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

  • Re: Some Love for the Three

    Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
    ...the Pacers apparently trademarked "read and react" offense
    Trademarked yes, but not by the Pacers (!), and used by all sorts of people to mean all sorts of things. It can mean a sort of Larry Brown-esque "playing basketball the right way", for instance, but for Rick Torbett it's a style of playing offense and a set of instructional DVD's.

    I don't normally use the term because of this ambiguity, but it certainly communicates; I only addressed it because I was responding to imawhat's grab bag of possible O'Brien basketball philosophies (strategies or tactics would be better terms), and he included that one. The (much) older NBA expression is "taking what the defense gives you", but it doesn't quite have the same snap, does it?
    :
    Last edited by O'Bird; 09-07-2010, 12:27 AM.
    :

    "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

    "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

    "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

    Comment


    • Re: Some Love for the Three

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      First you will have to define makeable? Pretty much using Putnam's theory as well as Occam's in this case if the ball goes in it was makeable if it did not then it wasn't.
      Putnam's razor?

      Point taken; what I mean is that the shooter is a guy with a history of making the shot. But it seems to me that your point undermines your previous one; weren't you arguing that the players should know if a better shot is available?

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      But again it still does not take away the point of was there a better shot. just because you have a makeable three does not mean that it was the best shot to take.
      Can't argue with that; I would just remind you that you get an extra point for making a three, compared to a two.

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      I'm going to assume that you are fine with this. That is your right however I have a problem with everything being left up to their discretion.
      Taking bad shots doesn't win you more minutes with any team in the league. It is the job of the players to be clear about what shots to take. Gunners hurt any team in any system.

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Unless that is of course that we are to assume that every single day in practice that they are drilling in their heads to look inside first and the players are just choosing to take the easier shot...
      ... Why then is it not on the coach to take out players who are not going with option #1, which would be to explore inside?
      That is not option #1, nor is a three option #1. What the system is designed to get is close shots and three-point shots. But good shots are open, makeable shots, though, so even a long two is a good shot if, for instance, Troy Murphy is unguarded and in one of his sweet spots.


      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      In our case you can correctly assume that our lack of ball handlers and scorers does prohibit a certain amount of our ability to go inside.
      I would add a lack of good screeners and an inability to play much pick and roll.

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Well to your defense there would have to be clear initial plays called to have audibles, so I may be going back to a time where the offense had structure.
      I appreciate the joke, but in fact the offense is highly structured, it just isn't rote.

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      ... You can quote me stats till your blue in the face about our offensive efficiency and where we rank in % of this or that. 32-60 and no way in hell will I accept that it is all the defense.
      I think that you misunderstand me. I'm not claiming that the Pacers had a good offense; they were poor, in fact, though with better health they likely would also have had better offense. By the way it was 32-50, not 60 - the season was long enough!

      But no one has made a good argument that the poor offense was because of the system; most people don't even seem to understand the system, and the majority seems to overestimate the offensive ability of the players on the roster.

      The Pacers won 32 games because they had a commitment to defend, at least enough to make up for their offense, at least enough to win 32. They've got to get better at both ends, but the steepest curve is on the offensive end.

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      We agree that spot up shooters are a problem with motion offense. Now why did Jim play two spot up shooters more than anyone else on the team?
      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Also I'm sorry but 2+2 does = 4 here. Brandon Rush & Troy Murphy are the two spot up shooters, they also play the two most min. other than Granger yet they are the two players who shoot the least free throws because they don't draw fouls very often. In fact I wonder how many freethrows either of them shot while on the offensive end in the act of shooting? Troy a lot more than Brandon for sure.
      What I said was, "if guys are only spotting up...", and that certainly does not describe Murphy; Rush is another matter. It's true that Murphy only rarely drove to the rim, and picked his spots when he had a clear path - give him credit for that, he played within his limitations; but he took a lot of midrange twos in open areas - makeable shots - let's face it, you wouldn't want him putting it on the floor a lot. They used him in a super-efficient way with good scoring and low turnovers, and in pick and fade situations to facilitate ball movement.

      I think that they played Brandon because he's an outstanding man defender, giving Granger a break on defense, and because they think that at his age and skill-set he can develop into an effective starting wing on both ends of the floor; remember Bird's prediction in April, 2009: "Brandon'll score points, and he'll score in bunches." I think they put up with his limitations for those reasons.

      Spotting up works in any system, it's just a basic skill.

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Yes our defense is lousy, now is that because the players are just lousy (which is probably the case) or is it possible the defensive system is flawed and the players that O'Brien chose to use were lousy as well (this is also possible).
      I don't agree that the defense was lousy; it was average. I don't flatter myself that you're reading every word of all my posts, but I've made the point at length elsewhere and won't repeat myself... ad nauseam.
      :
      Last edited by O'Bird; 09-07-2010, 12:36 AM. Reason: Getting the edge in...
      :

      "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

      "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

      "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

      Comment


      • Re: Some Love for the Three

        Sure seemed like 60 losses to me.

        Also on a side note, no I read every word you have to say. At first I thought you might have been one of our frequently banned posters with your name and all but it didn't take but about two posts to figure out that you actually know what your talking about. You might be misguided and wrong about it but you still know it.


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

        Comment


        • Re: Some Love for the Three

          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
          We're still trying to explain why the Pacers only won 32 games, but we know now that we can't justify the argument of reliance on 3-point attempts and we can't blame increased use of the 3PA on Jim O'Brien.

          The explanation is going to have to come from observation and careful thought, but when the right explanation is given it will be supported by the data.
          BIG kudos for the great visuals and starting this stimulating thread - once again you've come through with the quality!

          I think that there is more than one explanation, or, better, multiple factors that when impacted next season lead to the playoffs.

          Is it worth pointing out that Danny Granger, the team's one and only star, missed 20 games and played hurt in a number of others, and that the Pacers still lost only four fewer games than the year before? Is it possible that in four or more of those 20-plus games a healthy Danny might have made the difference?

          So number one is health.

          Number two is turnovers on offense.

          Number three is shooting.

          Number four is defensive rebounding.

          Number five is not fouling - and defending second shots.

          This thing is working. On to the playoffs.


          :
          Last edited by O'Bird; 09-07-2010, 03:50 AM. Reason: Chuck would have wanted it this way.
          :

          "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

          "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

          "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

          Comment


          • Re: Some Love for the Three

            I wonder if the 09-10 season will ever become another "Season of which we do not speak."

            There's a strong impression that the season was just terrible: that apart from the early five-game win streak and those "meaningless" late victories, the Pacers usually got blown out and weren't even in games to the end.

            But actually the Pacers opponents outscored the Pacers by (on average) only 3 points per game. This aggregation is consistent with some blow-outs, but it is not the hallmark of a team that was a league-wide doormat.


            The Pacers reliance on outside shots logically resulted in fewer free throw attempts, and the stats bear that out. But the difference was small. The stats show that opponents took just about 4 more free throw attempts per game than the Pacers, leading to just 2.6 points per game from the line for the opponent.

            The Pacers 3-point game more than compensated for that loss of free-throw opportunities. The Pacers attempted 6 more 3-pointers per game than their opponents and converted those attempts into 5.5 more points per game from outside.

            So if we focus on the "trade off" between free throws and three-pointers, we find that the Pacers came out on top. They outscored the opponents by 5.5 while foregoing only 2.6 points at the line.

            Field goals from inside the arc is where the Pacers fall short. The Pacers took nearly the same number of field goal attempts as their opponents from inside the arc -- the difference being only 0.6 per game. But the opponents turned those attempts into 5.9 more points per game than the Pacers got.

            So here's how those three means of scoring balqanced out over the season:

            -2.6 -- average difference at the free throw line
            -5.9 -- average difference in two-point goals
            +5.5 -- average difference in three-point goals

            -3.0 average difference between Pacers' and opponents' scoring



            So, again, I don't see that the mix is the problem. The Pacers don't need to get to the line a lot more and they certainly don't need to take fewer three-point attempts.

            They need to get better at converting their field goal attempts from all over the floor. And I have no idea how they should do that.




            .
            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


            • Re: Some Love for the Three

              Interesting analysis, Putnam. I look at things from the other team defensive perspective.

              I'd continue to like the chuck em up mentality. I'd not like to have to foul guys constantly to keep them from scoring, that wears you out. This is as mentally taxing as it is physically. I guess it goes back to what you said, if the Pacers are making the 3s, it can be disheartening or if the Pacers are making teams defend first then hitting 3s, you're in business.

              For me, its the chess match within the game that can work.

              If you take a quick missed 3, to me, it's as good as turnover. Give sme energy for offense, since I didn't have to defend. Doesn't develop foul trouble that makes me play softer defensively.

              The old/good Pacer playoff teams weren't exceptional defensively, what they were good at is getting really good shots and hitting them, that impacts a game, even from an opposing defense perspective.

              In summary, you can be an adequate defensive team, if you're a really good offensive team, 09/10 were neither, imho.

              Comment


              • Re: Some Love for the Three

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                Interesting analysis, Putnam. I look at things from the other team defensive perspective.

                I'd continue to like the chuck em up mentality. I'd not like to have to foul guys constantly to keep them from scoring, that wears you out. This is as mentally taxing as it is physically. I guess it goes back to what you said, if the Pacers are making the 3s, it can be disheartening or if the Pacers are making teams defend first then hitting 3s, you're in business.

                For me, its the chess match within the game that can work.

                If you take a quick missed 3, to me, it's as good as turnover. Give sme energy for offense, since I didn't have to defend. Doesn't develop foul trouble that makes me play softer defensively.

                The old/good Pacer playoff teams weren't exceptional defensively, what they were good at is getting really good shots and hitting them, that impacts a game, even from an opposing defense perspective.

                In summary, you can be an adequate defensive team, if you're a really good offensive team, 09/10 were neither, imho.
                After all the number crunching and analysis and debating three's, fouls, etc. this is really the true answer. The Pacers were neither good enough on the defensive end or the offensive end to be a good team or even a mediocre team. They were by definition a bad team.

                Now the debate can still fall on was it lack of talent, injuries, coaching or other and my answer to that is yes.


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

                Comment


                • Re: Some Love for the Three

                  Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                  The Pacers reliance on outside shots logically resulted in fewer free throw attempts, and the stats bear that out. But the difference was small.
                  If your intention is to determine if "reliance on outside shots" depressed the number of free throws, what you want to look at is how many free throws there were compared to how many field goal attempts there were. No team wants turnovers, no offense is designed to produce turnovers; if you're looking at total FT's, the number is affected by how many squandered possessions where no scoring opportunity was reached. The Pacers were a high-turnover team.

                  When you do that, you find that free throws were a relative strength, and indeed the strongest part of the Pacers' offense. FTA/FGA last season was .296, tied for 14th in the league with Miami and San Antonio. They were average. It was not the outside shooting that depressed their FT totals, but their turnovers; and there's another hidden factor in comparing team to opponent total FTs, see below.

                  A more sophisticated measure is free throw makes per field goal attempt, since that factors in not only the extent to which the team works to get itself to the line, but also its effectiveness once it gets there; but in the Pacers' case their ranking is the same, 14th in the league, for this measure.

                  The other factor that's hidden in comparing opponents' total FT's to the Pacers' is that what you're really comparing is Indiana's fouling on defense to their ability to get to the line on offense - in other words, you're comparing the worst part of their defense to the best part of their offense, so if you think that you're only measuring the latter you get a skewed idea of it.

                  The best way to increase FT attempts is to reduce the turnovers, and the best way to erase the gap with opponents' attempts is to reduce fouling (better defensive rebounding would go a long way, though better defense of second shots would help, too).

                  The offense is designed to open up driving lanes, and the three-point shooting is an integral part of it. If you want to draw fouls you need action off the dribble, going to the rim (more pick and rolls, please), or postups in the low-block area. Players who are better drivers, like Darren Collison (or, dare I say it, Lance Stephenson), will help a lot in that area, but taking better care of the ball is the most urgent task ahead.
                  :
                  Last edited by O'Bird; 09-08-2010, 09:37 AM. Reason: Better and better by taking out "better"?! WUWT?
                  :

                  "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                  "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                  "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X