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

Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

    Some of the starters aren’t stepping up, in fact a Roy has been stepping back, but it is very apparent that Frank Vogel does not trust the new and improved bench at all.

    Honestly who can blame him really, once again when the bench came in to start the second the team went from a 2 point lead to a 10 point deficit and it took the starters all they could muster just to come back at the half.

    By the second half Frank just wasn’t going to have it and thus by the end of the 4th we had nothing left, now mind you that is a poor excuse for only scoring 9 points in the entire quarter but it was part of it.

    We once again were treated to some of the just dumbest passes I’ve ever seen by both Young (twice) and Green (once). I mean into traffic with defenders right there. Sure Paul, Lance & George had some bad passes but they just don’t compare to the passes these two lay out.

    At least we didn’t just lay down like we did in San Antonio but frankly I wonder if this game would have ever gotten back into the Pacers favor without Hill actually hitting three point shots.

    Which while I’m here I am going to just do it now.

    26 effing three point shots? Over half of Paul George’s shots came from there, all of D.J. Augustin shots came from there. Over half of George Hills shots came from there but at least he hit more than he missed.

    Besides missing and leading to a lot of long rebounds that can lead to fast breaks the other way why is this a problem? We got to the foul line 9 times, period. Now the refs. were calling this game loose so there might have been a lot more if we didn’t shoot so many three’s because Atlanta only got 12 up but they were jacking up a lot of 3’s as well.

    David West tried and God knows that Josh Smith’s chest will probably be bruised tomorrow but West just got no help on the interior at all. We may have gained some length this summer but we certainly lost some strength as well.

    I just don’t know what to say really. I mean we played well at times and so there is that as a positive to look at but once again we have lost another game and now are under .500% for the season. Yes I know the Lakers are in worse shape, but you know what I don’t care about them. They have a plethora of superstars that eventually will either play their way out of it or they can turn around and trade them for more superstars (or somehow they will turn Blake into Kyrie Irving via trade) We just don’t have those type of players and we do not have the ability to make any kind of trade for a superstar. So I have to worry about us.

    I’m just going to do player grades because anything else I say will probably interpreted as being too negative.

    David West: A

    He did everything he could and he did it against a very athletic front line. Heck he even played good defense during this game and like I said he was putting the hurt on Smith by lowering the shoulder into his sternum and giving him the forearm shivers. He just didn’t have anybody to help him.

    Sam Young: D

    He was able to stay with Smith early on but Josh just jumped over him, no shame there btw as he does that to a lot of people. I would have been content giving him a C but again he had two of the dumbest passes into traffic I have ever seen & that is saying something. He may be the worst passing small forward I’ve ever seen.

    Roy Hibbert: C-

    Yip he is already in another one of his funks where he has lost confidence and now missing shots is making him not play the stellar defense he was last season. He is now missing hook shots within 5’ of the basket that last season would have been a guaranteed two. Not sure where the answer is going to come from but unless he turns it around we are going to be in for a long season. (I have a feeling that this is going to be the case)

    Paul George: C

    Nothing really bad but nothing really good either. Just disappointed because if ever there was a time to shine for him it is now and all he is doing for me is remind me that I miss Danny Granger something fierce.

    George Hill: A

    He doesn’t have the talent of a lot of the other star point guards in the NBA but he is a warrior and has no fear. If Paul George had ¼ of his drive and desire to be involved in the big play our record would be significantly different. Don’t get me wrong I don’t love him taking 7 three point shots in a game but at the very least he hit more than he missed and he played fairly good defense.

    Gerald Green: C

    Tonight he settled for the three point shot way too early and way too easily. He gets points for hitting the glass and blocking a couple of shots but he also threw one of the dumbest passes I’ve ever seen again tonight. I believe he may be the second worst passing small forward I’ve ever seen.

    Lance Stephenson: B

    He had some really boneheaded defensive lapses in the 4th quarter but he was also a very large part of why we built up that lead in the 3rd quarter. I know this is not going to make sense to anyone but me but the reason I like Lance in there with the starters is because like West and like Hill he has a certain swagger that he brings when he is on the floor. Don’t get me wrong that can burn us as often as it helps us but between Roy hiding from his shadow and Paul’s ever cool demeanor (I’m being polite here btw) I like him giving us an edge.

    Tyler Hansbrough: B

    Is it just because I had so low expectations for Tyler that I actually consider him improved from last season? I mean forget the shooting, that’s just never going to be there, but his defense and rebounding this season are light years ahead of where they were last season. Honestly I trust him on the floor more than I do Mahinmi.

    D.J. Augustin: D-

    Just useless.

    Ian Mahinmi: D-

    Thank you for making me look like an idiot in my pre season preview. How the hell did this guy go from being a player that looked like an absolute steal in pre-season to me now wondering how did they ever sucker us into giving away Collison for him. God I hope he picks this up because as it stands now he is not playing anymore a game than Lou was and we are now back to using West as the backup 5. If that stands we could have saved ourselves a lot of money and signed someone a lot cheaper.

    Again it’s early and yes there was improvement but there really is a lot to be concerned about.



    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

    I don't agree for a change, West last score was with approx 4 and a half minutes in to the second half, he scored zilch after that.
    Hill is one of the reasons for the idiotic amount of 3's, he can simply hardly get the ball across the timeline in time let alone get the ball in the interior (he had the same problem last year) if anything he takes the ball away from PG and so far he has been rescued in the act a few times by 20 odd points from West, but in al reality, he's not a PG and he will never ever be mistaken for one, only by Vogel, our next major problem.
    So far despite having pre-season, camp and 5 games into the campaign, he has been unable to create an offense and frankly that is disturbing.
    Calling GH an "all star" pg is another one, i seriously hope he solves his problems fast, beause I am starting to regret the money I spend on LPB.

    Whether Hibbert is "fragile" or not is not even relevant yet imo, offense and defense have been a shambles and he simply is not "at home" with what is going on.
    Sam Young may be a decent defender, the first 10 points Smith scored were over him, to let it get back to the same play, same defense 5 times in a row and 5 times down the court is outright ridiculous, twice at most, than you switch things up or foul, but you do NOT let a guy like Smith get into a comfort zone like that.

    Why does West score big? because all the attention is going to Roy ; with or without the ball he as at least a double team on him, unless you believe DW runs the floor so fast he comes free so many times you seriously have to wonder where his defenders are.

    Shrug, I hope they improve because as it is I fail to see how I can justify to myself and my cllients losing this much sleep over such a pathetic bunch.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

      We seem to have been seriously outcoached this season. I tend to think as Able thinks about Roy, right now he looks like a draw for a double team to open things up, however when Roy get the ball (which is not often enough) and gets double teamed West is usually the only one trying to help him by getting open. Also Able talks about not being "at home" with the plan, weel I think that's what's going on with DJ. He looks like he would rather be somewhere else for sure.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

        I know what I saw: David West scoring a whole lot with a bunch of people all around him. He was a beast. I second Peck's props.

        Peck, your theory is a good one that they just ran out of gas at the end. I came away not sure exactly what happened.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

          Once again, when the going got tough, jack up some 3s.

          West should have been getting the ball the last 4mins. Smith couldn't guard him if he wanted too, and he didn't even want to. You could see the gameplan from the opening tip, but as the game went further and further along, the futher they got from actually doing it.
          “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

            Frank Vogel: F -

            Hill had 2 really bad passes / turnovers...One to West that was beyond belief.
            Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

              This team is the definition of a cluster*****.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

                Missed all but the last few minutes of the game, which I caught on radio. Told my wife that I really needed to see some Odd Thoughts today to understand what the heck happened.

                I did love Mark and Austin's call of the Lance "Oh NO No No No ... YES" three-pointer near the end.

                But, really, to hold Atlanta to 89 points (when they scored over 100 in their previous games) - would you have thought the Pacers would lose a game where the defense was solid enough to do that? I mean, it took defensive lapses in the 4th to get Atlanta above 80 points, for goodness sakes.

                It becomes really easy to harp on defensive errors or failures to get a particular stop, but the truth of the matter is that we could play this exact defense all year long and with any kind of decent offense (or even just some kind of ability to hit a shot) we'd be rolling over most teams.

                This year it is offense, offense, offense, offense, offense that is the present the cat leaves in the middle of the floor.
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

                  Great work so far this year, Peck. I always appreciate these, but you've been spot on across the board on your assessments. Nicely done! Keep it up, saves me lots of typing!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

                    Originally posted by pacerfreak View Post
                    We seem to have been seriously outcoached this season. I tend to think as Able thinks about Roy, right now he looks like a draw for a double team to open things up, however when Roy get the ball (which is not often enough) and gets double teamed West is usually the only one trying to help him by getting open. Also Able talks about not being "at home" with the plan, weel I think that's what's going on with DJ. He looks like he would rather be somewhere else for sure.
                    Roy cant get position any where near the basket. Why should we force the ball to our center when he's pushed out to mid court? Its getting tiresome to hear the "cant get Roy the ball" drum constantly beat. Roy's the reason he's not getting the ball not the other way around. When he does get the ball his running flails are also not working. Its sad when Id rather see Ian in the game over that guy that we simply HAD to lock up to a max contract.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

                      Originally posted by MiaDragon View Post
                      Roy cant get position any where near the basket. Why should we force the ball to our center when he's pushed out to mid court? Its getting tiresome to hear the "cant get Roy the ball" drum constantly beat. Roy's the reason he's not getting the ball not the other way around. When he does get the ball his running flails are also not working. Its sad when Id rather see Ian in the game over that guy that we simply HAD to lock up to a max contract.
                      The times when we've gotten the ball, he hasn't produced. He missed a short layup, nd dropped a sure fire two in the fourth. That makes players reluctant to pass him the ball.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

                        I presume one of the passes from Green you were talking about was the bounce pass inbounds to Tyler "through" 2 defenders? I almost threw something at the TV! I'm not sure if the passing grade on Tyler is because we expected so little or if we have come to see that defense and hustle has to be his game from now on. It's pretty plain he will NEVER get a pass when he's ready to score unless it come from DJ or Lance. Does Tyler have the foot speed to guard most 3s we have to play? He certainly gave Josh Smith the blues last night. Maybe slide him to the 3 since we get no meaningful scoring from that position anyway. Hurry back, Danny!

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

                          I'm okay with the 3's George Hill took in the game. Two of his makes came off of post ups where West kicked the ball out. He had a couple that were early in the shot clock, but he was always wide open when he shot it. I think Hill is gonna have to look to score more often with Granger out, and if his shot is falling the 3 isn't a bad way to do it.
                          Time for a new sig.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

                            Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                            I presume one of the passes from Green you were talking about was the bounce pass inbounds to Tyler "through" 2 defenders? I almost threw something at the TV! I'm not sure if the passing grade on Tyler is because we expected so little or if we have come to see that defense and hustle has to be his game from now on. It's pretty plain he will NEVER get a pass when he's ready to score unless it come from DJ or Lance. Does Tyler have the foot speed to guard most 3s we have to play? He certainly gave Josh Smith the blues last night. Maybe slide him to the 3 since we get no meaningful scoring from that position anyway. Hurry back, Danny!
                            I seriously like this idea. Tyler does have very good foot speed in one on one isolation. I'm not sure he could do it against quick 3 and I'm not sure he could do it for extended periods of time. I do think if you use it to your benefit on the offensive end and actually post him up, it merits trying. I'd guess eventually that teams would figure out that you just run Tyler off of picks and he won't be able to keep up trying to defend 3s. Also, even when you post him up against 3s, teams would eventually realize he's a black hole and can't pass out of double teams.... Okay I may have talked myself out of it, now.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: losing to the Hawks (again)

                              I don't have a problem with G3 taking the 7 three's, mainly due to the fact that he didn't really force any of them.

                              Roy has been miserable. I've never seen a player go from such a high, to such a low. It's laughable, teams don't even worry about him in the paint right now, he's going one on one with guys like ZaZa and getting beasted. I'm really shocked.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X