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

The Art of Pounding Peope | Q&A with Frank Vogel

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Art of Pounding Peope | Q&A with Frank Vogel

    The original article can be found here.



    Q&A: Pacers Coach Frank Vogel on the Playoffs, His Defensive Player of the Year, and the Psycho T Art of 'Pounding People'

    By Zach Lowe

    It has been a weird six weeks for the Pacers. They’re a middling 11-9 in their last 20 games, and their vaunted defense, the stingiest in the league, has slipped a bit in the last three weeks, partly because George Hill is battling hip and groin issues. They swept a four-game road trip that included strong wins in Dallas, Houston, and in L.A. against the Clippers, but they’ve also had some concerning losses — at home to the Lakers and Thunder, the latter in convincing fashion; a tough roadie in Chicago, and then puzzling road losses in Philadelphia and Washington. Toss in a close home loss to the scorching Nets and a miracle home comeback against the pathetic Cavs, and it has been hard to read Indiana of late.

    It was a good moment, in other words, to chat at length with Frank Vogel about the state of his team. Vogel spent time with Grantland after Indiana’s loss in New York on Sunday, and it’s clear he is very confident about the Pacers. What follows is an edited transcript of our chat.

    You guys ranked 29th in points per possession in mid-January, which is not all that long ago. But you’ve been something like 10th or 11th since the All-Star break. What happened? Is it as simple as Roy Hibbert finding his game again?

    Part of it is that Roy has gotten right. But Paul George has fallen off now in the last few weeks, so we’ve gotta make sure everyone is clicking at the same time. But we’ve got a lot of offensive weapons. Lance growing into his role, Paul growing into his role, and just getting more familiar with our bench — that has all factored us into being pretty good offensively.
    I honestly don’t know how to characterize your offense, other than you post up a lot. You’re not a big pick-and-roll team on the surface, but you run a lot of those plays where a big man will set a screen in a pick-and-roll and then run into a post-up — or even set a pin-down screen for Paul George or another guard. I’ve noticed some elements from other teams, and even some borderline trick plays of late. There’s just a lot of stuff going on. So: What kind of offensive team are you?

    We’re a power-post team more than anything. We do try to pick-and-roll into post-ups to counter teams that want to front you or push you off the block, so we try to get guys moving into it. We’re running more. That’s the other thing, in terms of offensive efficiency. And that’s not just because it’s increasing our pace. It’s also increasing efficiency, because when you run, you get better looks.

    Lance Stephenson is obviously a beast in transition, but Roy told me earlier you’re on him and David West to run the floor harder. Is that true? And what do you get out of that? Is it as simple as when a big man runs to the basket, he sort of sucks defenders toward him, even if he never gets the ball?

    Yeah, that’s what it is. They create such a vacuum effect, whether they get the ball or not. When they’re running through the charge circle, it creates open 3s. In the Cleveland game [Note: a giant comeback win on April 9], we were talking about how Lance Stephenson and George Hill were pushing the ball in the second half. Well, every time they were at the front of the rim, there was a big right there occupying the help. So them running hard creates a lot of stuff. And it’s our best post-up play.

    In that it’s easier to get good post-up position before a defense can set up its help scheme?

    They can’t front you. It’s very difficult to front you in transition.

    Are you still terrified whenever Lance is doing anything, at any location on the court? I’m still adjusting.

    No, no. I’m not scared at all. On occasion he’ll do something a little wild, but he has a good feel for how to play the game, even in the open court. And I’ll tell you what: When he’s a freight train in the open court like that, I usually feel good — like something good is about to happen.

    Between Lance and David West, you have two of the guys who would probably be in my top 10 of guys I wouldn’t want to guard. Toss Tyler Hansbrough in there, too. That’s three. Those dudes are all pretty scary in their own ways.

    We’re about offensive physicality. Smashmouth basketball, we call it. We’re about pounding it inside, pounding the glass, and our guards playing with an offensive physicality — driving the ball, not settling. And we’re trying to be a great passing team too. That’s one of the other changes we’ve made between the first half and the second half of the season — we’re making the extra pass more.

    You had it moving pretty well today, even though the score won’t show it.

    Oh, yeah. We’re clearly making that pass a lot more. We didn’t make any shots today.

    Back to Paul George: He’s had an All-Star season, but he’s an unconventional perimeter All-Star in a way. He doesn’t dribble as much as your typical perimeter star. You get him a lot of catch-and-shoot chances, and even when he runs pick-and-roll, it’s usually one of those plays where he comes off a screen, makes a catch on the run, and then goes directly into the pick-and-roll — rather than having him just pound the ball and call for a pick. This is all intentional, obviously.

    It’s what a lot of teams are doing to get their wings the ball on the move before a screen-and-roll — to get them a “live catch.” We talk about that all the time. You can be more of an attacker when you can make a quick catch and just go.

    Do you eventually envision Paul being more of a stand-alone off-the-dribble guy? We talked earlier this season about his tendency to turn the ball over when he tries to split defenders on the pick-and-roll, but he’s cleaned that up a bit. Do you want him to run the offense more, or do you like him moving around like this?

    I just like the offense moving around like that. I don’t like isolation play, unless you’re in the low post. And wings in the post — they’re easy to front when you have two bigs out there. It’s tough to get wings deep post catches when you’re playing with two bigs all the time.

    Is there anything to this late-season defensive slippage? Or is it just randomness, or even a case of a veteran team waiting for the playoffs to start?

    Honestly? There’s some minor slippage, and then some circumstantial games — we played Philly on a second end of a back-to-back when they were rested for two days. We played Washington on the second end of a back-to-back when they also had rested for two days. George Hill is banged up.

    He’s key at the point of attack. He has to be healthy.

    Yeah, and he’s limited with his mobility right now. He’s got a hip-slash-groin injury, so he’s struggling a little bit with some point guards.

    That showed up against Brooklyn the other night, I thought. He just looked a half-step slow and out of position, and Deron Williams killed you.

    Yeah, yeah. But Brooklyn — they scored 117 points and had 28 in the paint. They were bombing 3s and long 2s — Jerry Stackhouse, Brook Lopez, Iso Joe Johnson. Long 2s, contested pretty well. It wasn’t as bad as you thought.

    So you watched film and didn’t see as many breakdowns as it appeared in real time?

    I wasn’t as disappointed as I was during the game. They just got red-hot. We’ve got to take the airspace away a little more, but we contested most of those jumpers.

    True or false: Tyler Hansbrough has the least aesthetically pleasing game in the league. I’ve called him the most unwatchable player in the NBA, and I feel a little bit bad about that.

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I love watching him play.

    No you don’t. Come on. That’s a lie. You just have to say that.

    I love seeing him smash people. I love offensive physicality. I love his defensive energy.

    His defense is fine, you’re right. I like watching him blitz pick-and-rolls.

    He’s less aesthetically pleasing than David West. I’ll give you that. But it’s a different kind of aesthetically pleasing. I like seeing him pound people.

    I mean, he had that sequence today where he drew some horrid shooting foul, missed both free throws, got his own rebound, and immediately drew another horrid shooting foul. The rhythm of the game just died.

    It’s comical. It’s comical sometimes.

    Ian Mahinmi didn’t play today. He had a stomach bug recently, but he had played the prior game. Anything flare up with him?

    It’s not that. It’s not that. He’s been struggling a little bit, but Jeff Pendergraph …

    That guy gives you good minutes every time he plays.

    He’s played really well, and last time we played the Knicks, watching the tape, he was all over the place, just making winning plays. I knew they were going to be small, and I wanted to give us another offensive threat — he’s a better shooter than Ian. He’s our second-best perimeter shooter among our bigs. I just wanted another shooter out there, and to reward him for the way he’s played.

    You guys last season were really bad when Tyler and Lou Amundson played together as the backup bigs. The same thing has happened this season when Tyler and Mahinmi have played together. So: Will you stagger the minutes in the playoffs so that one of West and Hibbert will be on the floor at all times?

    Absolutely. Yeah, we’ll always try to stagger those guys. And their minutes will go up, too. So it’s not going to be 30 and 32 minutes, but more like 36 and 38.

    So just to be clear: You’ll try to keep one of them out there at all times?

    Yeah. Or most times, at least. There might be a couple of minutes a game here or there [when both sit].

    We haven’t seen a lot of the D.J. Augustin–Hill–George combination play together. I thought we’d see more of that. D.J. obviously hasn’t shot well, but is this more about his shooting, or about keeping your size advantage intact?

    I like playing size per position defensively. That’s a big reason we’re first in a lot of categories — because of our size at every position.

    Which is funny, because a lot of your rivals in the Eastern Conference play a ton of small ball — New York, Miami, Boston. Even today, in order to keep Paul George on Melo, who was playing power forward, you had to hide David West someplace — on Iman Shumpert or Jason Kidd or Steve Novak. Does that kind of contortion make you uncomfortable? Or is it something you’re happy to do in order to keep two bigs on the floor?

    Oh, no. Having our [power forward] guarding a 3-point shooter is not uncomfortable for us. We’ve done it all year, and we’ve done it well. Those guys are guarding spot-up 3-point shooters — not guys like Carmelo Anthony or J.R. Smith, but guys like Steve Novak and Shane Battier. Guys that just stand out there and shoot. It allows us to stay big. I don’t sweat over that at all.

    You’ve used Paul George a ton as the lone starter in lineups with four bench guys. That was often Danny Granger’s role. Is George ready to do that in the postseason?

    We’re actually better, statistically, when Roy Hibbert or David West or George Hill is the one starter out there than we are when it’s Paul. I’m not sure why that is.

    Interesting. By the way, I realize this is an unfair question almost, but if you had to pick one of your players to nominate for Defensive Player of the Year — and only one — do you pick Paul George or Roy Hibbert?

    Paul, but it’s very close to even.

    I thought you’d say Roy. Why Paul?

    Him just being able to guard just about every position. But Roy has been dominant, too. He’s the best rim protector in the game, according to most numbers I’ve seen. He’s a candidate, too.

    And he gushes about David West. Have you talked to David about his free agency yet? Have you started to imagine how you might adjust if he leaves?

    No. No. We have every intention of bringing him back.




  • #2
    Re: The Art of Pounding Peope | Q&A with Frank Vogel

    already a thread on this.

    Great article
    http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...th-Frank-Vogel

    Comment

    Working...
    X