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 best defensive lineup

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

  • Pacers best defensive lineup

    Having not seen the game last night I was interested to read what O'Brien thought was his best defensive lineup in last nights game.

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../1088/SPORTS04

    As was the case last season, O'Brien has no intention of playing favorites. He had Jack, Murphy, Granger, Hibbert and Rush on the court in the first part of the final quarter and the Pacers trailing by nine points.

    O'Brien's decision paid off, as the Pacers took the lead 87-84 when Murphy passed the ball to Rush for an open 3-pointer.

    "They were by far our best defensive team," O'Brien said. "That's why they got us back into it. Play defense and I'll keep them on the court. We came from minus 10; don't mess with a good thing." ..................


    "It doesn't necessarily matter who starts the game. It's who is in there at the end," O'Brien said "I thought the defense with Jarrett, Brandon, Danny, Roy -- until he went down -- and Troy was strong. I wanted them to finish the game."



    Interesting that two rookies were in that group. I think Brandon is going to be a terrific defender and although Troy's one-on-one defense is not good, his team defense is good. I wonder how often Jack will finish games instead of TJ

  • #2
    Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

    The Jack-Rush-Granger part of that lineup is fairly predictable. Roy makes sense because he's our best shot-blocker/alterer by far. I would say that Jeff and Rasho are better individual defenders than Troy and Roy. I would guess that Troy's inclusion has more to do with offense than defense, even though I agree that his team defense is good. With Foster in the game instead of Troy you'd essentially be playing 4 on 5 with Jack, Rush, Granger, and Hibbert, none of whom are great at creating for others.

    On another note, I hope that when he refers to Roy going down, he's talking about fouls and not an injury.

    Also, I noticed that we seem to have shortened the rotation and played guys for more minutes. Was last night a preview of the early season games?
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      I wonder how often Jack will finish games instead of TJ
      I think this will depend mainly on the other teams PG. If we're playing a team like Detroit, Utah, New Orleans, etc. that has a big, talented PG that is the driving force in their offense, you'll probably see Jack. If we're playing a team like Milwaukee, Cleveland, Atlanta, New Jersey, etc. that has a PG who TJ matches up better with defensively, TJ will likely play.
      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

      - Salman Rushdie

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

        Roy did get injured. I've never heard anyone refer to someone "going down" when that reason was foul trouble? He sprained his ankle.

        As for the defensive lineup, it makes sense except for Murphy, but maybe when you flank a guy like Murphy with those 4, it raises his defensive game.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          I wonder how often Jack will finish games instead of TJ
          Hell, I wonder how often Jack will start games instead of TJ...

          I like the idea of a Jack/ Rush/ Granger/ Murphy/ Hibbert lineup as the 'closer'. Of course, that would probably also be my starting lineup if I got to choose.

          One thing you can say about that lineup - all of those guys can shoot thier FTs.

          And I like the way that lineup can pressure the perimeter, protect the paint, and as said above, Murphy is a capable "team" defender because he moves his feet. He can't move them quick enough to play great one-on-one defense, but with Jim O'Brien, the team defense concept is more important than any single player's ability to play lockdown D.

          Here's what I continue to struggle with regarding Murphy. Prior to his joining the Pacers, I thought he was more rugged. Maybe I'm still jaded from that first visual of Murphy vs. Rasheed, but even now I'm still struggling with whether he's soft or tough?

          That's why I'm saying I'd rather be in a position to draft a Buck Williams type PF (or for Peck's sake, a Dale Davis + competent at the FT line type PF). I think we need a bit more ruggedness to go with Jack, Rush, Granger and Hibbert.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

            Jack
            Daniels
            Granger
            Foster
            Rasho or Hibbert

            Im surprised to hear about all this Murphy talk with respect to defense. Hes normally not know for his defensive skills
            Last edited by MillerTime; 10-22-2008, 11:01 AM.
            "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post

              One thing you can say about that lineup - all of those guys can shoot thier FTs.

              Here's what I continue to struggle with regarding Murphy. Prior to his joining the Pacers, I thought he was more rugged. Maybe I'm still jaded from that first visual of Murphy vs. Rasheed, but even now I'm still struggling with whether he's soft or tough?
              I've actually been dissapointed with Roy's free throw shooting so far this preseason. That's the only aspect of his game that's displeased me, though, so I haven't really complained. I think it's definitely something he needs to work on. He seems to have decent form and touch, though, so I see no reason for him to not become a 70+% shooter.

              I think Troy is tough, but not strong enough to hold his own. He's got some fire in his gut and is not afraid of contact, but he's can't push guys around. I'd love to have a Dale Davis type PF, but those seem to be few and far between these days. I'm racking my brain right now trying to think of PF's that are both starter quality and play like Dale or Buck Williams. I'm not really coming up with anyone.
              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

              - Salman Rushdie

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

                U.B. did you get a chance to see the Pacers vs. Grizz on t.v.? I didn't see you at the game so I don't know if you saw it or not.

                But if you didn't see it, I can tell you that your mouth would have been watering from the defense that Rush and Jack were playing.

                They tore the griz perimeter players up.

                So it does not suprise me at all to read this. Murphy has always been overlooked on here. No, he is not a lockdown defender but he tries. If Foster could consistantly hit any kind of shot, even a layup, he would be in there but you have to be able to go both ways in O'Briens system or the entire system bogs down.

                I'm still not worried about wins/losses yet. But I am very glad to read that we made a comeback when it mattered.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

                  Lets suppose, we're up by 7 with one min left. Would you guys rather have Daniels or Rush playing defense at SG? I sense the overall consensus is Rush, but I havent seen Rush play at all this preseason, but Daniels has normally been a decent defender
                  "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    U.B. did you get a chance to see the Pacers vs. Grizz on t.v.? I didn't see you at the game so I don't know if you saw it or not.

                    But if you didn't see it, I can tell you that your mouth would have been watering from the defense that Rush and Jack were playing.

                    They tore the griz perimeter players up.

                    So it does not suprise me at all to read this. Murphy has always been overlooked on here. No, he is not a lockdown defender but he tries. If Foster could consistantly hit any kind of shot, even a layup, he would be in there but you have to be able to go both ways in O'Briens system or the entire system bogs down.

                    I'm still not worried about wins/losses yet. But I am very glad to read that we made a comeback when it mattered.

                    No, I didn't see it on TV and I couldn't make it to the game, but I read your odd thoughts thread and it sounded really good.

                    The Hornets are a really good team that has yet to lose in the preseason and from reading the N.O. paper it sounded like they played a regular season rotation. So I was encouraged about the game last night.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      No, I didn't see it on TV and I couldn't make it to the game, but I read your odd thoughts thread and it sounded really good.

                      The Hornets are a really good team that has yet to lose in the preseason and from reading the N.O. paper it sounded like they played a regular season rotation. So I was encouraged about the game last night.
                      and you should consider we didnt play our normal starting lineup because Dunleavy was sidelined
                      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

                        Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                        Lets suppose, we're up by 7 with one min left. Would you guys rather have Daniels or Rush playing defense at SG? I sense the overall consensus is Rush, but I havent seen Rush play at all this preseason, but Daniels has normally been a decent defender
                        It really depends on who the other team's shooting guard is. If it's someone they're going to give the ball to and let create, then I want Rush guarding them. If the SG is just going to stand around and wait for a kick out, I'll take Daniels. Rush is a better on ball defender while 'Quis is better at disrupting passing lanes and such.
                        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                        - Salman Rushdie

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

                          Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                          and you should consider we didnt play our normal starting lineup because Dunleavy was sidelined
                          Yeah, I wonder if the lineup JOB was using at the end might change to:

                          Jack
                          Rush
                          Dun
                          Granger
                          Hibbert

                          Dun brings slightly more on offense and is slightly less of a defensive liability.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

                            Well color me impressed. In the past I've been less than please with Murph's defense, but I didn't see the game so if Obie's happy I'm happy.

                            I was actually under the impression that West had a pretty good night against Murphy, but like I said I didn't see the game.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers best defensive lineup

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                              Yeah, I wonder if the lineup JOB was using at the end might change to:

                              Jack
                              Rush
                              Dun
                              Granger
                              Hibbert

                              Dun brings slightly more on offense and is slightly less of a defensive liability.
                              Not if we want a defensive line up, as this tread talks about. Theres no way Dunleavy would be in the lineup if we are in the need for defensive stops. Theres better players on teh roster than Dunleavy (at SF) that can bring the defensive intensity we'll need.

                              As for Granger at PF, he is a good defender, but he is definately not the best PF defender we have. We'll probably have to go with Foster there
                              "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X