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

In defense of Posey

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

  • In defense of Posey

    I am not writing this to defend our coach, however I want to highlight our last game to defend a roster move that people complain about on an hourly basis around here. This is the utilization of James Posey, specifically during Monday’s game vs. the Clippers) . People rave about our small ball lineup with Danny at the 4 and Posey has essentially been utilized as a small ball 4 to facilitate a similar lineup.

    In fact, you can see from the included info that Posey replaced granger and Dunleavy the two times he entered the game. Small ball has been what has helped our offense recently. Griffin torched us Monday, but not against James Posey.

    5:18 James Posey enters the game for Danny Granger 64-71

    4rth
    8:19 Jeff Foster enters the game for James Posey 88-91

    5:26 James Posey enters the game for Mike Dunleavy 92-102

    2:15 Darren Collison makes driving layup 104-107

    0:00 End of the 4th Quarter 107-114

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playby...17012&period=4

    When Posey entered the game for the first time (5:18 remaining in the third quarter) the score was pacers 64 clippers 71. When Posey left the game (8:19 remaining in the 4rth) we trailed 88-91. During the three minutes Posey was the clippers lead grew to 102-92. Why wouldn’t you bring Posey back? After bringing Posey back in (5:26 remaining) we shrunk the deficit to 3 at 104-107(2:15 remaining). I am trying to use this analysis to show that there are concrete reasons to believe Posey is an effective small ball 4 who deserves just a little respect. In the game I am analyzing, while Posey was on the floor we outscored them 39-32. I am making the argument that utilizing James Posey is not always a bad move.
    Last edited by spazzxb; 01-18-2011, 08:57 PM.

  • #2
    Re: In defense of Posey

    If these were stats over the course of the season, your argument would hold weight. One game does not show the full story. What you're talking about is the +/-, and Posey's +/- for the season is 2nd lowest on the team (of players who regularly play), coming in just behind Solomon Jones'

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: In defense of Posey

      Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
      If these were stats over the course of the season, your argument would hold weight. One game does not show the full story. What you're talking about is the +/-, and Posey's +/- for the season is 2nd lowest on the team (of players who regularly play), coming in just behind Solomon Jones'
      Much of the time he comes in occurs when the team is stagnant and needs quick points so it isn't surprising that his +/- is low.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: In defense of Posey

        Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
        If these were stats over the course of the season, your argument would hold weight. One game does not show the full story. What you're talking about is the +/-, and Posey's +/- for the season is 2nd lowest on the team (of players who regularly play), coming in just behind Solomon Jones'
        I use it to make two claims(copied below). I believe it is sufficient evidence for these minimal claims.

        I am trying to use this analysis to show that there are concrete reasons to believe Posey is an effective small ball 4 who deserves just a little respect.

        I am making the argument that utilizing James Posey is not always a bad move.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: In defense of Posey

          1. Don't fonfuse me w/ facts (JO'B?), mi mind is made up!
          2. Still does not explain McBOB DNP-CD
          3. Never, Ever use "Defense" and "Posey" in the same sentence w/o the word "No".
          "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
          (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: In defense of Posey

            Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
            1. Don't fonfuse me w/ facts (JO'B?), mi mind is made up!
            2. Still does not explain McBOB DNP-CD
            3. Never, Ever use "Defense" and "Posey" in the same sentence w/o the word "No".
            I don't know what is going on with Josh. Never claimed his exodus made sense to me, however josh has not been proven to be someone you bring in to jumpstart an offense.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: In defense of Posey

              the last time we played the clippers and a similar sort of thing happened, albeit not to this extent, i brought up stats indicating that griffin did basically nothing against posey while posey was in the game...not to mention when posey tossed griffin out of bounds under the basket while grappling for a loose ball...

              ...and got laughed out of the house on here by a few fellas...something about it being based on a small sample size and therefore not credible.

              griffin did most of his damage that game matched up against mcroberts if i recall...not positive though...i'd have to look back at the stats. i didn't get to watch this game so i can't really comment...but, the trend sounds similar from what you describe.
              Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: In defense of Posey

                Originally posted by jcouts View Post
                the last time we played the clippers and a similar sort of thing happened, albeit not to this extent, i brought up stats indicating that griffin did basically nothing against posey while posey was in the game...not to mention when posey tossed griffin out of bounds under the basket while grappling for a loose ball...

                ...and got laughed out of the house on here by a few fellas...something about it being based on a small sample size and therefore not credible.

                griffin did most of his damage that game matched up against mcroberts if i recall...not positive though...i'd have to look back at the stats. i didn't get to watch this game so i can't really comment...but, the trend sounds similar from what you describe.
                Defending anything associated with a decision Jim may have made is a brave thing to do around here, doesn't matter if your right or not.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: In defense of Posey

                  Umm..that's nice.

                  Here's a much better site for matchups/lineups:
                  http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bi...17&game=INDLAC

                  Posey spent 6 minutes without Griffin even on the court. And if you watched the game you heard the Clips announcers talk about how he was gassed when he was pulled near the end of the 3rd. Also during the nice late 3rd bump (+6) to Posey's night the Clips had the awful lineup of Bledsoe (playing him to teach him), Aminu (ditto, and even more mistake prone than Eric B), Diogu (please), EJ and Blake. The Clips true rooks were a mess as they normally are and Blake was starting to drag. Posey hit a 3, but that was about it during this stretch.


                  Griffin returned in the late 4th to face Posey, Pacers down 11.
                  Blake proceeded to draw a 2 shot foul against him, then assist on the Jordan dunk. However since Rush hit a 3 (ast Granger) and Granger hit a 3 (ast Collison) to go with a Foster dunk (ast Granger), technically Posey was part of the great +4 run.

                  That's right, thanks to 2 3pt shots the Pacers gained 4 points on 2 makes vs 3 makes. At that point it's a 7 point game. It ends that way. There's your secret to how Posey kicked some +/- butt...he let Rush and Danny hit 2 bombs.

                  Now Posey did get credited with a steal on Griffin that eventually led to Danny's 3pt shot, but not from a Posey pass on some break or anything. 11 seconds pass between the steal and the 3pt make.

                  Posey also continues on to draw 2 FTAs (1-2) on Jordan and miss a 3.

                  Griffin goes on to contribute to the final 7 Clips points with 2 shots near the rim and an assist to Baron for a 3 ball.



                  So let's recap - final stretch with Posey vs Blake, Blake assisted on or scored ALL OF THE CLIPS FINAL 11 POINTS. EVERY SINGLE POINT.

                  Posey, OTOH, was a major player in scoring 1 of the Pacers final 15, had one steal that did lead to something eventually, and a meaningless defensive rebound with the game over...oh, and a missed 3 as well.



                  Were it not for Rush outrebounding Jordan and drawing a foul (2-2) and then Collison making a steal and taking it the other way for 2, the game would have been worse than 7 and Posey's awesome +4 flurry would have been ruined. The one built almost entirely on Collison, Rush and Granger.


                  I love the +/- stat, but it requires lots of data and lots of CONTEXT. Granger went for 32 on 9-16 with 5 assists and 2 steals and went +2 for the game, Collison went for 30 on 10-17 with 8 assists and 2 steals and went -2 for the game, and Rush went 10 on 3-8 with 7 boards (from the SG spot) and 2 assists and was -7 for the game.

                  How does that happen? His name is Mike Dunleavy, of 1-10 fame and a -14, including a dreadful short -10 stint in the early 4th. A fair portion of that was how poorly he and and Collison matched up with Baron (outsized DC and killed him), Foye and EJ. Also the whole Granger guards Griffin "going small" schtick freaking tanked instantly at that point.

                  Swap Posey with Granger in that lineup (DC, Dun, George, Danny, Foster) and see how nice his +/- looks for the game.


                  The lineup was dumb, going small vs Griffin on fire and Jordan, which was amplified by the size issue of Baron vs DC.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-18-2011, 09:30 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: In defense of Posey

                    As I mentioned in the post game thread, here's a non Blake Posey moment.

                    End of 3rd, they run the ultra high PnR for EJ which pulls Solo way out (this is why you use Josh instead). Rush picked clear, EJ blows past Solo and by 2 feet before the FT line he's already a step or two ahead of both of them.

                    Down by the right block sits Posey keeping a close eye on his man in the corner as the ball literally drives down mainstreet for the classic standard EJ dunk, what he's known for. (what, he's not known for those? go figure)

                    Posey makes a half-hearted attempt to kinda come to the rim, then clearly leans away from the poster shot instead. Nice effort, great awareness.

                    Let's do the math:

                    100% make rate on dunk * 2 points = 2 points
                    50% make rate on open 3 in corner * 3 points = 1.5 points

                    With 3 seconds left you ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS come to defend the rim. *

                    Maybe he kicks it out clean, maybe that shot goes in, but the odds are much worse than the odds of that uncontested dunk. Josh might have fouled him, but like a Dale or Tony Davis he d*** sure would have come to stop that s***. Ditto Roy while we are at it, or Hans.







                    *unless you are up by more than 2 at the end of the game in which case you laugh at the dude's meaningless highlight reel play as you defend the arc

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: In defense of Posey

                      http://www.82games.com/1011/10IND9.HTM

                      James Posey:

                      Pacers' Points Per 100 Possessions with him: 97.7
                      Without him: 106.3

                      Pacers' Points Allowed Per 100 Possessions with him: 101.8
                      Without him: 106.2

                      Net loss of 4.2. There's your +/-.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: In defense of Posey

                        In defense of Posey...at least he's better defending than Troy Murphy. Overall, there's not much difference because at least Troy could shoot. Newsflash: James Posey is NOT a good 3 point shooter.

                        You know what's worse? Blake Griffin had his season high yesterday because Jim O'Brien doesn't know how to coach. Josh McRoberts sits once again and he and his athleticism may have been our best chance to slow down Griffin.

                        Nobody is claiming Josh is all that good. He's just not going to hurt you as bad as putting idiotic mismatches in the opponents favor out on the floor.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: In defense of Posey

                          This isn't a case where a player has scored 32 points on 12 for 12 from the field and is 8 of 8 at the FT line and on the last play of a game dribbled the ball off his foot and allowed the other team to win by a point so someone says "he lost the game for us".

                          There's plenty of evidence to support the notion Posey is used too much and/or improperly. We can play the dueling statistics game and try and explain something away with some numbers that may or may not be in context or suffers from some skewing based on other factors. ...Or you can just watch the games and know when you see good basketball and bad basketball.

                          Contrary to Capt Contradiction's oft stated love for using stats, most times you can learn all you need just by watching the games. You don't always need stats to tell you what your eyes showed you.

                          ..IMHO
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: In defense of Posey

                            The last few games the "small ball lineup" has consistently gotten us back in games. Ever since roy's struggles, we have issues scoring otherwise. Josh does not help us generate points, Tyler wasn't getting the job done, we are weak at the 4 and have been all year. As I pointed out in the thread Posey replaced Danny and Dunleavy in the lineup. If you want to complain small ball go ahead but Posey didn't check in for a big. Posey filled grangers role in a small ball lineup. Its not ideal but small ball has been effective. If we are going small Posey becomes the only option at the 4 other than granger. Going small brings in an extra shooter to help us score. If the traditional lineup was effective there would be no need to go small. If Tyler was getting the job done we probably never would have seen Posey in yesterdays game. Before he exchanged places with tyler alot of people complained about Joshs lack of offense so I find it hard to believe that these same people think he is the answer when the team can't put points on the board. Again I think Josh should play some, but if the team needs scoring, Josh isn't the guy.
                            Last edited by spazzxb; 01-18-2011, 11:23 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: In defense of Posey

                              seems to me posey has fallen out of the rotation. his appearences are more a function of roy/tyler/jeff poor play than anything else. if they play well, posey never breaks a sweat.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X