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

  • #31
    Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

    One big reason why Granger stuggled in the game against the Bulls is because the Bulls defense is really good. Danny tried to drive the ball several times, but the Bulls easily cut him off, and with Deng on Granger most of the game, he was able to guard him closely enough to challenge his shot and still keep him from driving.

    Dunleavy on the other hand had Gordon or Heinrich on him and he had no trouble shooting right over the top of them whenever he felt like it.

    As Seth mentioned at the forum party, the coaching staff has clearly adjusted to Dunleavy's game. No more is he simply standing out at the three point line, they are now running plays for him to come of screens for 18 ft jumpers and he is an excellent shooter inside 20 ft. If Mike never takes another three point shot again, that is more than fine with me -

    Rat wasn't in attendance yesterday

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

      One thing about Tinsley if you just saw the box score, several of his shots (like 3-4 at least) came when something else not called for him had failed. He shot a long 3 when the ball was KICKED OUT TO HIM WITH 1 SECOND on the clock. I think Danny did that but I'm not sure, maybe Murph. WTF are you doing kicking out to 5 feet behind the 3 with a second left?

      So Tins at least put it up and missed badly. The late layup miss, that was them trying to get JO in the post again since he had just torched the Bulls a couple of times, but the Bulls also realized this and gave Tins some space rather than let JO touch the ball. Yes Tins missed it, but the choice to go for it was 100% correct.

      On the other hand, Army continued to pick VERY bad situations to shoot in, including his one 3pt make which came BEFORE a set was run with 18 seconds on the shot clock. Yes he made it but the guy is 30% from 3 since NOV (below that actually) and is calling his own number 6 seconds into the possession????

      I love his hustle but he is much worse about shot selection. Fans eat up his diving steal that led to a score like it's ice cream, then fail to remember when he TWICE threw the ball point blank to a Bulls player. On back to back possessions. I don't mean a guy stepped in and stole it, I mean it looked bordeline intentional as he turned and threw the ball directly at a guy in red. Both at the Pacers RIM, meaning the Pacers in position to score.

      Sorry, but I get frustrated by fans booing Murph when he enters, cussing out JO during this game (the guy behind us didn't even wait till the tip-off to be mad at JO, seriously, and I mean swearing it up too) and then applauding Army regardless just because his good plays are hustle plays. They are hustle, but he only makes positive plays 40-50% of the time, the other 50-60 are huge mistakes instead. He's fine, but his not great or a savior or better than anyone else out there.

      And McLeod of course got nabbed at midcourt for a steal and Bulls easy layup.

      My only problem with Tins on offense was that he never could get the drink stirred either. At times he broke down the defense but except for his FGMs not much came from those plays (not really his fault most of the time, but still).

      However on defense he was fantastic. Seriously. He was AHEAD of his man on PnR defense, very aggressive with his footwork, and of course disruptive as ever with his hands, especially on help defense.

      He had an overall pretty solid game, one I enjoyed seeing from him.


      JO - no questions on that guy, he is the man. Pacers got down in the 4th and looked to be done and then the pack mule carried them out of that hole all by himself. Forget the Reggie Miller 3, JO got two 3 pt plays of his own by going right at the Bulls frontline and gave the Pacers the 1 point lead late in the game with his 2nd And-1.

      He scored 14 straight starting when they got down 7. Besides giving them the lead he also scored shortly after that to tie the game up again at 90. His long jumpers were Smits-like, his power drives to the rim were classic JO.

      His final shot and miss was dead on and went in and out. He deserved to have it go in with the way he played and 40+ coming on a shot like that would have been great.

      Oh, and of course he intimidated and challenged shots at the rim all game. He is the man.



      Dunleavy - I think Rick has figured out what his game is. They run curls for elbow catch and shoots for him all the time and no matter how tight it is when he gets it he still drops that shot. That seems to get some of his other offense going. I don't really like him at the SG, and most of the first half he was defending Hinrich instead of Gordon because of speed issues, but they've found a way to make him work well with this roster.


      Granger - rather typical game from him lately, sort of all over the map. Some hustle, some good defense, some lost moments, rough shooting. If they'd had him on track they would have won.


      Foster - Roferr once said "how can Foster hurt the team if he only misses 1-2 tip ins per game". Here's how, he came to the rim to rebound Tins late layup miss, and then missed the putback himself right at the goal. 2 minutes left and your team is down by 2 and you miss an open look at the rim after you man went for the shot block.

      So yes, sometimes those few misses are costly.

      But beside that point Foster was solid all game. He came back in after Murph let Allen make 2 huge buckets against him while missing a shot of his own. I guess Rick thought like me and said "well if you aren't making a shot I can get that from Jeff but with a lot better defense"


      Murph - strictly bench level play right now. I'm fine with him in that role and with those lower expectations. Foster's defense and rebounding are too good to waste when you have JO, Dun and Granger (argh) as offensive weapons that already do different things. Add in Tinsley chipping in a big night from time to time but mostly sticking to assists and I think you have a good scheme.


      Ike and Shawne - both were modestly effective and I would have liked to see more in the 2nd half, but it wasn't a huge problem either. Shawne did make one rookie mistake, he left his man in the LANE ALONE to go chase down an open man at the 3pt arc. Um, I'll take open 3 vs open dunk. Other than that though he look solid, love his game.

      Ike was a non-factor during his time. Not hurting, not having a big impact either. They didn't really need him.



      That stretch by Murph I mentioned is when the game went from 2 to 7 for the Bulls and nearly got away from them. That's when Foster returned. Also paired with that was the 2 turnovers by Army I mentioned (just awful plays), the kick out with no time left to Tins (his shot at the 9 minute area with no time left when he got it) which came from Murph or Danny in the post, and also a horrible charge by Danny where his man was waiting for a couple of steps clearly before Danny got there, but he forced it anyway because they were on the transition move a little.

      My point is that what hurt the Pacers most was the play of the borderline guys that for the most part have been getting a pass with the fans. I'm not saying boo them because I hate that. But maybe ease up on hating guys like JO and Tins because without them this game might have been a tank.


      After all, you see me giving Dunleavy his due, the dude and RC seem to be clicking and I love seeing him out there. He defended Gordan VERY WELL down the stretch in fact, all Ben did was hit a freaking prayer lob for the win. It looked like Dun almost tipped it as it left his hands even.



      This game was the Miami game except that Chicago showed up. The Pacers looked equal in effort to what you saw Friday night. That's something I can really get into watching. They can get to 7 and they can hurt a team like CLE or CHI.

      And if they did beat one of them they might be looking at TOR or MIA in the 2nd round. They can beat both of them as well (the MIA thing should be obvious after FRI).

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

        One big reason why Granger stuggled in the game against the Bulls is because the Bulls defense is really good. Danny tried to drive the ball several times, but the Bulls easily cut him off, and with Deng on Granger most of the game, he was able to guard him closely enough to challenge his shot and still keep him from driving.
        Deng was blowing up Danny all game. He was clearly better than him. Totally understandable, just saying. I would like to see Danny go beyond what Deng is ultimately, I think he has the talent to do so.


        for the month of March...in 12 games....Dunleavy has been shooting an astounding 49% from the field despite a horrible 32% 3pt FG%.
        Check FEB too, I think his 2P% has been on fire since before March 1 IIRC. He has the 3 in his game much like Jackson had the 3 in his game, ie occassionally you pull it out to hurt teams and if your hot you can even win games with it. Dun has been POOR on the give and go, a Jack speciality. Yesterday JO gave him a beautiful TOUCH PASS (again, from JO for the haters that say he can't pass), Dun went skying to the rim...and then doinked it off the back of the rim and off to the other side of the baseline for a Bulls rebound. Frustrating.

        However, what he does that Jack never could do is the catch and shoot curl. After Reggie left they've struggled to find a player that can run that play. Dun appears to be the guy to solve that, he looks natural and comfortable on that shot.

        He and Jack come up about even on driving to the hoop, both look a little sluggish but move the ball well enough to get close and ultimately draw plenty of fouls.

        In fact I didn't mention that part, but paired with JO being so strong in the post the Pacers got to the line a lot and at the start of the game especially. They also kept several Bulls in foul trouble (Brown and Thomas were two of them). 11 FT makes in the final 5 minutes of the 1st quarter, all off aggressiveness to the rim.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

          Originally posted by brichard View Post
          I haven't been to many games this year, but there were a fair amount of people. I think the amount of Bulls fans around did a couple of things: 1.) They added people to the seats, and 2.) It gave folks somebody to cheer against. Perhaps that is what created some of the buzz.
          Overall, a good game to watch.
          Yep, there were several red shirted enemy where we sat. Sadly it reminded somewhat of the old days in that respect. Fondly it reminded me of the old days of fighting with opposing fans.
          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            Dunleavy - I think Rick has figured out what his game is. They run curls for elbow catch and shoots for him all the time and no matter how tight it is when he gets it he still drops that shot. That seems to get some of his other offense going. I don't really like him at the SG, and most of the first half he was defending Hinrich instead of Gordon because of speed issues, but they've found a way to make him work well with this roster.
            For now, I understand why we play Dunleavy at the Starting SG spot....mainly cuz we have no choice. However, come offseason.....hopefully we will acquire another SG to backfill for Marquis when ( and if ) he is injured.

            Do you think that his role on the team and how he is used ( as an "acceptable 2nd scoring option / solid 3rd scoring option / very solid 4th scoring option" on the floor ) would change if he were used in a backup or starting SF role ( assuming that Granger isn't traded )?
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

              Aside from the game VS the Bulls, another reason Danny struggles ( other than youth/inexperience) is because he's often outmatched at the small forward position. One needn't look further than the central division. Tayshaun Prince, LBJ, Luol Deng and whoever sees the most time at the three for the Bucks ( looks like they play a three guard system which means he'd match up against Redd). Remember I said often, so you don't need to point out the four or five guys he has clear advantages over. Maybe one day, but not today.
              I'm in these bands
              The Humans
              Dr. Goldfoot
              The Bar Brawlers
              ME

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                Also forgot to add something Gnome, Able and I discussed after the game. The Bulls showed FULL COURT pressure on Tinsley, even on the very first possessions. He didn't have much of a problem with it, just thought it was interesting that they attacked him like that. Maybe they thought Saras was still with the team.


                And sorry BRich, but the Pacers were down 1 when DA came in for Tinsley's foul trouble (that's the only reason). Quickly they were down 4 and he shoots and misses a 3.

                So shortly after that they are down 6 (um, I thought things get better when DA comes in?) What's DA do? Chucks another 3 before they run a play, 6 seconds into the clock!

                He makes it, so yay, but that only happens about 28% of the time so I'd like to see something else maybe as the choice there.

                But what does he do the very next trip down? That's right, up goes a 3 for the miss. Granger saves the day with a rebound and score at the rim, but it's still not good offense and if Tinsley does it fans hate him for it (for understandable reasons).

                He's been in 3 minutes, he's already 1-3 from 3 and if Danny doesn't get the tip-in after his last miss he's looking at being -2 in the +/-.

                As they pulled back ahead you had JO with a steal off Ben and then drawing the offensive foul by Brown for turnovers, that helped a lot more than anything Army was doing.

                Then at the end of the first with Dun shooting 2 to take it from down 1 to ahead 1 DA goes out for McLeod. What happens next? The Pacers go from up 1 to up 5 in 2 minutes.


                It's an illusion that all this good comes from DA. His hustle makes his blah results seem wonderful, it covers up the fact that for all that effort there is a lot of backward that goes with the forward.

                The Pacers went from up 1 when Tins came back in (when McLeod lost the ball at midcourt off his dribble) to up 7 when McLeod returned for him (Tins foul problems and got a tech for it) with 3 min left in the half. That fell back to 2.

                And that included a series of 2 defensive rebounds for JO that were stolen from him when both PGs (McLeod and DA) run on up court rather than to stay back and help protect JO against the freaking TRIPLE team on the rebound. They just left him and he got mugged...TWICE. Once is a mistake, but when it happens again just after that maybe the PGs should have realized that their defenders were staying back to challenge the rebound instead of running on down to the HC line for offense.

                Tins always makes sure the rebounder can find him and puts a good effort to protect the possession against exactly that kind of pressure.


                Tins wasn't awesome on Sunday and Army is an important piece because of his energy, but a lot of the dumb, sloppy play involved the backup PG situation. I can't give Army a free pass for all these other things because he got ONE diving steal (great play) and hit 1 of 4 (25%) 3pt shots.

                Energy is great, but Tins is who you lean on. I wish Tins was more consistant and could show the kind of defense he showed on Sunday all the time, but he does a lot of really productive things for this team, things that no one else can.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  For now, I understand why we play Dunleavy at the Starting SG spot....mainly cuz we have no choice. However, come offseason.....hopefully we will acquire another SG to backfill for Marquis when ( and if ) he is injured.

                  Do you think that his role on the team and how he is used ( as an "acceptable 2nd scoring option / solid 3rd scoring option / very solid 4th scoring option" on the floor ) would change if he were used in a backup or starting SF role ( assuming that Granger isn't traded )?
                  That's my issue, the SF depth. That's my 2nd biggest problem with the trade. First I hated the disruption. I know things weren't going great, but I wanted to see the entire team FINISH A FULL SEASON. Remember when that used to happen. Last time it did they won 61.

                  Anyway my 2nd problem was SG depth. You move your starting SG to bring in a SF, PF, C and backup PG. Then Quis gets hurt and you have 2 promising young players and a solid but not awesome semi-vet all at the 3.

                  Do you grind along with Dun starting if it holds back DG and Shawne? Do you bail on DG or Shawne this soon?

                  It would have made more sense if the deal had brought Pietrus instead of Ike. They needed BACKCOURT help. Jack wasn't redundent, only Al was. Even Saras was being used to a modest degree. They didn't have playing time for Powell, so they didn't exactly need extra front court guys, but in came Ike and Murph, out went Powell and down went Baston.

                  If you didn't have Shawne and you had Pietrus or some other SG on the team, then I see Dun starting while Danny gets to figure things out with a little less pressure. It's easier to be 6th man, you get more credit when you "fix" things and you catch little blame when you don't. That would help him.


                  But this team can't do that. I honestly have no idea how they get an SG on the team without dealing Dun (big contract), DG (seemingly plenty of talent), Shawne (too much shown so far to give up this quickly). I'm fine with any of them staying, but the team can't afford it talent-wise, they must have some true SG talent and it wouldn't hurt to get a 38-40% 3pt guy in the backcourt, if just off the bench even.

                  If Dun stays and one of the younger guys is moved then I'm comfortable with Dun's ability to be similar to Jackson (which he is stats-wise anyway, like I've always said). Not the #2 guy, but a 3rd or 4th option, and in his case you could rely on him more consistantly than you could Jackson which is perfect for a guy like that. Especially when you have a PF like JO that you can really count on to bring it every night.

                  That would afford them the luxury of having an SG and/or PG that sometimes really goes big and other nights is a little off. Tins does that now, an SG with big night potential to go with it would probably be enough. And if Quis comes back that SG could even be a bench guy (like Pietrus).

                  Not that I'm a huge MP fan, just talking about roles and positions on the court that this team needs. He would make so much more sense right now than Ike, despite Ike looking pretty impressive AT TIMES.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    One thing about Tinsley if you just saw the box score, several of his shots (like 3-4 at least) came when something else not called for him had failed. He shot a long 3 when the ball was KICKED OUT TO HIM WITH 1 SECOND on the clock. I think Danny did that but I'm not sure, maybe Murph. WTF are you doing kicking out to 5 feet behind the 3 with a second left?

                    So Tins at least put it up and missed badly. The late layup miss, that was them trying to get JO in the post again since he had just torched the Bulls a couple of times, but the Bulls also realized this and gave Tins some space rather than let JO touch the ball. Yes Tins missed it, but the choice to go for it was 100% correct.

                    On the other hand, Army continued to pick VERY bad situations to shoot in, including his one 3pt make which came BEFORE a set was run with 18 seconds on the shot clock. Yes he made it but the guy is 30% from 3 since NOV (below that actually) and is calling his own number 6 seconds into the possession????

                    I love his hustle but he is much worse about shot selection. Fans eat up his diving steal that led to a score like it's ice cream, then fail to remember when he TWICE threw the ball point blank to a Bulls player. On back to back possessions. I don't mean a guy stepped in and stole it, I mean it looked bordeline intentional as he turned and threw the ball directly at a guy in red. Both at the Pacers RIM, meaning the Pacers in position to score.

                    Sorry, but I get frustrated by fans booing Murph when he enters, cussing out JO during this game (the guy behind us didn't even wait till the tip-off to be mad at JO, seriously, and I mean swearing it up too) and then applauding Army regardless just because his good plays are hustle plays. They are hustle, but he only makes positive plays 40-50% of the time, the other 50-60 are huge mistakes instead. He's fine, but his not great or a savior or better than anyone else out there.

                    And McLeod of course got nabbed at midcourt for a steal and Bulls easy layup.

                    My only problem with Tins on offense was that he never could get the drink stirred either. At times he broke down the defense but except for his FGMs not much came from those plays (not really his fault most of the time, but still).

                    However on defense he was fantastic. Seriously. He was AHEAD of his man on PnR defense, very aggressive with his footwork, and of course disruptive as ever with his hands, especially on help defense.

                    He had an overall pretty solid game, one I enjoyed seeing from him.


                    JO - no questions on that guy, he is the man. Pacers got down in the 4th and looked to be done and then the pack mule carried them out of that hole all by himself. Forget the Reggie Miller 3, JO got two 3 pt plays of his own by going right at the Bulls frontline and gave the Pacers the 1 point lead late in the game with his 2nd And-1.

                    He scored 14 straight starting when they got down 7. Besides giving them the lead he also scored shortly after that to tie the game up again at 90. His long jumpers were Smits-like, his power drives to the rim were classic JO.

                    His final shot and miss was dead on and went in and out. He deserved to have it go in with the way he played and 40+ coming on a shot like that would have been great.

                    Oh, and of course he intimidated and challenged shots at the rim all game. He is the man.



                    Dunleavy - I think Rick has figured out what his game is. They run curls for elbow catch and shoots for him all the time and no matter how tight it is when he gets it he still drops that shot. That seems to get some of his other offense going. I don't really like him at the SG, and most of the first half he was defending Hinrich instead of Gordon because of speed issues, but they've found a way to make him work well with this roster.


                    Granger - rather typical game from him lately, sort of all over the map. Some hustle, some good defense, some lost moments, rough shooting. If they'd had him on track they would have won.


                    Foster - Roferr once said "how can Foster hurt the team if he only misses 1-2 tip ins per game". Here's how, he came to the rim to rebound Tins late layup miss, and then missed the putback himself right at the goal. 2 minutes left and your team is down by 2 and you miss an open look at the rim after you man went for the shot block.

                    So yes, sometimes those few misses are costly.

                    But beside that point Foster was solid all game. He came back in after Murph let Allen make 2 huge buckets against him while missing a shot of his own. I guess Rick thought like me and said "well if you aren't making a shot I can get that from Jeff but with a lot better defense"


                    Murph - strictly bench level play right now. I'm fine with him in that role and with those lower expectations. Foster's defense and rebounding are too good to waste when you have JO, Dun and Granger (argh) as offensive weapons that already do different things. Add in Tinsley chipping in a big night from time to time but mostly sticking to assists and I think you have a good scheme.


                    Ike and Shawne - both were modestly effective and I would have liked to see more in the 2nd half, but it wasn't a huge problem either. Shawne did make one rookie mistake, he left his man in the LANE ALONE to go chase down an open man at the 3pt arc. Um, I'll take open 3 vs open dunk. Other than that though he look solid, love his game.

                    Ike was a non-factor during his time. Not hurting, not having a big impact either. They didn't really need him.



                    That stretch by Murph I mentioned is when the game went from 2 to 7 for the Bulls and nearly got away from them. That's when Foster returned. Also paired with that was the 2 turnovers by Army I mentioned (just awful plays), the kick out with no time left to Tins (his shot at the 9 minute area with no time left when he got it) which came from Murph or Danny in the post, and also a horrible charge by Danny where his man was waiting for a couple of steps clearly before Danny got there, but he forced it anyway because they were on the transition move a little.

                    My point is that what hurt the Pacers most was the play of the borderline guys that for the most part have been getting a pass with the fans. I'm not saying boo them because I hate that. But maybe ease up on hating guys like JO and Tins because without them this game might have been a tank.


                    After all, you see me giving Dunleavy his due, the dude and RC seem to be clicking and I love seeing him out there. He defended Gordan VERY WELL down the stretch in fact, all Ben did was hit a freaking prayer lob for the win. It looked like Dun almost tipped it as it left his hands even.



                    This game was the Miami game except that Chicago showed up. The Pacers looked equal in effort to what you saw Friday night. That's something I can really get into watching. They can get to 7 and they can hurt a team like CLE or CHI.

                    And if they did beat one of them they might be looking at TOR or MIA in the 2nd round. They can beat both of them as well (the MIA thing should be obvious after FRI).


                    Here's how, he came to the rim to rebound Tins late layup miss, and then missed the putback himself right at the goal. 2 minutes left and your team is down by 2 and you miss an open look at the rim after you man went for the shot block.

                    If Tinman had made the layup we wouldn't be talking about
                    Foster. A missed putback, hurts no more than a missed shot of any kind.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                      Originally posted by bellisimo View Post
                      its the Reggie Miller Factor - we just haven't been able to find someone to fill his shoes ever since he's departed. No Go-to-guy at the end of the games...Its just not a position of a Post player to produce when you have less than 5 seconds left...need perimeter relief....sadly we haven't found a solid guy....
                      Honestly I think there are only a handful of players that consistely hit the game winners at the top would be Mike Bibby clutch is something that isnt taught its just something you have like leadership and you pray to god that at least one of your players is clutch. But a lot of teams are missing this type of player. Thats what separates those close games. Doesnt it always seem though that the other team always hits a buzzer beater to end the quarter.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        That's my issue, the SF depth. That's my 2nd biggest problem with the trade. First I hated the disruption. I know things weren't going great, but I wanted to see the entire team FINISH A FULL SEASON. Remember when that used to happen. Last time it did they won 61.

                        Anyway my 2nd problem was SG depth. You move your starting SG to bring in a SF, PF, C and backup PG. Then Quis gets hurt and you have 2 promising young players and a solid but not awesome semi-vet all at the 3.

                        Do you grind along with Dun starting if it holds back DG and Shawne? Do you bail on DG or Shawne this soon?

                        It would have made more sense if the deal had brought Pietrus instead of Ike. They needed BACKCOURT help. Jack wasn't redundent, only Al was. Even Saras was being used to a modest degree. They didn't have playing time for Powell, so they didn't exactly need extra front court guys, but in came Ike and Murph, out went Powell and down went Baston.

                        If you didn't have Shawne and you had Pietrus or some other SG on the team, then I see Dun starting while Danny gets to figure things out with a little less pressure. It's easier to be 6th man, you get more credit when you "fix" things and you catch little blame when you don't. That would help him.


                        But this team can't do that. I honestly have no idea how they get an SG on the team without dealing Dun (big contract), DG (seemingly plenty of talent), Shawne (too much shown so far to give up this quickly). I'm fine with any of them staying, but the team can't afford it talent-wise, they must have some true SG talent and it wouldn't hurt to get a 38-40% 3pt guy in the backcourt, if just off the bench even.

                        If Dun stays and one of the younger guys is moved then I'm comfortable with Dun's ability to be similar to Jackson (which he is stats-wise anyway, like I've always said). Not the #2 guy, but a 3rd or 4th option, and in his case you could rely on him more consistantly than you could Jackson which is perfect for a guy like that. Especially when you have a PF like JO that you can really count on to bring it every night.

                        That would afford them the luxury of having an SG and/or PG that sometimes really goes big and other nights is a little off. Tins does that now, an SG with big night potential to go with it would probably be enough. And if Quis comes back that SG could even be a bench guy (like Pietrus).

                        Not that I'm a huge MP fan, just talking about roles and positions on the court that this team needs. He would make so much more sense right now than Ike, despite Ike looking pretty impressive AT TIMES.
                        Granger is your likely answer to get the type of SG that we need. If anything.....I can see us make a move for a SG that can fill some backup time ( if needed ) at the SF spot as well. I know that most of you would cry heresy for wanting to move Granger....if we are going to want to get a SG that can actually make a difference....he's the only SF that can be moved and actually has some trade value. Dunleavy won't be moved ( cuz of his contract ) and Shawne hasn't shown anybody anything that any team would want.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                          Granger is your likely answer to get the type of SG that we need.
                          That's how I've been feeling actually. Not that I want him gone, but I also don't like how stuck the roster currently is either. The fact is that Dun could play 3, Shawne could work in behind him at 15-20 mpg (maybe less considering how much RC was using Dun vs CHI), and you wouldn't "need" Danny.

                          I'd prefer to let Danny and Shawne stay, but Dun is likeable enough, plays sound ball even if he has faults, and has a nasty contract that few people want.


                          If Tinman had made the layup we wouldn't be talking about
                          Foster. A missed putback, hurts no more than a missed shot of any kind.
                          I agree. What was in question was the VOLUME of misses, as if it's fine that Jeff misses 1-2 at the rim per night. Sure its not the worst thing ever, but honestly putbacks should go in much more than average defended jumpers.

                          Also, way back when I dropped Tins name in the Foster discussion on those short misses. Jeff and Tins by far miss the most shots right at the rim (or close). Credit both for getting to that situation in the first place, but it's brutal when they come up short.

                          I said to Gnome at the time that this play was perfect to make the point on both of them, the 2 guys known for missing shots just like that did it when it really hurt. You don't see me letting Tins off the hook for missing it.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                            Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                            Granger looks to be regressing as opposed to progressing. In the ESPN recap they said that this (39 pts) was JO's second highest scoring game of his career. I found that a bit surprising for a guy who is paid the maximum and who is a "franchise player". This is not a knock on JO by any means as he carried the team tonight and is a very good player, but it seems to me like every other team in the NBA has at least one go-to player on offense who has a couple of 40 pt games each season.
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              And sorry BRich, but the Pacers were down 1 when DA came in for Tinsley's foul trouble (that's the only reason). Quickly they were down 4 and he shoots and misses a 3.

                              So shortly after that they are down 6 (um, I thought things get better when DA comes in?) What's DA do? Chucks another 3 before they run a play, 6 seconds into the clock!

                              He makes it, so yay, but that only happens about 28% of the time so I'd like to see something else maybe as the choice there.

                              But what does he do the very next trip down? That's right, up goes a 3 for the miss. Granger saves the day with a rebound and score at the rim, but it's still not good offense and if Tinsley does it fans hate him for it (for understandable reasons).

                              He's been in 3 minutes, he's already 1-3 from 3 and if Danny doesn't get the tip-in after his last miss he's looking at being -2 in the +/-.

                              As they pulled back ahead you had JO with a steal off Ben and then drawing the offensive foul by Brown for turnovers, that helped a lot more than anything Army was doing.

                              Then at the end of the first with Dun shooting 2 to take it from down 1 to ahead 1 DA goes out for McLeod. What happens next? The Pacers go from up 1 to up 5 in 2 minutes.


                              It's an illusion that all this good comes from DA. His hustle makes his blah results seem wonderful, it covers up the fact that for all that effort there is a lot of backward that goes with the forward.

                              The Pacers went from up 1 when Tins came back in (when McLeod lost the ball at midcourt off his dribble) to up 7 when McLeod returned for him (Tins foul problems and got a tech for it) with 3 min left in the half. That fell back to 2.

                              And that included a series of 2 defensive rebounds for JO that were stolen from him when both PGs (McLeod and DA) run on up court rather than to stay back and help protect JO against the freaking TRIPLE team on the rebound. They just left him and he got mugged...TWICE. Once is a mistake, but when it happens again just after that maybe the PGs should have realized that their defenders were staying back to challenge the rebound instead of running on down to the HC line for offense.

                              Tins always makes sure the rebounder can find him and puts a good effort to protect the possession against exactly that kind of pressure.


                              Tins wasn't awesome on Sunday and Army is an important piece because of his energy, but a lot of the dumb, sloppy play involved the backup PG situation. I can't give Army a free pass for all these other things because he got ONE diving steal (great play) and hit 1 of 4 (25%) 3pt shots.

                              Energy is great, but Tins is who you lean on. I wish Tins was more consistant and could show the kind of defense he showed on Sunday all the time, but he does a lot of really productive things for this team, things that no one else can.
                              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.

                              DA did make some bad passes, just like every player makes lapses. But his dive for the ball... that was a posession. His defense on the Bulls causes the guy to travel at mid-court... and the Pacers get a posession. I mean you are dogging the man for a made three point basket for crying out loud. And on top of all those hustlle plays he does get the crowd into it which helps.

                              With comments like "He's been in 3 minutes, he's already 1-3 from 3 and if Danny doesn't get the tip-in after his last miss he's looking at being -2 in the +/-." If you are going to use something as arbitrary as a +/- rating, and then discount the good plays that were made when he is in, are you also go in and mention all the "in and outs" that should have counted for him while he was in? Are you going to employ the same +/- rationale to other players? This seems like "witchunt statistics 101" to me.


                              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.

                              And Tinsley was not nearly as perfect as you paint the picture. I saw him drive in for a point blank shot about 10 feet in and it was a freaking airball. He took decent shots most every time I saw him, but he couldnt' hit water if he fell out of a boat. And for your PG to not get a person a better shot at the end of the game, then his woefully shooting self, then something is wrong.

                              You are going to have to show me where DA's "chasing the steal" some how caught up with us, b/c I just did not see it. He isn't going to be a better offensive point guard than JT, and I get that. Since you mentioned that at the party I looked for it and I never saw it happen. I saw a guy who was totally disrupting their defense and getting us lots of posessions that don't show up in any statistical columns. There is no where listed for "Dove to grab a pass" or "caused a travel or charge," but he caused plenty.

                              You and I are on waaaaayyyy opposite sides of the spectrum here.
                              “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


                              • #45
                                Re: Pacers vs Bulls postgame thread - very fun game

                                By the way, DA's shooting from 3-pt land was scintillating at 25% when you compare it to the rest of the team. Yep, we shot a paltry 15%.

                                Want to know who one of the 0-3 guys was? Tinsley.

                                Also, he was 2/11 on the night, which was 18% overall.

                                How do you like those statistics?

                                “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

                                Working...
                                X