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

I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

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

  • #16
    Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    The reason the argument doesn't hold up that the 5-win streak was meaningless because of the opponents is because subsequently we played those teams again and LOST to them. Yes, ONE of those was with the same group, but the rest, the majority, were not. And the one that was, we had to shoot ourselves in the foot to lose.
    The most significant thing about the streak is that it was actually a streak. 1 or 2 games in a row, could be considered a fluke, 5 games will not

    The bad thing is we probably will never see that line up again

    The reason we won with that line up to me is simple, it was our best mix of athleticism, defense , and scoring,

    Ford, Jones, Rush, Granger. Hibbert

    Loved it, and apparently so did a lot of the players
    Sittin on top of the world!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

      Here's the thing with Ford. And I noticed it in the preseason.

      Ford is a bipolar player, or was, in the preseason.

      If you track his +/- numbers, they strongly correlate with whether the team wins or not.

      Which suggests that with Ford in the game, the team goes as Ford goes.

      He was decent during that five game stretch. The Pacers won. He was terrible though, for most of the rest of the year.

      And here's the thing, it is awful for the team to have to depend on something like that. Watson and Price. Solid. They don't dominate the ball, and they aren't up and down. Take Ford out of the lineup, and suddenly the team game isn't dependent on what Ford does, it's depended on what the team does.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Forget the win, let's talk about how much more enjoyable the quality and style of basketball was.
        This. Forget the win is right. They were playing like a team out there and the oncourt chemistry was visibly much much better. I don't understand how buck fails to see this.
        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

        - ilive4sports

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          To be honest my head is about to explode.

          Lets see who we beat in the 5 game winning streak, plus one I guess is what it will be called................
          In the NBA, there is no such thing as a meaningless 5 game winning streak.

          If I thought you could be convinced, I'd explain why the winning streak was significant and the concrete differences in our play during the streak and otherwise. But I don't.
          Last edited by imawhat; 01-03-2010, 05:15 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            In the NBA, there is no such thing as a meaningless 5 game winning streak.

            If I thought you could be convinced, I'd explain why the winning streak was significant and the concrete differences in our play during the streak and otherwise. But I don't.
            Every game is meaningful - that is correct. The T-Wolves game was meaningful, and the Knicks game was meaningful. Every game has equal weight, every 5-game stretch of games has equal weight - but the key word is equal. You cannot isolate 5 games and act that that could be duplicated over a longer period of time.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Every game is meaningful - that is correct. The T-Wolves game was meaningful, and the Knicks game was meaningful. Every game has equal weight, every 5-game stretch of games has equal weight - but the key word is equal. You cannot isolate 5 games and act that that could be duplicated over a longer period of time.
              Is that what anyone is saying about the 5 game win streak? That's not what I've been getting from the debate.
              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: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Is that what anyone is saying about the 5 game win streak? That's not what I've been getting from the debate.
                The debate has been varied, so it is hard to keep track of. One part of the debate is we won 5 games straight and then Murphy came back into the lineup and we started losing. So he is to blame. Sure no one says that and yet they will suggest that when they post the pacers record with Murph and without Murph.

                it gets very confusing when it comes to Ford though. Most don't want Ford to start or even play much if any, and yet Ford was perhaps the most important player during the streak and he certainly was in 3 of the 5 games.

                Another aspect is many suggest the style of play was different - this is mentioned by D. Jones. I personally don't see the different style many are suggesting.

                Every team goes through good and bad stretches of play - but you have to even it out. The Celtics just lost 3 straight games - sure each of those games count in the standings and who knows they might not have homecourt against certain teams because of those three games, but those three games will have no lasting impact on the season as a whole.

                Pacers went through a 5 games stretch where they played weak opponents and they played well enough to win those games - it was just a 5 game stretch - I just don't see anything meaningful or significant in those games. Put another way 5 games in the NBA represents 6% of the season. 6% of an NFL season is 1 game -do we ever place that much significance on 1 game ion the NFL
                Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-04-2010, 10:29 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  The debate has been varied, so it is hard to keep track of. One part of the debate is we won 5 games straight and then Murphy came back into the lineup and we started losing. So he is to blame. Sure no one says that and yet they will suggest that when they post the pacers record with Murph and without Murph.

                  it gets very confusing when it comes to Ford though. Most don't want Ford to start or even play much if any, and yet Ford was perhaps the most important player during the streak and he certainly was in 3 of the 5 games.

                  Another aspect is many suggest the style of play was different - this is mentioned by D. Jones. I personally don't see the different style many are suggesting.

                  Every team goes through good and bad stretches of play - but you have to even it out. The Celtics just lost 3 straight games - sure each of those games count in the standings and who knows they might not have homecourt against certain teams because of those three games, but those three games will have no lasting impact on the season as a whole.

                  Pacers went through a 5 games stretch where they played weak opponents and they played well enough to win those games - it was just a 5 game stretch - I just don't see anything meaningful or significant in those games. Put another way 5 games in the NBA represents 6% of the season. 6% of an NFL season is 1 game -do we ever place that much significance on 1 game ion the NFL
                  I saw in the other thread where you mention that this issue has got you as riled up as anything has since 2000.

                  Well, me too. But for the opposite reason, I guess.

                  First, your premise that TJ Ford was key to the five game streak. I disagree with that. It's not my recollection. I recall Watson being the more important point guard. I don't have stats or tivo in front of me, so I can only argue by memory.

                  What's clear in my memory, and backed by current events, is that TJ's defense was a limiting factor for the team. And it was Watson's defense, along with his ability to distribute the ball, that helped the winning, not TJ.

                  That five games streak looked a lot like the Minny game: guys moving well, finding each other for good assists, running for loose balls, tipping out rebounds, helping out on defense, blocking a lot of shots.

                  It's an intangible, but a huge and very noticeable one. Without TJ and Murph on the court, there is a sense of "we can make this happen" on defense and "let's pass this around for a good shot" on offense.

                  What was Dahntay talking about with "style"? One thing could be heavy use of Hibbert, giving us a post up threat and an effective inside out offense. Also, the aggressive defense causes turnovers, leading to fast breaks.

                  But mostly its a mindset, which may be a better word than "style." It's clear they have the mindset when that group plays. They believe that can actually compete on the defensive side, and that they can actually work for a good shot on the offensive side (not just jack a long shot or watch TJ go one on one).

                  As I noted in another thread, this crew got shellacked last night against the Knicks but won handily against the Wolves. That's .500, a ton better than what we've been seeing. Let's give them a few more games to prove whether they can keep up this .500 pace, since the five game streak "never happened," (well it was against all terrible teams).

                  Except the Celtics. That game actually never happened.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

                    Ford's 5 game stats.
                    1) At New York - played 28 minutes, scored 16 points, including 6 huge points in the last 2 minutes to seal the win

                    2) Wizards - 40 mins - 18 pts, 10 rebs. Go back and read Peck's comments after this game and how he described how well Ford played. I was at this game and Ford was our best player. Peck made several comments about how good Ford's defense was on Gilbert

                    3 - G. State - injured only played 4 mins

                    4) Celts - just coming back from injury - 17 mins , 10 pts

                    5) At NJ - played 32 minutes 7 pts, 6 rebs, 4 assists.


                    The biggest factor against the Wolves - the Wolves played a horrible 1st half, and the Pacers were on fire from three point range. The second half the Wolves clearly outplayed the Pacers - outscoring the P's by 17 points . I don't think that was a good game. Sure, if the pacers can hit 10 threes in most games they will have a chance to be in the games. But play that way tomorrow night and it is a double digit loss to the Magic - assuming the Magic are near what they normally are


                    The group that played the past two games is not the same group that played during the 5 game winning streak. so I don't see how any comparisons are be drawn
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-04-2010, 11:21 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

                      I thought TJ played quite well in those games, especially on defense. I remember being pleased with our PGs. I think the biggest key to that winning streak was we had our best defensive players out there, not just the starters, but the bench as well.
                      We had no Murph or Dunleavy, and there were scrappers at all positions. Danny at the 4 especially made the team quick. It was definately small ball minus Hibbert and I wonder how much the matchups were just more favorable for those teams we played.

                      At any rate, to discount our team's play during the 5 game win streak compared to the crap we have seen since is unrealistic, or even just up to Danny injury. The difference is night and day. Whether that be Murph and Dunleavy or a coaching strategy change, or maybe just the coach's lack of confidence in his team that was playing so well caused the players to be apathetic, something went horribly wrong after the 5 game win streak.

                      Also can we really compare the Celtics 3 game losing streak to our 5 game win streak? except as they are complete opposites? Celtics were without Rondo, Paul and Garnett. Omg, they lost 3 games, who could've guessed that would happen? We were actually missing our supposed key players too (Murph, Dunleavy, Foster) yet played the best basketball of the season. Go figure.
                      Last edited by PaceBalls; 01-04-2010, 11:19 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

                        Originally posted by Thingfish View Post

                        Also can we really compare the Celtics 3 game losing streak to our 5 game win streak? except as they are complete opposites? Celtics were without Rondo, Paul and Garnett. Omg, they lost 3 games, who could've guessed that would happen? We were actually missing our supposed key players too (Murph, Dunleavy, Foster) yet played the best basketball of the season. Go figure.
                        You are making my point. My overall point is that it is not wise to isolate 5 games or 3 games and act like those games are any more important than the other 77 or 79 games.

                        The defense was a little better during that 5 games stretch, but there were other games where the defense was also good. (it was not good only during the 5 game stretch) This season except for games here and there, usually on Sunday the defense has been OK - the offense has been more of a problem.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          Ford's 5 game stats.
                          1) At New York - played 28 minutes, scored 16 points, including 6 huge points in the last 2 minutes to seal the win

                          2) Wizards - 40 mins - 18 pts, 10 rebs. Go back and read Peck's comments after this game and how he described how well Ford played. I was at this game and Ford was our best player. Peck made several comments about how good Ford's defense was on Gilbert

                          3 - G. State - injured only played 4 mins

                          4) Celts - just coming back from injury - 17 mins , 10 pts

                          5) At NJ - played 32 minutes 7 pts, 6 rebs, 4 assists.
                          I don't see that as heavily persuasive. The only thing that is maybe relevant is six points in the last couple minutes against the Knicks. But that's only because he's the only one with the ball in his hands down the stretch. We could have easily won by passing it around down the stretch as well.

                          I think you're reaching by saying TJ was a critical factor in the five game streak. As far as trends go, he was playing less and doing less during the streak. The trend was toward more Watson in terms of playing time AND leadership.

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

                          The biggest factor against the Wolves - the Wolves played a horrible 1st half, and the Pacers were on fire from three point range. The second half the Wolves clearly outplayed the Pacers - outscoring the P's by 17 points . I don't think that was a good game. Sure, if the pacers can hit 10 threes in most games they will have a chance to be in the games. But play that way tomorrow night and it is a double digit loss to the Magic - assuming the Magic are near what they normally are
                          I think you miss a lot of intangibles and a lot of the human factor, which Obie is particularly bad at catching. First, why did they hit so many threes? Maybe because the Hibbert inside/outside offense was working well?

                          Second, it's very typical that a huge lead gets widdled down. The question is whether you can hold on. To me, the critical part of that game was in the last minute or two when JOB subbed Hibbert back in because we couldn't score. Roy hit a big, big basket down in the low post, then had a couple more assists to win the game.

                          The human factor here is that Hibbert has the mentality to score and win games down the stretch. He's a gamer (very unlike Rush). To say "I don't think it was a good game" is just plain myopic.


                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          The group that played the past two games is not the same group that played during the 5 game winning streak. so I don't see how any comparisons are be drawn
                          Be fair. Of course it's not the exact same group. But no Murph, no Foster, and very little TJ is the obvious comparison. I could argue that this crew won in spite of no Granger and Hansbrough, further strengthening the five game win streak argument. Why are you being so irrational about all this? It just seems so unlike you.

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          2) Wizards - 40 mins - 18 pts, 10 rebs. Go back and read Peck's comments after this game and how he described how well Ford played. I was at this game and Ford was our best player. Peck made several comments about how good Ford's defense was on Gilbert
                          Those stats aren't relevant because the Wiz are a terrible team with a terrible record.

                          Last edited by McKeyFan; 01-04-2010, 11:37 AM.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            The defense was a little better during that 5 games stretch, but there were other games where the defense was also good.
                            The defense has never been as good as during that period. Let me tell you only 1 reason why.

                            When Granger was playing PF, he helped Hibbert tremendously by protecting the paint. Danny had 2 blocks in three of those games...and never had more than 1 in any other game. He also had 16 boards against Golden State during that stretch. It is a terrible shame that the Pacers don't maximize his abilities by giving him an opportunity to be a huge mismatch. Sure, he may have problems with Duncan and JO, but so do the rest of our PF's....and Danny would make JO pay dearly on the other end of the court. Goodness, he handled Garnett pretty well during the streak........and he would roast 8 out of 10 other PF's on a stick.

                            When he's guarding the perimeter, the Pacers lose out on his ability to block shots and steal from slower bigs. That was part of the swarm factor in those games. He's not had double figure boards in any other game...because he's always guarding the perimeter....which is a complete misuse of his abilities.

                            Honestly, I find it odd, that no one seems to think of Granger as a PF. He is a strong, athletic, 6'9" guy. Yes, he can shoot lights out, but he can still defend the PF position better than most of our bigs. He has the athleticism and length to handle the position 80-90% of the time. If he doesn't you just throw McBob, Foster or someone bigger in...who will do just fine against the 7 footers.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              You are making my point. My overall point is that it is not wise to isolate 5 games or 3 games and act like those games are any more important than the other 77 or 79 games.

                              The defense was a little better during that 5 games stretch, but there were other games where the defense was also good. (it was not good only during the 5 game stretch) This season except for games here and there, usually on Sunday the defense has been OK - the offense has been more of a problem.
                              Buck, I think that is just a bit far fetched logic man. You are pretty much saying anything can happen so discount that 5 game win streak, when your expample given with Celts and Pacers are such completely different happenstances. The Celts lost those games like everyone thought they should, because they were missing their best players. The Pacers on the other hand are missing 3-4 of their "best" players and in spite of that win 5 games in a row, playing the best basketball of the season. How can there not be something to that?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: I will stop invoking the 5 game win streak when . . .

                                I will stop invoking the brief period of 2010 where we were undefeated.

                                I was out of town over the holiday and caught up on the games last weekend - capped off by the dismal performance yesterday. There is bad, and then there is remarkably bad. Those poor kids without back-packs.

                                Still confused as to why TJ didn't see any time Sunday. Nice to see Deiner though.
                                ! Free Rick Sanchez !

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X