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

The Big Plus-Minus thread

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

  • The Big Plus-Minus thread

    Okay, I've been talking about getting this done for some time, and finally I'm fully caught up on the data (which will last about 3 days probably thanks to the holidays).

    It's not a debate thread in theory, though like the schedule thread there is plenty of room for it. However I'm really not looking for posts like "stats lie" and "plus-minus is a sham". We get it, you don't like numbers or these particular numbers. The thread title should have been the warning to stay away if it's not your thing.

    What the thread WILL be, at least from my part, is a game by game listing of the +/-, occassionally the running totals or perhaps 5-10 game trends, and blurbs about the top and bottom 5 man groups in +/- and minutes for that game. Around the 20 game mark I also started noting when 5 man groups were brand new for the year, meaning they'd never played together this season.

    Why do it? Well with the Saras debates people would go to the totals and ignore the fact that he started high and spent the rest of the year trending downward. It was pretty tough to find trends unless you were grabbing from 82G or Pacers.com on a daily basis, and even then there would be days without proper updates and then 3 games added to the total at the same time.

    Also 82Games typically doesn't show anything but the top 20 5-man groups, and sometimes I like to know more. Finally I could start to pull those 2, 3 and 4-man packages at some point, however I haven't done that yet and might not get to it.


    Disclaimer - I'm doing this in Excel and by hand mostly. I've already compared to Pacers.com and 82Games and we don't quite match up. They don't match each other either. I do check the minutes totals and make sure per game they look right, and generally speaking the totals are extremely close. Someone has errors/differences, and per the comparison of those 2 sites it's not just me.

    One other note, I do +/- with PENDING FTAs put on the guy that was on court when the foul was committed, both for and against the Pacers. That might create some slight differences.


    Okay, I'm going to do the game posts in order and it will take awhile. But to get it started with a taste of something relevent I'll put up the Knicks game version first, then copy it in its proper place later.

  • #2
    Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

    Game 25 - vs Knicks

    27 Granger
    22 Foster
    19 Murphy
    18 Tinsley
    18 Dunleavy

    16 Daniels
    11 O'Neal
    2 Harrison
    0 Rush

    (low minutes)
    1 Williams
    1 Owens


    Top three 5-man groups
    (all 5-man listed by alpha, not position)

    6 in 1:45 play
    Quis-Dun-Granger-Murph-JO
    5 in 2:15 play
    Quis-Dun-Foster-Granger-Murph
    5 in 1:30 play
    Dun-Foster-Granger-Murph-Tins
    5 in 4:45 play
    Dun-Foster-Granger-JO-Tins

    Not so much, worst 5-mans
    -4 in 0:45 play
    Dun-Foster-JO-Rush-Tins
    -2 in 2:45 play
    Quis-Dun-Granger-Hulk-Murph
    -1 in 5:00 play
    Quis-Dun-Foster-Hulk-Rush

    When -1 is one of the worst groups on the night, you probably did okay.


    Big minute groups
    17:00 (0)
    Dun-Granger-JO-Murph-Tins
    5:00 (-1)
    Quis-Dun-Foster-Hulk-Rush
    4:45 (5)
    Dun-Foster-Granger-JO-Tins


    Who the F is that? New 5-mans for the game
    Hulk-Murph-Owens-Rush-Williams


    Interesting notes
    Starting at the 5:45 mark left in the 3rd the Pacers didn't lose or tie a single 5-man group the rest of the way (8 total groups).

    The 10 minutes played by the starters to open the game might be the most minutes any group has played straight together all year. Certainly it was a top 5 outing and probably the most in a first half at least. I'm going to check when I get a chance.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

      Has this combo ever been on the floor together? Murph, JO, Tins, Dun, and Daniels?

      It looks like a good offensive unit. Only two good defenders in that group though.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

        Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
        Has this combo ever been on the floor together? Murph, JO, Tins, Dun, and Daniels?

        It looks like a good offensive unit. Only two good defenders in that group though.

        the place to find it is here:

        http://www.82games.com/0708/0708IND2.HTM


        As of today, that lineup isn't on the chart. It might have made it onto the floor for fewer than 9 minutes if at all.
        And I won't be here to see the day
        It all dries up and blows away
        I'd hang around just to see
        But they never had much use for me
        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

          Hold on. Like I said, I've got them all if they've played at least 9 seconds, barring my own typos. And this is one reason I started doing this Putnum, to get farther into the +/- stuff than was easily available.

          They have played together. 1 minute (rounded of course), -2. Not sure which game(s). I could dig but unless it's critical...probably not going to happen.

          BTW, I have 45 different 5 man groups that feature Daniels-Dunleavy. The most minutes is the Quis-Dun-Jeff-JO-Tins version (19 min, +17), though the 2nd best +/- is +11 in 10 minutes by Quis-Dun-Tins-Danny-Hulk.

          I'm gonna get off my butt now and crank out these per game posts.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-20-2007, 09:04 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

            Game 1 - vs Washington
            W 119-110 (OT)

            28 Harrison (w00t)
            9 Dunleavy
            8 Daniels
            6 Tinsley
            5 Owens

            5 Sims
            3 Diener
            2 Granger
            2 Rush

            -11 Foster
            -12 Diogu


            Top three 5-man groups
            (all 5-man listed by alpha, not position)

            9 in 4:30 play
            Dun-Foster-Granger-Hulk-Tins
            9 in 4:00 play
            Ike-Dun-Granger-Hulk-Tins
            5 in 8:45 play
            Quis-Dun-Granger-Hulk-Tins


            Not so much, worst 5-mans
            -19 in 8:15 play
            Ike-Dun-Foster-Granger-Tins
            -6 in 2:45 play
            Quis-Ike-Dun-Foster-Tins
            -3 in 1:30 play
            Dun-Granger-Hulk-Sims-Tins


            Big minute groups
            8:45 (5)
            Quis-Dun-Granger-Hulk-Tins
            8:15 (-19)
            Ike-Dun-Foster-Granger-Tins
            4:30 (9)
            Dun-Foster-Granger-Hulk-Tins


            Who the F is that? New 5-mans for the game
            What? They're ALL new in this game.


            Interesting notes
            Hulk was in all 3 big winners, including all of the +9 OT group that won the game. It's easy to forget what a huge impact he had early on. His number for this game is nuts.

            Mike and Ike special...maybe not. The 2 worst groups featured them and Ike had a rough night in total as well.

            Needless to say, that -19 group hasn't seen much action since that night. I have them at 10 minutes roughly, though they're +1 since that first game in the limited minutes.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

              Game 2 - vs Miami
              W 87-85

              13 Granger
              10 Tinsley
              7 Dunleavy
              7 JO
              4 Rush
              2 Rush

              -1 Harrison
              -4 Foster
              -6 Daniels
              -7 Diener
              -12 Diogu

              Limited minutes
              -1 Owens


              Top three 5-man groups
              (all 5-man listed by alpha, not position)

              6 in 0:45 play
              Quis-Dun-Granger-Hulk-Tins
              6 in 0:45 play
              Dun-Granger-Hulk-JO-Tins
              5 in 1:00 play
              Dun-Granger-JO-Rush-Tins


              Not so much, worst 5-mans
              -9 in 2:15 play
              Dun-Foster-Granger-Hulk-Tins
              -4 in 3:15 play
              Quis-Diener-Ike-JO-Rush
              -3 in 4:15 play
              Quis-Ike-Dun-Hulk-Tins


              Big minute groups
              10:45 (4)
              Dun-Foster-Granger-JO-Tins
              6:15 (-2)
              Ike-Dun-Granger-Hulk-Tins
              4:15 (-3)
              Quis-Ike-Dun-Hulk-Tins



              Interesting notes
              From best to worst. The top 5 man from the previous game was the worst 5 man group in this game.

              The debut of the biggest minutes 5-man was this game, and on cue they led the game in 5-man minutes here too.

              The Pacers went on a -7 run with the Dun-Jeff-DG-Hulk-Tins group late in the 4th and were on the verge of losing. Then Rush came in and they won the next 3 5-mans and pulled out the 2 point win.

              The Pacers had 2 5-man +6 bursts in 45 seconds each. One to end the 2nd, another mid-3rd.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                the place to find it is here:

                http://www.82games.com/0708/0708IND2.HTM


                As of today, that lineup isn't on the chart. It might have made it onto the floor for fewer than 9 minutes if at all.

                Well . . . I thought I had answered this earlier today. I must not have clicked on submit.

                Anyway, what I said in the post I thought I submitted was I had read Seth's first two posts in this thread and it got me curious about five man groups, so I had gone to 82 games.com and looked around.

                There I had decided the Murph, JO, Tins, Dun, and Daniels group looked pretty good. So then I went to NBA.com and looked at the five man groups. That didn't tell me anything either so I come back here and asked Seth. And then I thanked you for your reply.

                In the meantime I had considered that group defensively and decided yes it was a good one offensively, but a bad one defensively, and probably the reason it's only been used one minute as Seth said.

                And no Seth it's not critical to know what game. I've already decided it's not that good of a group.

                What I had been doing at 82 games is looking at players to see what position they were the most effective at. I then tried to find the best lineup that way and came up with the aforementioned group.

                Thanks guys!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                  Game 3 - vs Memphis
                  W 121-111

                  20 JO
                  14 Foster
                  13 Dunleavy
                  8 Tinsley
                  6 Granger

                  3 Daniels
                  2 Rush
                  2 Diener

                  -4 Harrison
                  -5 Owens
                  -11 Diogu


                  Top three 5-man groups
                  (Switching to rough position order for easier reading)

                  9 in 11:45 play
                  Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Jeff
                  6 in 3:30 play
                  Tins-Dun-Quis-JO-Jeff
                  4 in 1:00 play
                  Tins-Rush-Dun-JO-Hulk


                  Not so much, worst 5-mans
                  -5 in 1:00 play
                  Tins-Owens-Quis-Granger-Ike
                  -4 in 1:30 play
                  Tins-Dun-Granger-Ike-Hulk
                  -3 in 1:15 play
                  Diener-Rush-DG-Ike-Hulk


                  Big minute groups
                  11:45 (9)
                  Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Jeff
                  4:30 (0)
                  Tins-Owens-Quis-Dun-JO
                  4:00 (1)
                  Diener-Rush-Quis-Granger-Ike



                  Interesting notes
                  Yesh, Ike goes for his 3rd straight deep in the red. Not hard to see how his season total is so bad at this point. I'm excited for his return, but then I see this stuff and I wonder. -11 in a game they won easily?

                  Tins-Dun-JO seems to be part of the magic formula. Not really a surprise at this point.

                  A ton of small man rotations in this game and last. Owens at SG, Granger at PF, Ike at C, that's small.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-20-2007, 10:25 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                    What I had been doing at 82 games is looking at players to see what position they were the most effective at. I then tried to find the best lineup that way and came up with the aforementioned group.
                    That's another angle, and starting with the Memphis game I started putting the 5 man groups in order by POS. The problem with this is interpretation sometimes, especially for all these games I've done long since watching them.

                    I think my next project with this will be 3 man totals, though probably not per game.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                      Game 4 - vs Clippers
                      L 89-104

                      9 Williams
                      3 Diener
                      2 Harrison

                      -5 Murphy
                      -9 Daniels
                      -10 Foster
                      -17 Granger
                      -17 Dunleavy
                      -18 JO
                      -22 Tinsley

                      Limited minutes
                      5 Owens
                      4 Rush


                      Top three 5-man groups
                      (Switching to rough position order for easier reading)

                      6 in 2:00 play
                      Diener-Granger-Williams-Murph-Hulk
                      5 in 1:45 play
                      Tins-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Hulk
                      4 in 3:30 play
                      Owens-Rush-Quis-Williams-Hulk


                      Not so much, worst 5-mans
                      -10 in 19:15 play
                      Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster
                      -9 in 3:15 play
                      Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                      -7 in 3:30 play
                      Diener-Quis-Granger-Murphy-Hulk


                      Big minute groups
                      19:15 (-10)
                      Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster
                      3:30 (-7)
                      Diener-Quis-Granger-Murphy-Hulk
                      3:00 (4)
                      Owens-Rush-Quis-Williams-Hulk



                      Interesting notes
                      4 starters at -17 or worse. Ya ain't winnin that game, that's for sure.

                      Huge difference in minutes played between the main 5 and any other variation. But the most the group played at one time was 6:30.

                      There was a semi-garbage bump to end the game, but also note that to end the 1st quarter the 5 man of Diener-Granger-Williams-Murph-Hulk ran off a +6 in 2 minutes, giving the Pacers a lead that they held till the 3rd.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                        Game 5 - vs Charlote
                        L 87-96

                        15 Foster
                        3 Dunleavy

                        -2 Rush
                        -3 Tinsley
                        -6 Diener
                        -7 Williams
                        -8 Murphy

                        -11 Granger
                        -21 JO

                        Limited minutes
                        -5 Harrison


                        Top three 5-man groups
                        (Switching to rough position order for easier reading)

                        6 in 2:30 play
                        Tins-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Foster
                        4 in 2:15 play
                        Diener-Dun-Williams-Murphy-Foster
                        3 in 12:15 play
                        Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster
                        3 in 1:00 play
                        Tins-Rush-Granger-Williams-JO

                        Not so much, worst 5-mans
                        -7 in 4:30 play
                        Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                        -5 in 1:00 play
                        Tins-Granger-Williams-JO-Murphy
                        -4 in 5:00 play
                        Tins-Rush-Granger-Williams-JO
                        -4 in 4:30 play
                        Diener-Granger-Williams-Murphy-Hulk
                        -4 in 1:30 play
                        Diener-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster
                        -4 in 1:00 play
                        Diener-Rush-Williams-JO-Murphy


                        Big minute groups
                        12:15 (3)
                        Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster
                        5:00 (-4)
                        Tins-Rush-Granger-Williams-JO
                        4:30 (-7)
                        Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                        4:30 (-4)
                        Diener-Granger-Williams-Murphy-Hulk


                        Interesting notes
                        The 2nd bad outing for JO, this was when we were noticing he wasn't right and was hurting more than he was helping.

                        Despite JO's bad numbers the real blame has to go on the bench. The team started both the 1st and 3rd strong. +6 to start the game in the first 7 minutes, then +7 in roughly the same span to start the 3rd. The rest? Horrible.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                          Game 6 - vs Denver
                          L 106-113

                          11 Rush
                          4 Foster
                          3 Williams
                          0 Tinsley

                          -5 Daniels
                          -7 JO
                          -8 Dunleavy
                          -12 Murphy
                          -20 Granger

                          Limited minutes
                          1 Harrison
                          -2 Diener


                          Top three 5-man groups
                          (Switching to rough position order for easier reading)

                          6 in 2:30 play
                          Tins-Rush-Dun-JO-Murphy
                          6 in 1:15 play
                          Tins-Dun-Williams-JO-Foster
                          5 in 2:00 play
                          Diener-Rush-Dun-JO-Foster


                          Not so much, worst 5-mans
                          -13 in 16:15 play
                          Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                          -7 in 2:00 play
                          Quis-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Foster
                          -7 in 1:30 play
                          Diener-Dun-Williams-JO-Foster



                          Big minute groups
                          16:15 (-13)
                          Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                          3:45 (-3)
                          Tins-Granger-Williams-JO-Foster
                          2:45 many groups



                          Interesting notes
                          -20 from Granger. Ugh. And he was with the starters that ran off a +7 to open the game.

                          The regular starters had seemed to include Foster. That 5 got 1:30 and went +3. The new version featuring Troy goes 16 minutes for -13. This includes having them finish the final 2:30 of the game with a -6, effectively losing the game. Why?

                          The Pacers didn't win a 5 man in the entire 4th, add in the final 5 man in the 3rd and it was 6 straight groups that lost or tied. Jump the +3 group and you find a -7 group in the mid-3rd. Before that you have 2 groups going +1 each and then you have the starters for the 2nd half going -8.

                          To recap, that's a -8, -7, -6, -4, -3, -2 with the occassional +1 or 0 to stop the bleeding. That's how you lose an 18 point lead. 25 if you go back to the 2nd. Pretty much nothing worked after the mid-2nd.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                            Game 7 - vs Boston
                            L 86-101

                            1 Granger
                            0 Dunleavy
                            -1 JO
                            -3 Tinsley

                            -9 Foster
                            -11 Murphy
                            -13 Rush
                            -13 Diener
                            -14 Williams

                            Limited minutes
                            -4 Owens
                            -6 Harrison


                            Top three 5-man groups
                            4 in 1:15 play
                            Diener-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                            3 in 1:00 play
                            Tins-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Foster
                            2, a few not worth mentioning



                            Worst 5-mans
                            -8 in 4:15 play
                            Diener-Rush-Williams-Murphy-Foster
                            -3 in 0:30 play
                            Tins-Granger-Williams-Murphy-Foster
                            -3 in 1:00 play
                            Diener-Owens-Rush-Graham-Harrison
                            -3 in 0:30 play

                            Tins-Granger-Williams-Murphy-Foster


                            Big minute groups
                            9:15 (-1)
                            Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                            4:45 (-1)
                            Tins-Rush-Granger-Williams-JO
                            4:15 (-8)
                            Diener-Rush-Williams-Murphy-Foster


                            Interesting notes
                            Man, looking back how could JOB expect that Diener-Rush-Williams-Troy lineup to work out. At this point Diener's numbers were already looking pretty bad.

                            On that note, this game was close till Diener hit the court. First they lost a 4 point lead when one of his 5 mans went -6. Then while it was still close in the 2nd, Pacers down 1, Diener came on and all 4 of his 5 man groups proceeded to lose, for another total of -6. Thanks for playing.

                            Diener-Owens-Rush-Graham-Harrison? If anything says garbage time it's that lineup. I assume Sims was waived by this point or something.
                            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-21-2007, 12:22 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                              Game 8 - vs Washington
                              L 90-103

                              6 Rush (10 min)
                              0 JO
                              -3 Tinsley
                              -4 Daniels
                              -4 Diener (9 min)

                              -8 Williams
                              -10 Dunleavy
                              -16 Foster
                              -18 Granger

                              Limited minutes
                              -8 Harrison


                              Top three 5-man groups
                              7 in 5:30 play
                              Quis-Rush-Dunleavy-Williams-JO
                              3 in 9:45 play
                              Tins-Quis-Granger-JO-Foster
                              2 in 2:00 play
                              Quis-Granger-Williams-JO-Foster


                              Worst 5-mans
                              -6 in 3:00 play
                              Quis-Granger-Williams-Foster-Harrison
                              -5 in 0:45 play
                              Quis-Dun-Granger-Williams-Foster
                              -5 in 9:00 play
                              Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster


                              Big minute groups
                              9:45 (3)
                              Tins-Quis-Granger-JO-Foster
                              9:00 (-5)
                              Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster
                              5:30 (7)
                              Quis-Rush-Dunleavy-Williams-JO


                              Interesting notes
                              The Granger-Williams combo made a rare appearance in a top 5-man effort. For the most part early on that pair has spelled trouble.

                              The combo of Quis-Rush-Dun-Williams-JO picked up a token +7 in the mid 4th with the team down 18. While it did get the game to 11 with 3:15 still on the clock, it really was too little too late. Granger returned for Rush and they went 0. Then Hulk came in for JO and that 5 ended with a -2.

                              No Tins after the 8:45 mark. And I have him for only 9:45 in the 2nd half total (thus the 23 minutes on the game). Anyone remember why this was, if there was even a reason?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X