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

Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

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

  • #16
    Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

    Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
    I was specifically referring to our PG's when I made that statement. I wholeheartedly agree that we do not have a ton of defensive talent, but when I look at Jarret Jack and T.J. Ford, I see two guys who should be able to pressure the ball effectively. Therefore, I see our lack of ball pressure as a philosophical stance rather than an adjustment to personnel.
    Or, perhaps an adjustment to personnel other than the PG. There seems to be a reticence to spread this defense out too much. I would wonder if the coaches are concerned that moving the the PG's too far out above the three point line would expose the "soft underbelly" of the defense, i.e. the big men.

    Jack and Ford may have the physical capability to pressure the ball, but do they actually have the defensive skill and technique to keep their player in front of them? Basically, the PG needs to make the guy bringing the ball up the court turn his back to the basket, at least momentarily. If he can't do that, then he neither slows down the attack nor impairs the opposing PG's vision. If they fail in this regard, then you've got the opposing team attacking an exposed weakness.

    In some ways, it seems we're like a boxer trying to protect broken ribs. We bring everything in close, but that allows the opponent to move freely outside of our defensive perimeter and open ourselves up to head shots.

    In other words, we're trying to hide Murph/Rasho/Hibbert, and to some degree, Foster. All of these guys are going to struggle to cover a lot of ground, defensively, and are not effective at protecting the rim. This would mitigate against pressuring the ball on the perimeter for fear of easy baskets at the rim. It gets further exascerbated because the weakside perimeter D also sags to help protect the middle, thus exposing the corner three that's killing us.

    None of our players have very good close out or rotation techniques, and this gets exacerbated by the system design.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

      Originally posted by count55 View Post
      ...In other words, we're trying to hide Murph/Rasho/Hibbert, and to some degree, Foster. All of these guys are going to struggle to cover a lot of ground, defensively, and are not effective at protecting the rim. This would mitigate against pressuring the ball on the perimeter for fear of easy baskets at the rim. It gets further exascerbated because the weakside perimeter D also sags to help protect the middle, thus exposing the corner three that's killing us.

      None of our players have very good close out or rotation techniques, and this gets exacerbated by the system design.
      I believe this sums us up very well. We play offense at a torrid pace, yet we expect our defenders to maintain an endless energy to rotate and recover.

      I think this is asking a lot, especially if we limit our rotation to only 8 or 9 players.

      If we look at JOB's system and how it should work, it probably would function at its best it had a PG capable of initiating defense at half-court as stated by Thunderbird. IMO, you defend at the point and your opposition has only 14-15 seconds to get a decent shot after their PG initiates the offense.

      My goal would be to force the PG to make a lateral pass to the weaker wing player and force that player to have to initiate their offense. But to do that, you need a very good defensive PG and you need a wing player capable of denying the ball to the opponent's best wing player.

      I'm also disappointed in Jack and Ford. I really thought Jack was a better defender than he has shown. And, although Ford often has a size disadvantage, I really thought that his quickness would enable him to stay in front of his man.

      I still think these two are capable of playing better defense. Perhaps we need a modification in our overall scheme to enable them to play their men more straight-up rather than shading them to one side or the other.

      Since we don't seem to be contending enough shots, the least we can do is to do something to eat a little more clock before our opponent gets into their offense.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

        Gotta love it! Other forums around the country prattle on about dunks, ankle-breaking crossovers, etc. but in Indiana you're having intelligent discussions on defense! One important point to consider is tailoring defense according to your opponent. Generally, I think there is great value in applying pressure at the point, but you have to be judicious against clever PGs like Steve Nash, CP3, or Billups - guys who are very crafty at creating/drawing fouls.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          the "soft underbelly" of the defense, i.e. the big men.
          I agree with that statement but let's not pretend that the bigs aren't constantly covering the perimeter player's men once they blow by them. The bigs are picking up lots of fouls in the paint because they have to stop an easy score for a PG, SG or SF.
          I'm in these bands
          The Humans
          Dr. Goldfoot
          The Bar Brawlers
          ME

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

            I've read this entire thread and really don't know how to respond. I do know a couple of things. This defensive system can and does work in the NBA - I have seen it work. perhaps the greatest strength of this defense is that bad individual defenders can thrive in this system - you don't need 5 great or even good defenders - in fact it should work with 5 poor defenders - that is why this system is run to cover up for poor defenders.

            What has me baffled and at a loss to explain - is why isn't it working - I cannot answer that - but we have plenty of good enough defenders to make it work (although KG would help at least 50%) This system is not unusual or strange, or some far out scheme that is impossible to play. Celtics current system is very similar. And every team in the NBA use many of the same principles.

            Two things I know about this system or any defensive system and quite frankly I don't care about the system -10 but every defense needs the defenders to be aggressive, play with effort, energy and 2) second all 5 players have to be on the same page, tied together, play on a string, help eahc other, trust each other.

            Without those two things, I don't give a hoot what system is employed - it ain't going to work. We can start 25 threads dissecting the system second by second, movement by movement - but really that is all a waste of time because unless or until the players buy in play hard and together - the system isn't going to work. Blame the coaches for not getting the players to buy in and blame the players for not buying in
            Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-21-2009, 02:05 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Blame the coaches for not getting the players to buy in and blame the players for not buying in
              I prefer to blame the coaches for not demanding better. I also blame the coaches for putting offense so far ahead of defense in their concerns. Reverse those two things and you see a change for the better.

              -Bball
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

                While a defensive system can cover for weaker defenders, you can be sure that a defensive system WITH good defenders is going to be a better defense.

                There will always be gaps in a defense regardless of what system you employ. The difference between a good and great defense is that the great defense has much smaller gaps. Those gaps are going to be smaller when you have longer and quicker players.

                This should not be hard to understand.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

                  OK the difference between the Pacers defensive system and other very good defensive teams. Bulk and shot blocking from the post. OK I am going to use Boston as an example. Rajon Rondo pressures the ball up the court. If he gets beat, a PG is looking at KG and Perkins, two very good defenders who are both very strong and can block shots. Perkins leaves a lot to be desired on the offensive end, but Boston is prioritizing the defense. Ray Allen, is a good defender. He used to be a very good defender but has admittedly lost a step. Paul Pierce is a big and strong SF. The size and physicality of the Boston front court is what makes their defense so good. Foster would be great for that team. But having Foster as your biggest and toughest defender doesn't really work because nobody on the team can block a shot either.

                  San Antonio is very similar. They have Parker pressure the ball. He is very fast but undersized defensively (think TJ). Manu is not great defensively so he comes off the bench as the sixth man. He is fast and makes a lot of steals because he is able to take more chances defensively and not get burned. Tim Duncan and whatever carousel center they bring in are a formidable tandem defensively. They always have solid defenders capable of blocking shots playing center. Kurt Thomas is perfect for them. HE is very good defensively and is a big body so TD doesn't take as much of a beating. Bruce Bowen is a tough and strong SF that defends the best player on the floor. They prioritize defense over offense.

                  The Lakers are similar. Ariza, Fisher, Kobe, are all good perimeter defenders. But they have bulk up front. Bynum and Odom are both strong. Pau is soft but a big body that can block a shot. They get exposed when Pau has to play center. Turiaf when he was still there was tough defensively and could block shots as well. The Lakers aren't as good defensively as the other two but they have better perimeter defenders than most teams in the league. They prioritize defense. And they have Kobe on offense.

                  We need to make a few more moves to add key players. Not necessarily big names, but good defenders. I would love for us to go after someone like Josh Boone. Solid defensively for a younger player. We NEED to prioritize defense this off-season. We NEED to get Rush and Hibbert who have the ability to be very good defenders more minutes late in the season.
                  "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X