations where they have 8 seconds to get the ball to halfcourt?


                    See, the reason I'm like this right now is that during the game BEFORE THE STEAL I saw them leave and was telling them to get back and help out the ball. Then what I was concerned about happened. It's a freaking team sport and you never let a team press or attack the dribble without some help. You TALK to each other, warn guys about this stuff.

                    Well it's pretty tough to warn a guy about a triple team at their offensive goal when your back is to the ball because your busy heading up court and don't even know your defender has left you.


                    Tarik Glenn will do that next year, just run past his guy and off down the field. Good luck Peyton, you're tall, what's the problem? Blitz? I didn't see a blitz. But you should have thrown to me, I was wide open.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                      Originally posted by brichard View Post
                      Naptown,

                      I've got to tell you that I almost think you are trying to disagree with the popularity of DA just to be a non-conformist. Your use of statistics here is accurate, but you are painting about the most negative use of them as you possibly can.

                      You and I are on waaaaayyyy opposite sides of the spectrum here.
                      I feel like I've got to chime in and agree with Seth on this issue. I haven't seen the last two games, and from what I've been reading, I've really missed out. I have watched a lot of games this season, and I haven't really been as impressed with Armstrong as most people seem to be.

                      He does some great things. He's probably the best (only?) natural leader on the roster. He plays with an amazing amount of energy. His enthusiasm is infectious. He leaves everything on the court everytime he plays.

                      He also does some dumb things. Even though he is an aged vet, he is not a cool, calm, controlled player. He makes mistakes. He takes a lot of bad shots, almost as many as Bad Tins does (Good Tins is Good Tins because he doesn't take the bad shots unless he's forced to). Army's shot selection is my main problem with him. He makes some bad passes and he gambles on defense.

                      I am not a Tinsley fan. In fact I don't think I'll have any hope for this franchise until he's gone, but he is by far the best PG on the roster right now.
                      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                      - Salman Rushdie

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                        Seth,

                        I was quoting +/- on the specific times you were mentioning. According the website and Pacers statistics I am not wrong but 100% right. I never said +/- for the entire game. You mentioned we went down when he came in during the first half and that we improved when he went out. In the first half we were losing by 1 point when he entered or we were tied... I don't have time to look at it right now, but when we left we were winning by 1 point. Go back at the statisics and tell me that I'm wrong.

                        And as many have mentioned before +/- statistics simply don't tell the entire story. It doesn't account for made bad shots, missed good shots, and good/bad streaks of opponents that have nothing to do with the players on the floor. Sometimes people miss wide open shots and you can get credited for great defense.

                        You mention 2 plays where DA passed to the wrong jersey. I'll give you that, but you also have to compare apples to apples. His dive for the ball and his causing a travel makes up for that. JT was bad on all sides of the ball and didn't make up for anything... not in this specific game.

                        You say DA gets beat on defense for gambling... give me on instance of that. I'm still waiting.

                        The play with JO getting stripped is just one of those things. If you feel somebody can get an outlet... you break. If you feel he can't you don't. And yes, if somebody is having trouble you come back for the ball. It is simply a judgement thing. You were the one who said he was stripped by a guard, and fundamentals teach a big man to keep the ball tall where people can't do that. I can understand your 20/20 hindsight of the play, but that is what it is... hindsight.

                        I've not watched the Pacers much over the last 10 games, so I'm not going to comment pro or anti Army for those games. But are you really telling me that he was worse than Tinsley vs Chicago?

                        DA shot better, we know he defends better, In spite of how bad you dislike the way in which he made turnovers... he still matched Tinsley with only 2, they were equal in steals, JT had 3 fouls to one for DA, and JT had 4 more assists.

                        Statistically speaking the only thing JT did better, and this is an important statistic, is to get more assists. However, in my opinion only, DA's defense lack of fouling, and better shooting percentage give him the edge in this game. At best, your argument would have to be that they played to a draw.

                        The points cost by Tinsley with his dismal shooting, poor defense, and fouling hurt the Pacers infinitely worse than anything DA did. How many offensive posessions were screwed when he took a poor shot? How many FT's did the Bulls shoot or how much quicker were they at the line with his fouls? DA causes lots more turnovers than those that show up in the Rebound and Steal columns.

                        DA wasn't perfect, but much better overall in my opinion.
                        “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                        motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                        Reggie Miller

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                          Originally posted by brichard View Post
                          Seth,

                          I was quoting +/- on the specific times you were mentioning. According the website and Pacers statistics I am not wrong but 100% right. I never said +/- for the entire game. You mentioned we went down when he came in during the first half and that we improved when he went out. In the first half we were losing by 1 point when he entered or we were tied... I don't have time to look at it right now, but when we left we were winning by 1 point. Go back at the statisics and tell me that I'm wrong.

                          And as many have mentioned before +/- statistics simply don't tell the entire story. It doesn't account for made bad shots, missed good shots, and good/bad streaks of opponents that have nothing to do with the players on the floor. Sometimes people miss wide open shots and you can get credited for great defense.


                          You mention 2 plays where DA passed to the wrong jersey. I'll give you that, but you also have to compare apples to apples. His dive for the ball and his causing a travel makes up for that. JT was bad on all sides of the ball and didn't make up for anything... not in this specific game.

                          You say DA gets beat on defense for gambling... give me on instance of that. I'm still waiting.

                          The play with JO getting stripped is just one of those things. If you feel somebody can get an outlet... you break. If you feel he can't you don't. And yes, if somebody is having trouble you come back for the ball. It is simply a judgement thing. You were the one who said he was stripped by a guard, and fundamentals teach a big man to keep the ball tall where people can't do that. I can understand your 20/20 hindsight of the play, but that is what it is... hindsight.

                          I've not watched the Pacers much over the last 10 games, so I'm not going to comment pro or anti Army for those games. But are you really telling me that he was worse than Tinsley vs Chicago?

                          DA shot better, we know he defends better, In spite of how bad you dislike the way in which he made turnovers... he still matched Tinsley with only 2, they were equal in steals, JT had 3 fouls to one for DA, and JT had 4 more assists.

                          Statistically speaking the only thing JT did better, and this is an important statistic, is to get more assists. However, in my opinion only, DA's defense lack of fouling, and better shooting percentage give him the edge in this game. At best, your argument would have to be that they played to a draw.

                          The points cost by Tinsley with his dismal shooting, poor defense, and fouling hurt the Pacers infinitely worse than anything DA did. How many offensive posessions were screwed when he took a poor shot? How many FT's did the Bulls shoot or how much quicker were they at the line with his fouls? DA causes lots more turnovers than those that show up in the Rebound and Steal columns.

                          DA wasn't perfect, but much better overall in my opinion.

                          Brichard,

                          Being new on this board, I tend to read more than post, however I agree with you on this topic. I do think that Seth tends to try to become an advocate for the less liked Pacers(Jackson,Tins), and he will post all sorts of stats to build them up to give them some sort of overated value. Conversely he attempts to tear down the fan favorites, (Foster), playing the devil's advocate if you will.

                          If a player becomes a fan favorite, you can be assured that Seth will attempt to prove that they are not worthy of the fans adulation. He will go to the mat to defend players who are basically troublemakers and malcontents.

                          Anyway, this is my honest opinion on this subject, but only my opinion.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                            Seth is afraid the anti-Tinsley voices are growing louder and management will attempt to appease them by getting rid of Tinsley for 'whatever' and thus 'bleeding off talent' to appease the fanbase.

                            At least that is how I read him of late.

                            Considering how Tinsley has been playing I'm not sure how you could consider his loss as 'bleeding off talent'. There comes a point where the team just has to move on for the good of the team in the long term...

                            -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


                            • #59
                              Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              Seth is afraid the anti-Tinsley voices are growing louder and management will attempt to appease them by getting rid of Tinsley for 'whatever' and thus 'bleeding off talent' to appease the fanbase.

                              At least that is how I read him of late.

                              Considering how Tinsley has been playing I'm not sure how you could consider his loss as 'bleeding off talent'. There comes a point where the team just has to move on for the good of the team in the long term...

                              -BBall
                              Then you need to read more.

                              I've been plenty critical of Tins on bad nights. The difference is I go into each game with a blank slate and judge that game on what happens in that game.

                              Meanwhile I sit in front of a guy cussing out JO before the tip-off even. I read people here mad about Tinsley before the game even starts, or mad when he misses a shot, yet totally ignore chucky Army who has consistantly been putting up the exact same horrible 3 rate and volume of shots...but in less minutes.

                              Army shoots more 3s per 48 than Tins does (7.8 to 4.4). He doesn't shoot it well (33% on the year, 30% since NOV). So how does moving Army up solve the problem of shooting at PG? It doesn't.

                              Next. "He makes things better and the team starts winning". There is only 1 stat to address that, and that's +/-. Certainly there are other factors that impact +/- and I do not use it as a single game gauge of a players impact. BUT, if you are going to say "everytime he came in the team did better" then the +/- should verify that this actually happened.

                              In the Chicago game it is blatently not true to say that everytime Army played the team did better. His +/- was worse than the final score, so when he came in the team did worse. Tins was better than the final score so when he came in the team did better.

                              Was this directly because of Tins/Army? Who knows. I just know that you can't use the +/- to prove Army's time was successful when it wasn't a good +/-, which means that doesn't prove that he's the best PG option on the team.

                              It shows me that a person has bias if they see one guy play and the lead grow and they think "boy, they were terrible with him out there" and then another guy comes on and the lead disappears and they say "man, that was a lot better". Only if you are rooting for the other team does it work that way.


                              Third. Per minute he assits less and his A/TO ratio is lower than Tinsley. So he chucks 3s AND doesn't run the offense as well, and these stat totals are including both the good and BAD nights by Tinsley.


                              Fourth. You want a defensive PG that you don't want shooting the ball? ORIEN GREENE. He's a much stronger defender than DA and doesn't get shot over or muscled out. And for all the steals that DA gets, his per 48 steals are just a little better than Tinsley's (2.51 to 2.83). What, you don't count it when Tins creates a steal? For March DA's per48 steals are below 2 even, Tins is running 2.4 per48 in the same span.


                              Fifth. You do remember DA's own outburst at the refs recently. He was CARRIED off the floor. But people don't like Tins' attitude. Sheesh. What would you have said if that was Tins being carried out - "there he goes again, ruining the team". But with DA he's "spunky" even when it got him suspended by the league. Another free pass with fans.




                              As for criticizing Tinsley I said right off the bat that Tins MUST make those layups. His shooting is a big problem. But that's not the same as shot selection and smart play. That's just poor execution, he doesn't take a high volume from 3 actually I'd like even fewer than he does, but he's still twice as restrained as DA.

                              The Pacers need a PG that scores better than 40% and doesn't miss lots of shots close to the rim, and that means Tins needs to fix that problem or they need to find a way to get a PG in that can.

                              I just said recently that seeing Greene play the PnR much better proved that it was more about Tinsley than the scheme. But what goes hand in hand with that is that when I see him out in front of defenders on the PnR Sunday I'm going to give him credit for that. Why shouldn't I? I'm not a player hater, I just like basketball, so I have nothing to gain by denying a player's good qualities.

                              You'll note right in this thread that my "trashing" of Army includes credit for his diving steal (awesome) and comments that the team DOES NEED HIS ENERGY.


                              So you have me, a guy giving credit to both Tins and DA for good things, and commenting on their negatives. Then you have other posters that think these players are either mostly bad or mostly good.

                              And I'M the one with an agenda. Please.


                              How many FT's did the Bulls shoot or how much quicker were they at the line with his fouls?
                              Tins first 2 fouls were from Hinrich and Deng beating Dun and Granger. One was a shooting foul (2 FTs). That quarter the only other FTs came off a DA shooting foul late in the first.

                              From that point on Tins had one more foul, which of course he argued and was T'd up. That came in the 2nd quarter. Tinsley did not foul again the rest of the game and even AFTER that tech was made and all the FTs he was on the hook for were done (no more FTs that quarter so no penalty situation), he left the game with the Pacers UP 7.

                              Tell me how his fouls cost them the game again? The none he had from then on for no FTs that cost them a 7 point lead. Part of what drove that 7 point lead back down to 2 was the 4 points by Gordon plus an assist on Duhan's 3 that came with Tins out for the rest of the half.

                              So right in the first half you have Gordon getting 12 points and 3 assists against DA/McLeod. Vs Tins Gordon had 4 points and 1 assist.

                              Wow, Tins was really getting torched.

                              BTW, in the 4th Dunleavy was on Gordon, including the final game winner.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                                Perfect example vs CLE tonight. Army comes in. First thing that happens is they get the FT rebound (he came in with CLE at the line) and the ball goes out to the point. PG dribbles right past Army, beating him by 3 feet even before the FT line, not even off a move just pure speed.

                                That forces JO to help, leaves his man free for the dump and dunk.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X