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

When did the pacers become so good defensively

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

  • When did the pacers become so good defensively

    It is still really early in the season - so I have not looked at the team stats. But in reading Wells article this morning I was surprised the Pacers were tied with the Cavs in defensive field goal percentage 3rd (behind only the Celts and Lakers) opponents are shooting 42.3% - that is excellent. Pacers also lead the NBA in block shots and they are in the top 6 in forcing turnovers. - Granted their defensive rebounding is average at best - but overall the defensive stats show the Pacers as being one of the best defensive teams in the NBA.

    Is this an aberation? Will this last the whole season? Why are the stats sooo good?

    Sure, Daniels in the lineup and Dunleavy out has helped the overall defense some - but not nearly as much as having Ford and Jack replace Jamaal and Diener - that is a huge, huge upgrade. Almost as important as the point guard position is that the players seem to be buying into - accepting the system much much better - fewer missed assignments - fewer players completely lost (Harrison, Ike) -
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-20-2008, 10:15 AM.

  • #2
    Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

    I think its the guys we brought in. Theyre more athletic and quicker. Theyre able to get into the passing lanes and get steals. They able to get up quick and help on the weak side for an easy block.

    Have you guys noticed that most of our steals and blocks have come from our PGs and swingmen, like Granger, Quis, Ford and Jack? Or am I wrong?

    I did notice that Foster is averaging a block shot a game which is good for him. But i recall Murphy or Rasho doing much
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Why are the stats sooo good?
      Defense? Man that's not who I am. Should've known...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

        If you look at our team individually, we really have some pretty good defenders. Murphy is the only 'bad' defender in out current rotation, and I don't even think he's half as bad as people make him out to be. I'm surprised we're ranked as high as we are at this point, but I'm not surprised we're a good defensive team.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

          I think they can sustain it--however commitment and effort will be required. So if we are winning, I think we'll keep seeing the effort, if not, then it may be another story.

          Also, we would still be weak for teams that bomb 3 pointers and hit open ones, and we have a tough time stopping guys on the low block.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

            I think this team was open to the idea that defense leads to offense. Previous incarnations were simply not convinced by that, either due to bad experience or an inflated sense of their own individual offensive prowess.

            I also think that team defense is one of those things that hangs on chemistry - if you have a team that is comfortable with one another and enjoys playing together, they communicate better in all ways. Team defense is vitally dependent on communication.

            I suspect we've been successful against teams that need to get into some sort of organic flow to score points. The test will be against teams like the Lakers who play a very disciplined offense.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

              It's a fun team to watch.

              When the opponent gets the ball, I just get this feeling that we can stop them, that we even have the ability to lock them down.

              They're not as good as the Pistons from a couple years back, but it's the same kind of feeling.

              Regarding why the stats are so good, also remember that 1/2 the games last year we didn't have JO, others a hobbled form of JO. This year we basically have Rasho playing those minutes, and he's good.

              Also, don't discount that our team leader is Granger. He's got the kind of character that would lead by example and inspire others to take pride in defense as a team.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

                In this order-

                Desire
                Personnel
                Team concept

                I don't mean this as a cop out, but I really think with JO, Ike, Harrison, and Tinsley gone that you have gotten rid of 4 really bad defenders.

                I'll start with JO. He is a good shot blocker, that's it, I truely believe he is a below average low post defender. How many times do you remember a Josh Boone type having career games against him. I also think JO was a sometime defender one on one. Now I have to give credit about him drawing charges, but again, I think his one on one defense was almost poor because he isn't equipped to bang and not quick enough to guard a perimeter player. Now you have Murphy and Jeff in that spot. Jeff is a big upgrade and Murphy has dramatically improved this year, imho.

                Ike-he's the anti Rasho. He must have one of the lowest B BAll IQ's in the league.

                Harrison a foul waiting to happen.

                Tinsley-well no need to rehash that.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

                  I find it interesting that UB is the one asking the question.

                  UB, you are the person I would have gone to first to find answers about the Pacers' defense.
                  “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                  “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

                    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                    I find it interesting that UB is the one asking the question.

                    UB, you are the person I would have gone to first to find answers about the Pacers' defense.
                    It is a rhetorical device used to get others to make the argument on your behalf, thus boosting your proposition.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

                      7/9/08

                      Or

                      6/26/08

                      Depending on whether you want to count the day of or the day it became official


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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

                        As I mentioned in the Pacers/Hawks Post Game thread, we are rebounding better now....which IMHO makes a big difference on both ends of the court.

                        2007-2008 : Total Rebounds Per Game is 43.1 rpg while holding our Opponents to 45.5 rpg.

                        2008-2009 : Total Rebounds Per Game is 45 rpg while holding our Opponents to 43.9 rpg.

                        This year, WE are outrebounding our opponents by 1.1 rpb compared to last year when our opponents were outrebounding us by 2.4 rpg.

                        I really think that having a somewhat healthy PF/C rotation ( most notably with a True Center like Rasho who has the skills and IQ to play the right way ) that focuses more on Defense/Rebounding has made a huge difference in the lineup on both ends of the court.

                        I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that ONCE we are as healthy as we are going to get....with the return of Dunleavy and Diener and the entire PF/C rotation is healthy....that we will be far more competitive in games and will actually do much better then most of us suspect.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

                          What I notice is our team almost dares the STARS of this league to beat us. Hence the reason we give up so many HUGE games to players like amare etc. While defending the rest of the team very well.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            7/9/08

                            Or

                            6/26/08

                            Depending on whether you want to count the day of or the day it became official
                            Yep.

                            Certainly the addition of Ford and Jack had significant impact on the ability to slow down and defend the opposition. But having decent defenders at the point also helps protect your wing players and frontcourt players from getting extra fouls trying to pick up a man that just blew by your PG.

                            The addition of Hibbert and Rush helps as well. As does a healthy Daniels.

                            But I also credit the concept. We obviously have added players that are able to implement the defensive philosophy. The players have bought into contending every shot and getting deflections, even if as individuals they have no real chance at the steal. Since many deflected passes become 50-50 balls, players buying into JOB's defensive philosophy has made a huge difference.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: When did the pacers become so good defensively

                              You solved the PG issue, you made a giant improvement at SG defense, you stopped asking Quis to play out of position, you stopped asking Jeff/Troy to play as an undersized PF...

                              I mean it's not like they changed much really.



                              Also I've been very impressed with the extent that Foster and Quis get this system. The unit has been good, but they've been exceptional with the overall team strategy at that end and are helping make it look really good. Not sure about Quis but I've definitely caught Jeff giving guidance to other guys on the court.

                              I'm not a JO basher but there is truth to the idea that moving him cleared the way for guys to feel more confident in what roles they play, both spoken and on court.


                              But in terms of what physically happens on court that makes it look better I think the main thing is this: you had lane pentration that drew wing defenders to the lane and left the corners open for shots.

                              Now you turn that away and force the ball to move to the corners without a huge lane committment up front, and that leaves them available to help when you force guys to go baseline instead.

                              Making teams attack from the corners rather than from up top is helping the team defense immensely.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X