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

Analyzing Small Ball (3 Guard lineup)

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

  • Analyzing Small Ball (3 Guard lineup)

    http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2010...s-unique-trio/
    By Zach Lowe

    Here’s hoping Gilbert Arenas gets healthy by the time the season opens because I’m curious to see if Wizards coach Flip Saunders is really going to commit to using an Arenas-John Wall-Kirk Hinrich combination for extended minutes. A search through the most frequently used lineup combos on all 30 teams last year yields a few overarching findings:

    A) The Wizards’ projected three-guard lineup would be among the most unusual combinations in the NBA, with all three guards listed at 6-foot-3 or shorter.

    B) Discussing positionality (not a word, I realize) is an increasingly tricky thing in today’s NBA.

    C) Most of the league’s smallest lineups put up surprisingly robust offensive rebounding numbers, but they could not keep pace on the defensive glass.

    Here’s a simple question: How many three-guard lineups got significant minutes last season? The question, it turns out, is not so simple, because the distinction between “shooting guard” and “small forward” has vanished on several franchises. What position does New Jersey’s Anthony Morrow play? He would seem to be a shooting guard, but he spent the majority of his minutes last season as the nominal small forward alongside Stephen Curry and Monta Ellis in Golden State. And what about Milwaukee’s John Salmons and Chris Douglas-Roberts? Or Indiana’s Brandon Rush?

    Finding a true three-guard lineup is not an easy thing, and finding one equivalent to the Wizards’ trio is nearly impossible. Here are a few ”small-ish” lineups, along with a general description of how they performed relative to their team’s overall numbers. (For the numbers themselves, just click on the links.)


    ATLANTA HAWKS:
    Mike Bibby-Jamal Crawford-Joe Johnson-Josh Smith-Al Horford
    (406 minutes, second-most used lineup)

    This was often Atlanta’s crunch time lineup, and it qualifies as a three-guard group with Johnson sliding to the small forward slot. The lineup was a killer offensive combination, obliterating the Hawks’ already-strong overall points per possession and offensive rebounding numbers. It struggled on defense and on the defensive glass. The latter is a recurring theme here.

    BOSTON CELTICS:
    Rajon Rondo-Tony Allen-Ray Allen-Rasheed Wallace-Kendrick Perkins
    (118 minutes, fourth-most used lineup)

    Another clear three-guard combo, though it’s not precisely “small” with two centers anchoring the back line. This was one of Boston’s stingiest defensive groups — the Rondo/Tony Allen backcourt produced gobs of steals — and it was way, way better crashing the offensive glass than Boston’s more traditional lineups. Still, it scored less efficiently and struggled on the defensive glass.


    CHICAGO BULLS:

    Derrick Rose-Kirk Hinrich-John Salmons-Luol Deng-Joakim Noah


    (160 minutes, fifth-most used lineup)

    Is this a three-guard lineup? That’s hard to say, given that Salmons has split time pretty equally between the two and three spots over the last three seasons, according to 82games.com. But with Deng sliding to power forward, it played a bit smaller, stylistically, than Chicago’s “normal” lineups. This lineup outperformed Chicago’s overall numbers across the board and was particularly beastly on the offensive glass.

    DETROIT PISTONS:
    Will Bynum-Rodney Stuckey-Ben Gordon-Charlie Villanueva-Ben Wallace
    (71 minutes, sixth-most used lineup)

    Another clear three-guard lineup, and one that approaches the proposed Wiz group in terms of shortness. This group also outperformed Detroit’s overall numbers on both ends and rebounded a monstrous 41 percent of Detroit’s misses on offense.

    GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS:
    C.J. Watson-Stephen Curry-Ellis-Corey Maggette-Anthony Randolph
    (72 minutes, fourth-most used lineup)

    Crazy time in Golden State! With all three guards listed at 6-3 or shorter, this lineup most closely resembles Washington’s three-guard group height-wise. And it got absolutely smoked, allowing a ghastly 119 points per 100 possessions and rebounding a pathetic 58 percent of opponent misses on defense, according to Basketball Value.

    INDIANA PACERS:
    Earl Watson-Brandon Rush-Dahntay Jones-Danny Granger-Roy Hibbert
    (91 minutes, second-most used lineup)
    T.J. Ford-Rush-Jones-Granger-Hibbert
    (89 minutes, third-most used lineup)

    It seems questionable to label these as three-guard lineups, since Rush has split time at both wing positions. Also, Rush and Jones are listed as 6-6, giving them three inches on any of the Hinrich-Wall-Arenas trio. But I’ll count them here, since Granger shifted to the power forward spot. Both lineups outperformed Indy’s overall numbers by substantial margins, including on the offensive glass.


    LOS ANGELES LAKERS:
    Jordan Farmar-Shannon Brown-Kobe Bryant-Lamar Odom-Andrew Bynum
    (126 minutes, fifth-most used lineup)

    Our second disaster (after the Golden State lunacy), as this group dropped off from L.A.’s overall numbers everywhere but on the defensive glass. Bryant’s height (6-6 or 6-7, depending on where you look) helped in that regard.

    PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS:
    Andre Miller-Brandon Roy-Steve Blake-LaMarcus Aldridge-Greg Oden
    (134 minutes, fourth-most used lineup)

    Another stout group that recorded a higher offensive rebounding rate than Portland’s already-beefy number. Having one of the league’s four or five best offensive rebounders in the middle obviously helps.

    SAN ANTONIO SPURS:
    Tony Parker-Manu Ginobili-George Hill-Richard Jefferson-Tim Duncan
    (51 minutes, ninth-most used lineup)

    This lineup would surely have gotten more regular-season run had its key members been healthy all season. Spurs fans likely hope it won’t see that much time this season; the team’s offense fell apart with this group on the floor, though it held its own on the glass.

    You might argue a few more lineups belong on this list. Utah used a Wesley Matthews-Deron Williams-Ronnie Brewer combination for a decent chunk of minutes, and the Hornets used Morris Peterson as a small forward alongside various small guard combinations.

    This sort of lineup parsing highlights the evolution of the league away from the traditional five-position orthodoxy — an orthodoxy that might not have been that strong to begin with. Watch tape of the 1998 Finals, for instance, and you’ll see two “power forwards” (Dennis Rodman and Karl Malone) battling it out at the “center” position.

    The bigger change has happened on the wing, where players on some teams are increasingly interchangeable. Look at the lineups some of the following teams are going to trot out this season:

    • The Knicks will often feature Wilson Chandler and Danilo Gallinari at the forward positions. Which one is the “power forward”? Does it even matter?

    • The Sixers will use Thaddeus Young as a power forward alongside various three-man groups including Louis Williams, Andre Iguodala, Jrue Holliday and Evan Turner.

    • The Pistons will again use Bynum alongside Stuckey, and those two will surely play heavy minutes with Richard Hamilton, one of the league’s prototypical shooting guards in the way he uses down-screens to spring for open perimeter jumpers, like Reggie Miller and Ray Allen. If Hamilton’s the 2-guard here, what does that make Stuckey?

    • And what of the Mavs and their super-big lineup, which includes Caron Butler as the 2-guard and Shawn Marion as the small forward?

    • The Suns might not have a reliable power forward on their roster all season.

    All of this doesn’t mean orthodoxy is dead. There are still teams that use the five-position model as we all imagine it. The Celtics, in crunch time, use about as traditional a lineup as anyone could create. The Thunder, Rockets and Lakers also lean toward the traditional, though that may change this year in Oklahoma City if Kevin Durant spends more time at power forward.

    If the performance of those small lineups above tell us anything — and they might not, given sample size issues — it’s that teams using them must work very hard to make up for a deficit on the defensive glass. Interestingly, though, the numbers show small lineups might actually be better at grabbing offensive boards. That could be a function of increased quickness and the fact that such lineups likely drag one opposing big man out of the lane.

    We can only hope Saunders does use the three-guard lineup in Washington, just so we can see how it works.

    __________________________________________________ ___________________________

    EIGHT THINGS I LIKE AND DON’T LIKE

    This will be a regular feature of the Monday column, with the number of things changing based on my personal whims. With eight days until the season tips off, we’re going with that number today.

    1. Curtis Jerrells getting traded to New Orleans

    I like Curtis Jerrells getting traded to New Orleans, which happened Sunday. Sure, it has the flavor of an inside job, with San Antonio helping out a former colleague, Dell Demps, now the Hornets’ general manager. But it makes sense for everyone involved. The Spurs get a future second-round pick that may or may not materialize for a player they were going to cut anyway. The Hornets get a true point guard to compete for minutes backing up Chris Paul, minutes previously earmarked for Willie Green. Green is not a point guard. He’s done a nice job protecting the ball in the preseason, but teams need more than turnover avoidance from their point guards, especially those playing alongside second-unit guys who struggle to create their own offense.

    Teams need guys with the quickness to penetrate deep into the lane and distribute. Green is not that guy. Jerrells might be, and it’s worth it to New Orleans to find out.

    2. John Wall in transition

    I like John Wall in transition. Check that: I love John Wall in transition. Wall will immediately rank as perhaps the second-most threatening player in the open floor, behind only LeBron James. He had at least four incredible one-on-one or one-on-two fast-break finishes against the Knicks on Sunday, and he’s fantastic at sprint-dribbling right into the body of the last defender near the rim, stopping and laying the ball in as that defender stumbles out of bounds. His combination of strength and speed is devastating.



    3. The rebounding in Phoenix

    I don’t like the rebounding in Phoenix. It’s only the preseason, but the Suns are getting slaughtered on the boards, and with no traditional power forward in the rotation, Phoenix is in real danger of eclipsing (sorry) the Warriors as the league’s worst rebounding team. The Raptors, of all teams, outrebounded the Suns 57-38 on Sunday and grabbed 24 offensive boards on 52 missed shots. This has not been an isolated thing.

    The Suns’ wing players stepped up on the glass in the postseason against bigger teams, and they’ll have to do that all season for Phoenix to stay in the playoff race.

    4. Anthony Randolph’s preseason play

    I don’t like Anthony Randolph’s preseason play. Randolph just might not be ready. He looks skittish on offense, where he’s shooting just 39 percent, settling for mid-range jumpers and turning the ball over too often. It will be interesting to see how much Mike D’Antoni plays him to start the season. Randolph needs minutes to get comfortable, but he’s so uncomfortable D’Antoni may not give him minutes.

    5. Andrew Bogut’s return to the court

    I like Andrew Bogut’s return the court. No injury was more saddening last season than Bogut’s grotesque “arm explosion” (™Bucksketball). Lingering soreness and a migraine delayed Bogut’s preseason return, but it finally happened Sunday, when he scored 11 points in just 14 minutes. Bogut was the second-best true center in the game last season, and, as with Arenas, here’s hoping he can get something close to 100 percent by the time the games really start to count.

    6. The DeJuan Blair Revolution in San Antonio

    Only two teams — the Raptors and Lakers — are averaging more offensive rebounds per game than the Spurs in the preseason, and the Spurs haven’t even played Phoenix yet. Blair has 18 offensive boards in just 118 minutes, the equivalent of an insane 5.5 offensive boards per 36 minutes. Remember, the Spurs have, largely by choice, been one of the worst offensive rebounding teams in the league for most of the last decade. Has the remaking of San Antonio begun?

    7. Marcus Thornton’s shooting

    I don’t like Marcus Thornton’s shooting. Seriously: What in the world is going on with Thornton, one of the top rookies last season? He’s 9-of-45 from the floor through five preseason games, and Hornets fans are getting worried about a sophomore slump. Are the worries justified? Or can we just toss out the ice-cold shooting as the product of a random preseason statistical blip?

    8. Stories using Gilbert Arenas’ facial hair as an indicator of his mood

    I don’t like stories using Gilbert Arenas’ facial hair as an indicator of his mood. Enough.

    Both lineups outperformed Indy’s overall numbers by substantial margins, including on the offensive glass

    Wow , didnt see that one comming
    Sittin on top of the world!
Working...
X