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

Some Love for the Three

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

  • #31
    Re: Some Love for the Three

    Originally posted by bellisimo View Post
    for me the problem with JOB's 3pt strategy is he wants to go "outside-in" instead of everyone else who goes inside-out. He wants to open the lanes by knocking down 3s...but to knock down 3s effectively, its been said to go inside out so that the defense collapses and creates enough space for the 3 point assassins on your squad...
    That is a good point. Except what if your team doesn't have an insidfe player that causes the defense to collapse and or an inside player that causes the defense to adjust and create enough space for open 3's.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Some Love for the Three

      I still think several of the comments in this thread are wrongly characterizing the Pacers offense. So here's some more stuff to think about:

      One argument is that the Pacers take too many "bad shots." But that would lead to a lower eFG% and would be made up only through volume of shots. But look:



      This chart compares the Pacers eFG% for two-point and three-point FGAs over the years. The first key point is that, for years and years and under various coaches, the 3-pointer is a higher-yield shot. Years ago the Pacers were more selective and a 3 attempt yielded more than 1.15 points per attempt. The value dipped under Thomas but has been rising ever since and has risen most (until this past season) under O'Brien while they were taking more of them than ever before. The change under O'Brien has been more obvious in terms of scoring productivity than attempts, since Carlisle actually coached a bigger rise in 3PAs than O'Brien has.

      But look again at the chart. Notice that the red line -- showing the Pacers eFG% for 2pt attempts was higher the last two years than at any time in the past decade. Explain that, will ya? If the Pacers were just jacking up shots, had no real offensive plan, didn't use the clock well, relied too much on the outside game, etc, etc, etc, how does it come to pass that their 2-pt game showed the best statistical efficiency in a decade?



      The bad news is here:




      The Pacers have been one of the better three-point shooting teams from time to time over the years, but not very consistently. The blue line is sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the red line depicting all NBA teams.

      But last year, the Pacers eFG% for 3-pointers dipped and fell below that of the rest of the league.
      Last edited by Putnam; 08-26-2010, 08:52 AM.
      And I won't be here to see the day
      It all dries up and blows away
      I'd hang around just to see
      But they never had much use for me
      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Some Love for the Three

        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
        I still think several of the comments in this thread are wrongly characterizing the Pacers offense. So here's some more stuff to think about:

        One argument is that the Pacers take too many "bad shots." But that would lead to a lower eFG% and would be made up only through volume of shots. But look:



        This chart compares the Pacers eFG% for two-point and three-point FGAs over the years. The first key point is that, for years and years and under various coaches, the 3-pointer is a higher-yield shot. Years ago the Pacers were more selective and a 3 attempt yielded more than 1.15 points per attempt. The value dipped under Thomas but has been rising ever since and has risen most (until this past season) under O'Brien while they were taking more of them than ever before. The change under O'Brien has been more obvious in terms of scoring productivity than attempts, since Carlisle actually coached a bigger rise in 3PAs than O'Brien has.

        But look again at the chart. Notice that the red line -- showing the Pacers eFG% for 2pt attempts was higher last year than at any time in the past decade. Explain that, will ya? If the Pacers were just jacking up shots, had no real offensive plan, didn't use the clock well, relied too much on the outside game, etc, etc, etc, how does it come to pass that their 2-pt game showed the best statistical efficiency in a decade?
        One of the biggest reasons why the pacers went from 36 wins two years ago to 32 wins last season was last season the Pacers didn't shoot the three well at all. Not only did that hurt them in real numbers, it also allowed teams to pack in their defense and almost dare the Pacers to shoot threes or long range 2's.

        Putnam, I think your graphs show what I have theorized for three years now. Jim O'Brien's offense has for the most part done a good job at maximizing the Pacers offensive talent. I think he does adjust his offense to fit the players, an argument I have been making for three years by describing the differences in what he ran when he coached the Celtic es and the Sixers and then as Pacers coach

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Some Love for the Three

          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
          I still think several of the comments in this thread are wrongly characterizing the Pacers offense. So here's some more stuff to think about:

          One argument is that the Pacers take too many "bad shots." But that would lead to a lower eFG% and would be made up only through volume of shots. But look:



          This chart compares the Pacers eFG% for two-point and three-point FGAs over the years. The first key point is that, for years and years and under various coaches, the 3-pointer is a higher-yield shot. Years ago the Pacers were more selective and a 3 attempt yielded more than 1.15 points per attempt. The value dipped under Thomas but has been rising ever since and has risen most (until this past season) under O'Brien while they were taking more of them than ever before. The change under O'Brien has been more obvious in terms of scoring productivity than attempts, since Carlisle actually coached a bigger rise in 3PAs than O'Brien has.

          But look again at the chart. Notice that the red line -- showing the Pacers eFG% for 2pt attempts was higher the last two years than at any time in the past decade. Explain that, will ya? If the Pacers were just jacking up shots, had no real offensive plan, didn't use the clock well, relied too much on the outside game, etc, etc, etc, how does it come to pass that their 2-pt game showed the best statistical efficiency in a decade?



          The bad news is here:




          The Pacers have been one of the better three-point shooting teams from time to time over the years, but not very consistently. The blue line is sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the red line depicting all NBA teams.

          But last year, the Pacers eFG% for 3-pointers dipped and fell below that of the rest of the league.
          The 2 pt game was possibly enhanced statistically due to two factors, in my view.

          First, the team had more minutes of garbage time than in previous seasons, leading to less time against the top lineups of opposing teams, especially during the horrible mid season slump, and even when playing against the top lineups, those players probably did not give their best effort as often as in previous seasons. That may have possibly led to an increased effectiveness when drives occurred.

          Second, there were fewer drives into traffic by our wings due to both Rush not doing so very often despite the fact he should have, and Granger not doing so due to his injury that relegated him to stay at the arc due to lacking the ablity to be explosive on his drives. This may have led to fewer low quality looks in the paint and the effectiveness of the 2pt game increased as a result.

          Carlisle ran the offense, as deftly pointed out by another poster previously in this thread, "inside-out", by dumping the ball down low to JO for his famous "fadeaway clank" and baby hook, but JO was good enough to draw lots of attention away from the arc, leaving the arc more open for 3's, leading to a bigger rise, but I don't think more volume, than O'Brien. Arguably, Carlisle had a better set of talent for O'Brien's system than O'Brien does. For a while, Carlisle even came out and stated that the Pacers were going to start pushing the pace and even tried to increase the conditioning level of his players early in the season (I believe it was his final year) by doing more running in practices and even having players doing sprints on the practice court after games, sometimes even for players who got into those games. When he saw that performance was suffering too much, Carlisle went back to more fundamental basketball, but then further player issues and injuries destroyed what was left of the season.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Some Love for the Three

            Putnam, a question about your fine graphs:

            The dates along the bottom of the graphs, do those years represent the start, or the end, of each season?

            For example, does 2009 represent the 2008-2009 season, or does 2009 represent the 2009-2010 season?

            If it's the 2008-2009 season, could you show us what these look like with the 2009-2010 stats added in?

            I'm thinking they are the year each season started, but I want to be sure. Thanks.

            For future reference, most of the time when a single year is used in reference to a basketball season, you would use the year at the end of the season, not the year at the start of the season. This is why it's confusing to me. The Lakers just months ago won the 2010 championship, not 2009.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Some Love for the Three

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              Putnam, a question about your fine graphs:

              The dates along the bottom of the graphs, do those years represent the start, or the end, of each season?

              For example, does 2009 represent the 2008-2009 season, or does 2009 represent the 2009-2010 season?

              If it's the 2008-2009 season, could you show us what these look like with the 2009-2010 stats added in?

              I'm thinking they are the year each season started, but I want to be sure. Thanks.

              For future reference, most of the time when a single year is used in reference to a basketball season, you would use the year at the end of the season, not the year at the start of the season. This is why it's confusing to me. The Lakers just months ago won the 2010 championship, not 2009.


              Each year is the start of the season. The data point marked 2009 is for the just-finished 2009-2010 season. I did it that way only to shorten the label and make it fit nicely on the chart.

              Sorry for the confusion.
              And I won't be here to see the day
              It all dries up and blows away
              I'd hang around just to see
              But they never had much use for me
              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Some Love for the Three

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                One of the biggest reasons why the pacers went from 36 wins two years ago to 32 wins last season was last season the Pacers didn't shoot the three well at all. Not only did that hurt them in real numbers, it also allowed teams to pack in their defense and almost dare the Pacers to shoot threes or long range 2's.

                Putnam, I think your graphs show what I have theorized for three years now. Jim O'Brien's offense has for the most part done a good job at maximizing the Pacers offensive talent. I think he does adjust his offense to fit the players, an argument I have been making for three years by describing the differences in what he ran when he coached the Celtic es and the Sixers and then as Pacers coach
                Meh, maybe.

                It could also be argued that he uses the players that fit his offense. There is no real way to prove either theory.


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

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Some Love for the Three

                  Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                  It has become fashionable to gripe about the Pacers' use of the 3pt shot.

                  Let's take a moment to reflect on a couple of facts.


                  Greater reliance on the 3pt shot is an NBA wide trend. All teams are using the 3 more, and the trend continues from year to year.



                  The reason the Pacers (and everybody else) are ussing the 3 more than in the past is that players are getting better at shooting it, and so it has become a very potent scoring tool.

                  Plus it spreads the floor!



                  Next, the Pacers are not, repeat not, out of line with the rest of the league in their use of the 3. The Pacers have never been the top user of the 3 in any season:




                  If you follow the yellow markers, you'll see that the Pacers trend in using the 3 is going up over the long run -- not just under O'Brien. Look back at the years when Rick Carlisle was coach, and you'll see that the Pacers increased their use of the 3PA during his years by a wider margin that O'Brien has done subsequently.



                  The bottom line is winning, of course. And the evidence of the past 20 years is that 3pt attempts are not just for losers. I know I've read the argument that only under-skilled teams like the Knicks, Warriors and Pacers use the 3pt shot, as a way of trying to make up for other deficiencies. That is probably true in particular cases. But over the long run, the 3 is used just as much be winning teams as by losers:



                  Each dot depicts an NBA team since 1990, aligning the team's reliance on 3PA and its season winning percentage. The complete random placement of the dots shows that there isn't any relationship between shooting 3s and winning (or losing) games.

                  did you get these from somewhere or did you make them? i am impressed if you made them. and i also wonder where you find the time!

                  not trying to clown on you. just curious
                  Spikes gonna rip off my face and wear it on Halloween!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Some Love for the Three

                    Of course there's the argument that we don't need stats if we watch the games...

                    Or that the only stat that matters is the scoreboard/W-L.
                    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


                    • #40
                      Re: Some Love for the Three

                      Originally posted by Rick Derris
                      i am impressed if you made them. and i also wonder where you find the time!
                      My smart-alecky (and rude) answer is this clip from Good Will Hunting:




                      My honest, personal answer is that this sort of data manipulation and presentation is what I do all the time, and it is really easy.

                      Thanks for appreciating it. I'm just trying to turn some of the forum attention so something other than speculation about the unknowable future.
                      And I won't be here to see the day
                      It all dries up and blows away
                      I'd hang around just to see
                      But they never had much use for me
                      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Some Love for the Three

                        i think there is too much love for the three. per the link from espn below, indiana attempted the third most 3 pts in the league last season?!?!

                        http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...GoalsAttempted

                        they shot the 3 pointer 18th overall by %.

                        http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...ntFieldGoalPct

                        regardless of the graphs, and the overall trend of the NBA, i think its pretty clear JOB likes/wants his team shooting the threeball. 3rd in most 3 point attempts in the league last year, yet the pacers really do not have the kinda talent to put it up from deep that often.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Some Love for the Three

                          Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                          i
                          3rd in most 3 point attempts in the league last year, yet the pacers really do not have the kinda talent to put it up from deep that often.
                          You bring up an excellent point. The Pacers didn't have the kind of talent to shoot from deep last season. (We could argue about that, with Danny, Troy and Brandon all good three point shooters, but that is not my point). OK for sake of discussion what kind of talent did the pacers have.

                          Did they have a good low post player? No. Roy was average last season.
                          Did they have a dynamic point guard who could score and breakdown defenses? No
                          Did they have a wing player who could score and breakdown defenses? No, danny can score, but not breakdown and create for others.

                          Just what were the Pacers strengths offensively last season. I would argue they were few and far between. We had Danny and his ability to score, shoot, get hot. OK, what else did we have. Troy from three on pick and pops was one of our more unique strengths, and that play did at the very least cause defensives to adjust. What else? I would argue the 3 at least gave us a shooters chance. Our quick shooting style at least gave our offense a chance to get decent shots.

                          I would argue we have pretty good passing bigs with Roy, Jeff and Josh, but jeff played hardly at all and Josh only after March 1st. Mike Dunleavy when healthy is an effective player and perfect for this system.

                          But those of you who complain about what the Pacers tried to do, what else would have worked better. What system would have matched better with the talent?


                          Edit: on a related point - I think Jim O'Brien would love to have a deference maker as a low post player. His dream team to coach is the Magic.
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-26-2010, 03:04 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Some Love for the Three

                            As far as your questions UB, one could easily make the argument that Roy was average, because he wasn't given the ball more. Good things happened when he was involved. Also, we were told that AJ outplayed Earl and TJ in practice, wasn't given any time initially and when he finally saw the floor, he outplayed both there as well. Then he was shown the bench because we now knew what he was capable of, and well, it was his time to sit down.


                            When positive things happened, when a different tactic was used, JOb abandoned it. That's why there's the infamous 5 game winning streak. Oops, I said it.

                            He didn't match his talent with the system. AJ was better in practice, and when he got playing time, but was demoted back to 3rd string. Why?

                            We never really got to see if a different game plan would work, because JOb pulled the rug out from under them so early.
                            Last edited by Since86; 08-26-2010, 03:12 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Some Love for the Three

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              As far as your questions UB, one could easily make the argument that Roy was average, because he wasn't given the ball more. Good things happened when he was involved. Also, we were told that AJ outplayed Earl and TJ in practice, wasn't given any time initially and when he finally saw the floor, he outplayed both there as well. Then he was shown the bench because we now knew what he was capable of, and well, it was his time to sit down.


                              When positive things happened, when a different tactic was used, JOb abandoned it. That's why there's the infamous 5 game winning streak. Oops, I said it.

                              He didn't match his talent with the system. AJ was better in practice, and when he got playing time, but was demoted back to 3rd string. Why?

                              We never really got to see if a different game plan would work, because JOb pulled the rug out from under them so early.

                              Seriosuly leaguewide Roy was average as a low post player. He got better as the season went along, and I am hopeful this season he turns into a offensive force. But last season he was average. His passing last season was his best attribute.

                              OK, maybe AJ outplayed TJ and Earl in practice, I don't know, we don't know. But while Price is a nice backup point guard and an excellent second round pick - he is not and was not a difference maker last season, I don't care if he played 40 minutes 82 games last season.

                              My point is our offensive talent last season was really, really bad. We were extremely easy to defend and I cannot think of an offensive system that would have made our players good offensively. We had Danny and that was it. And danny is not someone who makes scoring easier for less talented players. We had no players teams had to double ever - Pacers were in the bottom 5 for sure in offensive talent

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Some Love for the Three

                                Can I ask what basis you're evaluating Roy and calling him "average?" The way you're using it seems like it's a slap in the face to Roy.

                                If you compare Roy's numbers versuses his rookie year, they went up across the board. Usually when a player gets limited minutes, and has a pretty good shooting percentage, you really wouldn't expect the shooting percentage to go higher with more minutes, yet that's the case for Roy.

                                He increased the volume of shots he took by 80% and his shooting percentage went up from 47.1% to 49.5%.

                                I think he was just "average" because of the way he was used, not due to his play. I'm not saying that he's anywhere near being the best, but he did pretty damn well while bascially being used as a passer and a screener.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X