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

11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

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

  • 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

    ZAP THE ZARDS!



    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM EST
    Where: Verizon Center, Washington, DC
    Officials: R. Garretson, K. Fehr, G. Zielinski

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Washington Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / Comcast Sports Net
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WJFK 106.7 FM, WFED 1500 AM
    NBA Feeds:

    REMINDER: Per PD policy, please do not share a link to, describe how to search for, request a link to, or request a PM about streaming video of a NBA game that is not coming directly through the NBA. Not even in a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean" round-about sort of way. Thank you


    4-7
    Away: 1-6
    East: 2-5
    0-8
    Home: 0-3
    East: 0-6
    Nov 21
    Nov 23
    Nov 27
    Nov 30
    7:00pm
    8:00pm
    10:00pm
    10:00pm
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    GEORGE
    STEPHENSON
    HILL
    OKAFOR
    VESELY
    ARIZA
    CRAWFORD
    PRICE


    PACERS
    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)




    WIZARDS
    John Wall - left patella stress injury (out)
    Nene - left foot Plantar Fasciitis (out)



    Tim Donahue: Brick by Brick - How the Pacers Can Repair Their Offense

    After nine games, Indiana has the second-worst offense in the league. Scoring only 92
    points per 100 possessions, the Pacers are only bested in impotence by the winless
    Washington Wizards. Things went from bad to worse this week, when the Pacers lost
    on their home floor despite holding the Toronto Raptors to five fourth-quarter points,
    then completely mailed in a game in Milwaukee.

    Losers of six of their first nine, Indiana Coach Frank Vogel and his squad are searching
    for answers, and so are a lot of Pacer observers. It’s one thing to lose some games; it’s
    another altogether to do so looking like they have — especially after billing yourself as
    an Eastern Conference contender for the past six months.

    The Four Factors of Success

    There are so many aspects that go into scoring points. The general offensive scheme,
    ball movement, setting precise screens, cutting, execution, individual playmaking,
    transition, exploiting mismatches, simply making shots. All are undeniably important.
    But when we talk about offense from a statistical standpoint, we mostly look at the
    Four Factors of Basketball Success, a concept identified by Dean Oliver in his attempt
    to understand how teams win basketball games.

    All the less-tangible stuff matters, but we can analyze effectiveness pretty well by just
    looking at shooting percentage (eFG%), offensive rebounding (ORB%), turnovers (TO%)
    and getting to the line (FT/FGA). Throughout the years, good NBA offenses have most
    often been those that shoot well. Meaning, eFG% (effective field goal percentage) has
    had the highest correlation with offensive rating.

    The following chart shows the historical correlation each of the Four Factors has with
    overall offensive rating.

    Correlation of The Four Factors to Offensive Rating

    For the less-mathematically inclined, the chart shows one basic truth: eFG% has a very
    high connection to overall offense while the other three factors do not. In short, you can
    much more easily create good offense by shooting the ball well than you can by not
    turning the ball over, drawing fouls and grabbing offensive boards. Those three (in that
    order) have an increasingly low correlation to creating good offense in today’s NBA.
    Knowing this, it should come as no surprise that the Pacers’ rank of 29th in offensive
    rating has a lot to do with its dead-last ranking in eFG%. At 43.6%, they are 5 full
    percentage points below the league average of 48.8%. Ugly, ugly stuff.

    Interestingly, however, the Pacers were not a good shooting team last year. Despite
    finishing with the league’s 5th best record and its 7th best offense, they shot just 47.4
    eFG%, which put them 23rd in the league (and 1.3% below league average). So what
    gives? How were they able to score so well last year while shooting poorly? And why
    aren’t they doing the same this season?

    Pulling the Right Levers

    It comes down to what I call the ”levers” that coaches can pull in order to guide their
    teams to victory. Essentially, last season Indiana, at the direction of Frank Vogel, was
    pulling the right levers in the non-shooting areas of offense to make up for missing so
    many shots. And this year, the team is not.

    Last year, as noted, the Pacers ranked 23rd in shooting. But they made up for it by
    being the 7th best at protecting the ball (TOV%), 2nd best at geting to the line (FT/FGA),
    and 5th best at rebounding their own misses (ORB%). Essentially, they were elite at
    everything we measure in terms of team offense other than making shots. And that was
    enough to make them one of the league’s best offenses — and arguably its best when its
    starters were on the floor
    .

    This year, however, they have declined when it comes to shooting — and in terms of
    almost everywhere else. Though just as strong on the offensive glass (currently 5th in the
    NBA), the Pacers have been bad at scoring from the line (21st – affected both by lack of
    opportunities and the fact they’re only shooting 73.7% when they get there) and atrocious
    at taking care of the ball (27th).

    While there are lots of ways to have success, the easiest, most consistent way is to say,
    “Get good shots.” But the Pacers’ offense does not focus on that, the strongest lever. It is
    not designed to consistently “get good shots,” at least by certain measures. Frank Vogel
    has built game plans to get certain shots, but not necessarily what most people today
    consider “good” shots.

    Getting Good Shots

    One way to get a general gauge of the quality of an offense’s shots is to look at their
    distribution by zone. There are five basic zones where players can shoot from: “Restricted
    Area,” “In the Paint (non-Restricted Area),” “Mid-Range,” “Corner 3,” and “Above the Break
    3.”

    The chart above shows the NBA’s average eFG% for each zone since the 2001 season
    (including the first two weeks of 2013). Unsurprisingly, the Restricted Area — which is
    basically everything within 5 feet — has the highest rate of success, at over 59%. From
    there, the next best locations are the Corner 3 and then the Above the Break 3.

    Then comes everything else...CONTINUE READING AT 8p9s


    Mike Prada: Consistency, confidence is clearly lacking

    The Washington Wizards lack consistency and confidence, and while their problems go
    much deeper, these issues are most fundamental.


    Two buzzwords dominated the Washington Wizards' locker room following yet another
    loss, this time to the Utah Jazz: "confidence," and "consistency."

    They are just buzzwords, of course, used as shorthand to define a problem that takes
    many more words to accurately portray. From the outside looking in, it'd be foolish to
    suggest that the 0-8 Wizards would be cured with a little more confidence and a little
    more consistency. That conveniently ignores important things like "lack of talent" and
    "lack of offensive threats."

    But inside a locker room, those buzzwords are fundamental concepts. If you don't
    believe you can fix a problem, you're never going to figure out what elements actually
    need to be fixed. If you're not always mentally prepared to make the contribution you
    are expected to make, you're never going to actually make that contribution. And so,
    here the Wizards are, a battered team that cannot lose the very reason to keep
    fighting.

    "You got to play relaxed, you got to play confident. We've got to keep at it," Randy
    Wittman said, seemingly out of easy answers.

    For Wittman in particular, the issue of consistency is especially vexing. He can't point
    to a single player that gives him the same contributions every night. Sometimes,
    Kevin Seraphin looks like the league's next dominant post scorer, and sometimes,
    like last night, he looks completely lost. Sometimes, Bradley Beal is making shots;
    sometimes, he's not and nothing else happens. Sometimes, Trevor Ariza is the open-
    court dynamo that Ernie Grunfeld thought he was getting when he traded for him last
    June; sometimes, he's a shot-clanker that stops giving a good enough defensive effort
    and doesn't help a team anywhere. Sometimes, Chris Singleton is aggressive;
    sometimes, he stands back and lets himself get pushed around.

    "In a perfect world, I'd have eight or nine guys and I'd play them every night. They
    know when they're coming in, who's starting, who's coming off the bench," Wittman
    said. "I'm sometimes right now not knowing who's going to play tonight. Who's up,
    who's down. We just don't have the consistency of, really, anybody."

    This, of course, begs several questions. Are the players not taking enough steps to
    be mentally ready to play? Are they letting outside forces dictate their effort? Does
    Wittman need to do more to promote consistency by setting a rotation instead of
    waiting for players to really earn their spots?

    A.J. Price thinks the issue may be the players' ability to accept criticism. The Wizards'
    starting point guard has certainly been around the block in this area, having to deal
    with head coaches that yo-yoed his minutes and threatened his confidence. Last night,
    he took an interesting stand on the mental state of some of his teammates.

    "We've got young guys on the team who kind of get caught up in what's said or how
    the coach says it. You can't do that," he said. "You just have to be confident in yourself
    and what's gotten you here. It's gotten you here for a reason. Just do what you know
    how to do."

    It's impossible to know who Price is talking about, but it's also not especially surprising.
    Young players lose confidence easily, and it's on everyone associated with the team to
    do their best to maintain it. Wittman admitted the same in his press conference,
    emphatically stating...CONTINUE READING AT BULLETS FOREVER




    Pacers
    Mike Wells @MikeWellsNBA
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows


    Wizards
    Michael Lee @MrMichaelLee
    Mike Prada @MikePradaSBN
    Kyle Weidie @Truth_About_It
    WizzNutzz @wzzntzz
    Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 11-19-2012, 06:40 PM.
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

    Please let this be the game for Roy. Nothing huge, like 20/10 on 8-12 shooting. Please?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
      Please let this be the game for Roy. Nothing huge, like 20/10 on 8-12 shooting. Please?
      I'll take 12 and 9. 20 pts for Roy this year is almost like a 40 pt game
      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
        Please let this be the game for Roy. Nothing huge, like 20/10 on 8-12 shooting. Please?
        Honestly, he tends to really struggle against Okafor.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

          Does he struggle against everyone but Troy Murphy?
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

            I still can't believe Okafor lost all that weight, I liked him when he was all muscle, I don't think he is as effective now with his new body.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

              Washigton 6-1? LOOL

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                yep, definitely taped these interviews during training camp

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                  Wizards winless so far?Well their time has come.
                  Never forget

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                    huge crowd you could hear a pin drop in there
                    Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                      strong 2 minutes from Roy. I'll take it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                        The Pacers are blowing this people out today they suck bad.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                          Damn really impressed with Lance

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                            let's go Sammy!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 11/19/2012 Game Thread #12: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                              Great start, we need a win definitely tonight.

                              PACERS

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X