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

Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

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

  • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    Interesting, but at this point I don't think you pay another team to take Green. Seriously, if the table was turned would you want to trade for Green? In all honesty, if the Pacers truly had the opportunity to tade Green with the #23 pick for Jimmer, they should never have thought twice about doing the deal. Then if had to have S Hill, trade up in the 2nd round to get him. Green is an albatross with no end in sight.
    Bit of an exaggeration I'd say. $3.5 million dollars a year is less than what Hansbrough made last year. And the end is in sight, it's 2015 (at worst).

    Comment


    • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

      Originally posted by Dece View Post
      Also discounting Gerald Wallace's offensive game is foolish. He took a smaller role because he had excellent options ahead of him in Lopez and Williams, but he is not a scrub by any measure. Dude has scored 15 ppg or more in 8, EIGHT seasons. EIGHT seasons of 15+ ppg, guy has no offense. Right. What a joke of a comment, you are making it harder for me to take you seriously when you state things that show you have no idea what you are talking about.
      Gerald Wallace used to be a good offensive player. But he isn't anymore. 7.7 PPG on 39.7% shooting makes him an offensive liability. If you are not biased it's easy to see that his offensive game has waned to the point that he's a liability on that end similarly to Artest in the 10-11 and 11-12 seasons.


      Originally posted by Dece View Post
      You successfully drilled exactly 0 holes. Excellent work. Brook Lopez got to play Chicago in the playoffs, one of the toughest interior defenses in the league, and STILL out produced Hibbert's vaunted Miami series... a team with exactly 0 interior defense. Lopez would average 30 a game in a Miami series. (though the Nets would still lose).

      If Lopez were on our team he would be the number 1 option. Hibbert is on our team, he is the number 4 option. No GM or coach in the league is more scared of Hibbert's offensive game relative to Lopez's. No coach is shaking in his boots at the thought of Hibbert dropping 40 on them. His career high is 30... Lopez has gone over 30 fifteen plus times. I'm done with this...you have no argument and homers gonna home.

      The question isn't who is a better player, it's who's better on offense. If Hibbert can be consistent he is the better overall player, but there is absolutely no argument for him being the better OFFENSIVE player. Bring a better argument next time.
      Lopez wouldn't be the number 1 option on our team. Paul George would still be the number 1 option on our team and chances are that David West would be the number 2 option due to his experience.

      Lopez does score on a higher volume than Hibbert. I never claimed that he doesn't. But does scoring in a higher volume makes one player a better OFFENSIVE player?

      Who can create his own shot the most? Who can create shots for others the most?

      The answer in both of those questions is Hibbert. That's what the stats (basketball reference) prove.

      http://www.basketball-reference.com/...lopezbr01.html

      http://www.basketball-reference.com/...hibbero01.html

      Hibbert has lower usage throughout his career (22.5% versus 25%) but assists in a much higher rate (10.9% vs 8.5%). And as I noticed in my previous shots Hibbert creates his own baskets more often than Lopez. In other words, Hibbert does not need someone else to create his shots for him. He can do it himself.

      We saw the value that a big that can create his own shot has against the New York Knicks. During the season, several posters wished that we had Tyson Chandler instead of Roy Hibbert because Tyson scored a lot more efficiently, pulled down double digit boards and played "equal" defense with Roy. I kept saying that Hibbert is way more valuable because he can create his own shot but most people didn't care and kept wishing for Chandler. Hey, I remember that I was arguing with you about it as well (although you didn't wish for Chandler per se)

      What happened in the IND - NYK series? Tyson Chandler got exposed badly by Hibbert. Tyson averaged 6.2 PPG on 53.6% shooting and 6 RPG. Every starting Pacer except George Hill outrebounded him in the series. Tyson couldn't keep up with Hibbert offensively, defensively or on the boards.

      Why did this happen? Because Chandler's scoring is entirely dependant on the rest of his team. He only scores at the rim after dump off passes or alley-oops or after offensive boards. He doesn't have any other scoring methods.

      Brook Lopez is no Tyson Chandler, of course. He actually has offensive skills and can score away from the basket. But still, Lopez's scoring relies on the rest of his team a lot more than Hibbert's. As I said, during the playoffs Lopez was assisted in 70.7% of his baskets. Hibbert was assisted in 50% of his baskets. That's a huge difference, my friend. Being able to get off your own shot without relying on your teammates is a huge asset for a big. Hibbert has it. Most other bigs do not have it.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

        We aren't friends, Nuntius. I can't decide if you are purposefully obtuse or genuinely deluded with the dishonesty of your arguments and inability to maintain context, but I just don't value our exchanges anymore as I simply don't respect you or your opinions any longer. I'm going to put you on ignore.

        I know the average BBIQ of this board has dropped a lot with the reduced contribitions from Count, JayRedd, Tbird, Chicago J, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some, but I can't believe such a simple statement as the offensively oriented all star center is a better offensive player than the defensively oriented one. I'm genuinely disheartened with the (lack of) quality on this board lately.

        Comment


        • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post


          Lopez wouldn't be the number 1 option on our team. Paul George would still be the number 1 option on our team and chances are that David West would be the number 2 option due to his experience.

          Lopez does score on a higher volume than Hibbert. I never claimed that he doesn't. But does scoring in a higher volume makes one player a better OFFENSIVE player?

          Who can create his own shot the most? Who can create shots for others the most?

          The answer in both of those questions is Hibbert. That's what the stats (basketball reference) prove.

          http://www.basketball-reference.com/...lopezbr01.html

          http://www.basketball-reference.com/...hibbero01.html

          Hibbert has lower usage throughout his career (22.5% versus 25%) but assists in a much higher rate (10.9% vs 8.5%). And as I noticed in my previous shots Hibbert creates his own baskets more often than Lopez. In other words, Hibbert does not need someone else to create his shots for him. He can do it himself.

          We saw the value that a big that can create his own shot has against the New York Knicks. During the season, several posters wished that we had Tyson Chandler instead of Roy Hibbert because Tyson scored a lot more efficiently, pulled down double digit boards and played "equal" defense with Roy. I kept saying that Hibbert is way more valuable because he can create his own shot but most people didn't care and kept wishing for Chandler. Hey, I remember that I was arguing with you about it as well (although you didn't wish for Chandler per se)

          What happened in the IND - NYK series? Tyson Chandler got exposed badly by Hibbert. Tyson averaged 6.2 PPG on 53.6% shooting and 6 RPG. Every starting Pacer except George Hill outrebounded him in the series. Tyson couldn't keep up with Hibbert offensively, defensively or on the boards.

          Why did this happen? Because Chandler's scoring is entirely dependant on the rest of his team. He only scores at the rim after dump off passes or alley-oops or after offensive boards. He doesn't have any other scoring methods.

          Brook Lopez is no Tyson Chandler, of course. He actually has offensive skills and can score away from the basket. But still, Lopez's scoring relies on the rest of his team a lot more than Hibbert's. As I said, during the playoffs Lopez was assisted in 70.7% of his baskets. Hibbert was assisted in 50% of his baskets. That's a huge difference, my friend. Being able to get off your own shot without relying on your teammates is a huge asset for a big. Hibbert has it. Most other bigs do not have it.
          Don't worry Nuntius we can be friends.

          The assisted numbers remind me of the same argument that people had with liking Humphries over West. They simply didn't evaluate offensive system and the lil point of playing with an all star point guard.

          I still think Brook Lopez would be a efficent player in a different system but he wouldn't be as efficient on the offensive end.

          Comment


          • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            Oh come on guys!

            The guy makes 3.5 million and you would think we were paying him Joe Johnson type money or if you want a better comparison Gerald Wallace.

            He is a bad but his contract isn't a albatross.

            They aren't Pacers affecting what the Pacers can do where as Green is. Green's 3.5 mil hinders what you can do in re-signing players. That 3.5 mil could make a difference in being able to keep a player or what you can offer a player next year. There is nothing positive paying 3.5 mil for a towel waving end of the bench player who can't play worth a hoot.

            Comment


            • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

              Originally posted by Dece View Post
              We aren't friends, Nuntius. I can't decide if you are purposefully obtuse or genuinely deluded with the dishonesty of your arguments and inability to maintain context, but I just don't value our exchanges anymore as I simply don't respect you or your opinions any longer. I'm going to put you on ignore.

              I know the average BBIQ of this board has dropped a lot with the reduced contribitions from Count, JayRedd, Tbird, Chicago J, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some, but I can't believe such a simple statement as the offensively oriented all star center is a better offensive player than the defensively oriented one. I'm genuinely disheartened with the (lack of) quality on this board lately.

              Comment


              • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                They aren't Pacers affecting what the Pacers can do where as Green is. Green's 3.5 mil hinders what you can do in re-signing players. That 3.5 mil could make a difference in being able to keep a player or what you can offer a player next year. There is nothing positive paying 3.5 mil for a towel waving end of the bench player who can't play worth a hoot.
                I am not saying there is anything positive about it but its not like other well run teams haven't made similar mistakes. Think of another former Net (Richard Jefferson) and the Spurs.

                My objection to all crying about Green is simply that its not as bad as you would have us believe. Is it good? I don't think you could find one poster to say that it was a good signing now but its not a major mistake (yet). It does have the potential to cost us Lance but I will wait another year to decide how bad it really was in the end. Sometimes you have to chalk on up as a bad fit which is what I am doing with Green.

                Put him on a run and gun team and he wouldn't be as bad of a signing IMO.

                Comment


                • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                  Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post

                  Bit of an exaggeration I'd say. $3.5 million dollars a year is less than what Hansbrough made last year. And the end is in sight, it's 2015 (at worst).
                  Yeah, maybe a bit of an over exaggeration in that it's not a Murphleavy albatross contract. I should have just said it's a poor contract that hinders in regards to how much money the Pacers have to work with. 2015 is too long to have to keep Green on the books and too far in the distance to have to wait to unload him.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                    on the Lopez-Hibbert debate, you also need to take into account that Lopez has Deron Williams creating shots for him, while Hibbert has George Hill creating shots for him, no offense to Hill, but defenses don't pay as much attention to Hill as they do Williams

                    Comment


                    • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013


                      Comment


                      • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                        Originally posted by Dece View Post
                        It's not eye popping at all when you realize the different sorts of offenses the two teams run. I have had to listen to Nuntius say we don't need a real point guard a hundred times. That George Hill is just fine because of the system we run not needing a more legit point man, then he gets to use that same argument in reverse talking about how nice it is to be utilizing an elite point guard distributing the ball. He doesn't get to have it both ways. Either we run a system that isn't about excellent distribution by a great guard, in which case it's by design that we don't get a ton of assisted buckets so that's a pointless comment, or we need a better point guard than George Hill -- which is a statement Nuntius will never commit to. It's easy to come into conversations and not understand there larger scope and think someone is being rude, but Nuntius makes it a point to go completely out of context to try and find obscure stats that "prove" his point, when the reality is if you start with the position of "the Pacers are great and their players do no wrong and have no weaknesses," you can find evidence of that in some number, somewhere. That isn't how stats are supposed to be used though. You don't start with a conclusion and look for evidence that agrees with you. Not if you are honest, anyway.
                        My friend, I still believe that our system doesn't need a real point guard and George Hill is indeed excellent for what we're trying to do, imo.

                        Dece, you said something that is absolutely wrong here:

                        Originally posted by Dece View Post
                        Either we run a system that isn't about excellent distribution by a great guard, in which case it's by design that we don't get a ton of assisted buckets so that's a pointless comment
                        Who said that our system does not give us a ton of assisted buckets?

                        Let's check out the percentage of assisted buckets for the other 4 of our starters:

                        David West was assisted in 63.3% of his baskets in the regular season and 66.1% of his baskets during the playoffs. So, David was assisted significantly more than Roy.

                        Paul George was assisted in 57.6% of his baskets in the regular season and 48.7% of his baskets during the playoffs. He was assisted more than Roy in the RS but less than him in the playoffs since he shared ball handling duties with George Hill.

                        Lance Stephenson was assisted in 58.9% of his baskets in the regular season and 50.7% of his baskets during the playoffs. Lance was assisted more than Roy in the RS and a bit more in the playoffs after Vogel gave him the green light to create for himself and attack after a defensive rebound (we all remember his coast to coast baskets).

                        George Hill was assisted in 44.8% of his baskets in the regular season and 48.2% of his baskets during the playoffs. He was the only player that was consistently assisted less than Roy and that makes sense since he is the PG so he's the one that gets to assist others instead of the opposite.

                        Let's check our back-ups a bit:

                        Ian Mahinmi: 69.8% in the RS, 53.8% in the playoffs (7 assisted out of 13 baskets)

                        Tyler Hansbrough: 52.8% in the RS, 46.2% in the playoffs (12 out of 26)

                        Orlando Johnson: 61.1% in the RS, 50% in the playoffs (1 out of 2)

                        DJ Augustin: 64.1% in the RS, 70.4% in the playoffs

                        Sam Young: 63.8% in the RS, 66.7% in the playoffs

                        Gerald Green: 63.2% in the RS, 61.9% in the playoffs

                        Jeff Pendergraph: 80.3% in the RS, 62.5% in the playoffs

                        Our second unit was in contrast with our first unit. Our first unit had players that could create their own shot and thus they didn't rely on being assisted by their teammates. The second unit had only 1 such player (Hansbrough) and thus needed to be assisted in a much higher rate. And they were.

                        Dece, I never said that the Pacers can do no wrong and have no weaknesses. We certainly have weaknesses. Every team does. We have weakness in both sides of the floor.

                        Defensively, we struggle against big men that can shoot the long range jumper. That's why we lost all of our games against Brooklyn. We cannot defend the Deron Williams - Brook Lopz PnP well. With the addition of KG and PP, I expect the Nets to be even tougher opponents for us (since we didn't beat the Celtics last year either).

                        We also struggle against top notch ball movement. We couldn't hope to defend the Spurs at all, for example. When the Orlando Magic used the Spurs playbook against us, they blew us out.

                        Offensively, we lacked spacing due to Danny's injury and Green's inability to shoot after January (also caused by an injury). We weren't a huge threat from 3 and that allowed opposing teams to double down on our bigs in the post more often.

                        We were also turnover prone. Our less turnover prone was George Hill at 10.7% turnover rate. West was at 12%, Lance at 14.4%, Roy at 14.5% and PG at 15.2%. Paul George has to clean up his handles more, Roy has to learn to play better against double teams, Lance has to stay in control more and West has to attempt safer passes more often.

                        I never said that we are without weaknesses, my friend. I just believe that we can make this work in the end. You don't believe that. That's the difference between the two of us. That's why we disagree a lot in these forums.

                        You said in a previous post of yours in this very thread that you have watched basketball physically a lot more than some of other members of this forum. I have no reason to doubt you, of course. But does that makes you any more qualified to speak about basketball than us? No, it doesn't.

                        At the start of the season, you said that when we face the Grizzlies we will see which is the best rebounding and defensive team in the league. Which team ended up being the best rebounding and defensive team in the league? The Pacers. The Grizzlies were 2nd in both categories and they were excellent at both tasks but the Pacers were a tad better.

                        When Roy Hibbert was shooting below 40% (39.7% it was at the time if my memory serves me right), we placed a bet. I said that Hibbert would reach 45% by the end of the season. You said that you didn't think that it would happen but you'd like it to happen because that would help us win games. Hibbert ended the season shooting 44.8%. I lost the bet but Hibbert improved more than you expected and helped us win games. We were both happy about it.

                        Before the playoffs we placed another bet. It was a sig bet this time. You said that we weren't going to advance past the second round. In fact, you were so down due to our late season play (which was horrific, I agree) that you doubted if we were going to be able to advance past the first round. In any case, I took the bet. As expected, we advanced past the second round. We reached the ECF and we pushed the eventual champs to a game 7.

                        Reaching the ECF looked like a pipe dream to you. To me, it looked like the natural course of events. It is the end result of the internal development that we witnessed throughout the season. But that's exactly why you don't believe in this team. You don't see this internal development. You don't see the improvement. You refuse to acknowledge it when it happens and come up with excuses as to why it happened (such as "the Pacers are in the East so it doesn't court"). You don't give credit where credit is due, my friend. That's why we disagree all the time. Because I pressure you to acknowledge the team's efforts and that's something that for whatever reason you don't feel comfortable doing.

                        I never said that the Pacers are perfect, Dece. I don't believe in perfection, anyway. What I have always said is that you consistently underestimate this team and its players. That's all.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                          3 years! Awesome.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                            Originally posted by PGisthefuture View Post

                            YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                              Originally posted by PGisthefuture View Post
                              The Indiana Pacers are finalizing a three-year agreement with free agent David West, league sources tell Y! Sports.
                              — Adrian Wojnarowski (@WojYahooNBA) July 2, 2013
                              Deserves its own thread or something, huge, especially just for 3 years, i'm a little surprised. I couldn't be happer. BAMF!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                                I am not saying there is anything positive about it but its not like other well run teams haven't made similar mistakes. Think of another former Net (Richard Jefferson) and the Spurs.

                                My objection to all crying about Green is simply that its not as bad as you would have us believe. Is it good? I don't think you could find one poster to say that it was a good signing now but its not a major mistake (yet). It does have the potential to cost us Lance but I will wait another year to decide how bad it really was in the end. Sometimes you have to chalk on up as a bad fit which is what I am doing with Green.

                                Put him on a run and gun team and he wouldn't be as bad of a signing IMO.


                                It's like getting new carpet only to find it doesn't look anything like the sample did. You paid for the carpet, and you are stuck with it for years.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X