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

Another lineup change coming?

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

  • Another lineup change coming?

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2010...rs-to-overcome

    (Mike Wells)
    Slow starts are too much for Pacers to overcome

    The Indiana Pacers' list of problems this season is endless.

    They've had injuries and been inconsistent. Much too often they've been one-dimensional on offense.

    Their inability to get off to a good start also hasn't helped.

    The Pacers have rarely landed the first punch. They are 9-27 when they trail after the first 12 minutes. They've given up at least 30 points in the quarter 24 times.

    They'll try to get off to a quick start tonight and finish 2-2 on their four-game trip when they take on the Chicago Bulls.

    The Pacers know the numbers. They just can't explain them.

    "I don't know, to tell you the truth," swingman Brandon Rush said. "You can't pinpoint one thing. We don't push the ball enough. That's one thing."

    "I'm not sure if there is one exact reason," center Roy Hibbert said.

    The Pacers typically fall behind by double figures early. They have one or two runs to get back into the game before running out of energy.

    "It probably starts with not really being ready to play," Pacers veteran Mike Dunleavy said. "We're not coming out hitting first. It seems like we're always taking the first blow and then working our way back in it. It's something we need to get better at."

    Saturday, they trailed Houston by just three after a quarter and won.

    Coach Jim O'Brien goes back to his notion that the Pacers are a better team when they use their "small lineup," with Hibbert or Troy Murphy on the floor, but not both.

    "We have struggled with the big lineups at times," O'Brien said. "I know that's the lineup that we won at Houston with, because it was our best lineup coming down the stretch. But when we get off to a tough start, we end up going small and a lot of times we come back with the small lineup."

    O'Brien likely will stick with the big lineup because he wants Murphy for his shooting and Hibbert needs to continue his development.

    "We space the court, we have more mobility and we're a better transition defensive team when we're small," O'Brien said. "Danny (Granger) is as good of a defensive player that we have at guarding the (Dirk) Nowitzkis and (David) Wests of the league. I know for a fact that we're a better defensive team when we're small."

  • #2
    Re: Another lineup change coming?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Another lineup change coming?

      There is little to nothing in that article I disagree with. The reality would likely be more time with Hibbert on the bench than Troy, and we've seen pitifully few games this season where Roy was starting and Troy was not, but the idea is sound.

      And why? Because our "small" lineup seems to move better and therefore scores better without having to take an early shot for a miss. That leads to being better set on defense, which leads to better defense.
      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


      • #4
        Re: Another lineup change coming?

        I think the 1-3 positions are fine, but it's the issue with the 4 and 5.

        I say keep Watson, Rush, and Granger at their regular starting positions and call me crazy JOB, put Josh at starting PF next to Roy and see what these "core, future" players you mention can do for us.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Another lineup change coming?



          *sigh*

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Another lineup change coming?

            Originally posted by Trophy View Post
            "We space the court, we have more mobility and we're a better transition defensive team when we're small," O'Brien said. "Danny (Granger) is as good of a defensive player that we have at guarding the (Dirk) Nowitzkis and (David) Wests of the league. I know for a fact that we're a better defensive team when we're small."
            (Mike Wells)
            I was talking about this with a friend the other day. Granger has been really good when he's put in charge of guarding 4s - it's probably his better defensive position. It'd be a waste to make him a new Rashard Lewis though, he impacts the game more as a wing.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Another lineup change coming?

              Originally posted by cordobes View Post
              I was talking about this with a friend the other day. Granger has been really good when he's put in charge of guarding 4s - it's probably his better defensive position. It'd be a waste to make him a new Rashard Lewis though, he impacts the game more as a wing.
              The 4 should never be Granger's best defensive position, however, I will agree with you that this season it has been. He completely stopped trying to defend last year as a 3, and it continued this season. I would argue that his improved defense against opposing 4's is 100% effort related.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Another lineup change coming?

                Originally posted by WetBob View Post
                The 4 should never be Granger's best defensive position, however, I will agree with you that this season it has been. He completely stopped trying to defend last year as a 3, and it continued this season. I would argue that his improved defense against opposing 4's is 100% effort related.
                I don't even think you'd have to argue that it was so clearly true.
                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                -Lance Stephenson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Another lineup change coming?

                  I believe Granger to be more effective guarding a non-post PF.

                  West and Nowitzki shoot from the outside and are more mobile in that regard. Whereas you would NOT want to play Granger against Pau Gasol or Carlos Boozer type PFs. He will not be effective in post defense.

                  The problem with Murphy on the floor, is that he cannot effectively guard in the post or against PFs that will drive around him. He is not strong enough for one and too slow for the other. Hibbert is a liability in that he is slow, but he is also a shot-blocking Center in the half-court. His post defense is good and getting better every game.

                  McRoberts would be a massive upgrade in three phases of defense (post, perimeter, and transition) because of his athleticism IMO. But of course, if Troy is at the three point arc he doesn't have as far to go in transition, but he still won't contest that shot.

                  The problem is that if we go to a small lineup at the end of a game, the opponent will force us into half-court sets where we are undersized. We are easily outmuscled in the half-court and that is why we try to force the tempo. I love having our best defenders out there at the end of a game, but a lineup of Watson, DJones, Rush, Granger, and Hibbert is not great offensively. If we go with our best offensive lineup in Ford, Rush, Dunleavy(?), Granger, and Murphy we will get scored on very easy. There needs to be a happy medium and we have too many one-dimensional players is what it comes down to.

                  IMO, Granger should never play the 4. But we don't have anybody the coach can put in at the 4 where he is confident in their ability both offensively and defensively. Hence the need to go with a PF (/C) in the draft and give McRoberts more time down the stretch to see what he is capable of once he is more comfortable on the court.
                  "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


                  • #10
                    Re: Another lineup change coming?

                    "We have struggled with the big lineups at times," O'Brien said. "I know that's the lineup that we won at Houston with, because it was our best lineup coming down the stretch. But when we get off to a tough start, we end up going small and a lot of times we come back with the small lineup."
                    Talk about disconnect.

                    You make these great comebacks for 2 reasons - teams literally get bored or go deeper on their bench (DAL didn't use Kidd for 36-40 min for the first time in weeks) or you hit a lot of the 3s you are chucking up just on pure odds of it happening.

                    More on Kidd in fact - this season here are the other times he's played 28 or less minutes in a game
                    26 vs TOR in a 28 point destruction
                    27 vs MIN, "close" game vs terrible team which they won by 12 and led by 19 after 3
                    26 vs PACERS here, when they crushed us by 21
                    26 vs LAL, when the Lakers thumped them by 35

                    That's IT. So using Kidd as a meter for how hard Dallas has pushed it, 2 of the 5 times they've backed off have come vs the Pacers in easy wins. A prime example of teams going easy on the Pacers as they "come back".


                    I like how apparently they've never started a small lineup and got behind early, at least to hear JOB tell it.

                    You tell me how good the team looks if Watson, Head and Dun are out there together shooting 30% from 3 as a group, drawing no fouls and giving up easy transition buckets on long rebounds - see nearly every play in the first half vs DAL.


                    And to top it off you get "I know that worked vs Houston but...". But what? But you don't like winning? How many of these wins are you getting that you can totally discount it when it happens?


                    Plus, if you'd play the STYLE suited for bigs, ie don't chuck a no-passes-made-three 4 seconds after crossing the HC line, then maybe the big lineups would look even better.

                    If he insists on playing a terrible, losing style then sure, lineups more suited to that crap will be a bit better at it. But you don't go big in order to ruin the crap style, you go big to CHANGE THE STRATEGY. He can't or won't, that's a big part of the issue. It's not his vision and it's not going to be.



                    Besides all of that, didn't we just hear about "developing the future". He says it even here in passing (or is that Wells only) but yanking out Roy and Josh while keeping Troy out there with a smaller group is in direct contradiction to his words....yet again.


                    We are well past the "feeling it out" stage. Apart from Danny out last game they are getting to a pretty steady state point in regards to the roster and how guys are playing.

                    And the kicker is that he's "searching for answer" in places he's spent most of the season already. Try searching someplace new.
                    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-24-2010, 02:39 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Another lineup change coming?

                      Plus, if you'd play the STYLE suited for bigs, ie don't chuck a no-passes-made-three 4 seconds after crossing the HC line, then maybe the big lineups would look even better.

                      If he insists on playing a terrible, losing style then sure, lineups more suited to that crap will be a bit better at it. But you don't go big in order to [run] the crap style, you go big to CHANGE THE STRATEGY. He can't or won't, that's a big part of the issue. It's not his vision and it's not going to be.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Another lineup change coming?

                        JOB seems clueless based on what he says.

                        It's not the starting lineup that's causing these close losses. We had this problem last season.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Another lineup change coming?

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          I like how apparently they've never started a small lineup and got behind early, at least to hear JOB tell it.
                          Yeah, I caught that too.

                          Originally posted by Nap
                          We are well past the "feeling it out" stage. Apart from Danny out last game they are getting to a pretty steady state point in regards to the roster and how guys are playing.

                          And the kicker is that he's "searching for answer" in places he's spent most of the season already. Try searching someplace new.
                          Yup.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Another lineup change coming?

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                            And the kicker is that he's "searching for answer" in places he's spent most of the season already. Try searching someplace new.

                            "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


                            • #15
                              Re: Another lineup change coming?

                              Originally posted by Mike Wells
                              "We space the court, we have more mobility and we're a better transition defensive team when we're small," O'Brien said. "Danny (Granger) is as good of a defensive player that we have at guarding the (Dirk) Nowitzkis and (David) Wests of the league. I know for a fact that we're a better defensive team when we're small."
                              I'm going to ask the obvious question....and ( in turn ) re-open up a can of worms.

                              I can understand the need ( at times ) to have Granger defend the Non-Low-Post Scoring PFs.....but if we are concerned about mobility on the defensive end....why are we giving our one of our least Mobile Big Man a large majority of the minutes at the Center spot as opposed to giving more minutes to our most mobile Big Man on the floor when we go Small-Ball?

                              This is more of a rhetorical question since I think that JO'B values Offense over Defense.

                              In the end...as many preach day in and day out....Murphy is simply not a good defensive option to be the Center in Small-Ball. The only time IMHO where Murphy playing the Center spot is effective is when we are playing against a Team with a non-athletic Big Men that has a Offensive Low-Post games that does not rely on strength but finesse ( think Big Z or Rasho as opposed to Shaq or Dwight ).
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X