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

Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

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

  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
    2nd night of a back-to-back...and hes still coming back...in time...but 30 minutes wouldve been too much...Im pretty sure they have him on a pretty strict minute watch...especially on the 2nd niters....

    As for the shot attempts...I think Danny is very conscious about "sharing" the ball and fitting in...as time goes by and somewhat to what you are alluding to, he may need to become a bit more "selfish"...and specifically do more of the driving, creating contact and getting to the line...something that would be good for all of our SF's to do more of
    Add to that, Lance went down halfway through the 3rd quarter. The only way for Danny to get 30 minutes last night would have been to play the last 18 minutes. That would never happen. That is why Sual was used.

    Comment


    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

      Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
      What's strange is that he gets a good arc on his FTs, but when I saw him shoot a couple of 3s, they were so flat. Why can't he get the same kind of arc as he does on his FTs? I honestly don't recall his shot always been that flat.
      Well, he had one spectacularly flat 3 last night because he got the ball at his feet with a second left on the shot clock. He brought the ball up and chucked it at the rim to try to beat the buzzer. It was the flattest 3-point attempt I've ever seen from him.

      Apart from that, he sometimes is getting good arc on his shots, but other times I agree that he needs a bit more. Not sure what the problem is.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

        Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
        What's strange is that he gets a good arc on his FTs, but when I saw him shoot a couple of 3s, they were so flat. Why can't he get the same kind of arc as he does on his FTs? I honestly don't recall his shot always been that flat.
        Isn't it that when you take a 3pt shot that it requires a lot more lift and spring in your legs when taking the shot?

        I think that his 3pt shot is a "hit or miss"......more hit at the beginning of the game than towards the end of the game. Maybe it's a matter of conditioning as the season goes on....but hopefully he "gets his legs" underneath him more.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

          Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
          2nd night of a back-to-back...and hes still coming back...in time...but 30 minutes wouldve been too much...Im pretty sure they have him on a pretty strict minute watch...especially on the 2nd niters....

          As for the shot attempts...I think Danny is very conscious about "sharing" the ball and fitting in...as time goes by and somewhat to what you are alluding to, he may need to become a bit more "selfish"...and specifically do more of the driving, creating contact and getting to the line...something that would be good for all of our SF's to do more of

          I think Danny has shown he's able to handle the minutes at this stage of his return. I'd like to see 30 minutes in that situation not 40. On a nightly basis we should be seeing Danny on the floor at least 25 minutes and I'd like to see 30 in the near future. Both PG and Lance are logging too many minutes and it's showing in their defensive intensity these past 10 games. IMO the best thing for the team would be to see Paul and Lance average more like 33-35 minutes with Danny averaging only slightly less.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment


          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

            Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
            I think Danny has shown he's able to handle the minutes at this stage of his return. I'd like to see 30 minutes in that situation not 40. On a nightly basis we should be seeing Danny on the floor at least 25 minutes and I'd like to see 30 in the near future. Both PG and Lance are logging too many minutes and it's showing in their defensive intensity these past 10 games. IMO the best thing for the team would be to see Paul and Lance average more like 33-35 minutes with Danny averaging only slightly less.
            The question becomes how that logistically happens. The normal rotation is to have starters-bench-starters in each half. Does that mean Danny plays 14 consecutive minutes in each half? That seems like a lot. It's more than the Pacers ask any other player to play without a rest other than occasionally George. Or does it mean that Danny comes in for awhile, comes out, then comes in again? That would likely mean though that he would be finishing each half and ending the game on the floor.

            If you go in with the thoughts that you want to play Danny close to 30 minutes, but you don't want him playing more than a quarter at a time, and you don't want him finishing the game, that becomes awfully difficult to do. It seems like Vogel has just decided to play him a few less minutes instead of violating one of the other principles.

            Comment


            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

              Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
              The question becomes how that logistically happens. The normal rotation is to have starters-bench-starters in each half. Does that mean Danny plays 14 consecutive minutes in each half? That seems like a lot. It's more than the Pacers ask any other player to play without a rest other than occasionally George. Or does it mean that Danny comes in for awhile, comes out, then comes in again? That would likely mean though that he would be finishing each half and ending the game on the floor.

              If you go in with the thoughts that you want to play Danny close to 30 minutes, but you don't want him playing more than a quarter at a time, and you don't want him finishing the game, that becomes awfully difficult to do. It seems like Vogel has just decided to play him a few less minutes instead of violating one of the other principles.
              It's not really that hard. We play our starters with our bench anyway so it's just a matter of pulling Lance or Paul a few minutes earlier and inserting Danny with both units some. In most games I like Danny finishing over Lance especially we're getting fouled and being sent to the line.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                It's not really that hard. We play our starters with our bench anyway so it's just a matter of pulling Lance or Paul a few minutes earlier and inserting Danny with both units some. In most games I like Danny finishing over Lance especially we're getting fouled and being sent to the line.
                Which hasn't happened before the Atlanta game really... Most games have been relatively large margins of victory or defeat...
                Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                  It's not really that hard. We play our starters with our bench anyway so it's just a matter of pulling Lance or Paul a few minutes earlier and inserting Danny with both units some. In most games I like Danny finishing over Lance especially we're getting fouled and being sent to the line.
                  I thought the same thing, but then I tried to map it out. Try that as an experiment. Write down exactly when a player is going to go in and out during a normal game and try to make the numbers work. It is incredibly difficult unless you violate one of the premises.

                  As far as finishing games, I don't think the Pacers are at the level of wanting Granger in. Foul situations are a unique animal, and that's usually what a team has timeouts for. I think Granger will be in during those situations, but that's usually less than a minute of game time.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                    I thought the same thing, but then I tried to map it out. Try that as an experiment. Write down exactly when a player is going to go in and out during a normal game and try to make the numbers work. It is incredibly difficult unless you violate one of the premises.

                    As far as finishing games, I don't think the Pacers are at the level of wanting Granger in. Foul situations are a unique animal, and that's usually what a team has timeouts for. I think Granger will be in during those situations, but that's usually less than a minute of game time.
                    I think you look at Paul and Lance logging too many minutes as one issue and Danny not getting enough as another although ideally we have a split 3 man rotation at the 2/3. Even if we didn't give those extra minutes to Danny I still think both Paul and Lance need their time reduced by 3-4 minutes on average.
                    I don't believe in robotic rotations and I like the fact that Frank keeps a starter in with the bench most of the time. We need to be flexible within our rotations but I'd start by pulling either PG, Lance or GH earlier in the 1st quarter then bring in Danny and rotate from there. Danny could come in 6 minutes into the first quarter and play early into the 2cd, take a break and then close the half, then take a similar approach to the second half. If you have to play Lance a few minutes at the point alone then so be it. Some games Danny can come in early, go out and back in to close but some games he'd play for longer stretches or may log a few minutes at the 4. I don't agree with you on not having Danny close. Danny is a strong closer but be need whoever is playing well to close and we need to be flexible by going with what we need since all 3 players bring a different dimension. If we had Lance in last night instead of Danny I think we lose that game. We're wearing down Paul and Lance right now and it's obvious while at the same time we have Danny ready to contribute more. Frank just needs to change a little bit and find a way to make it work for the good of the team.
                    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                      The Pacers will probably have more than $7.7m because I really doubt both Cope and Scola will be on the roster next year.
                      That means we can offer Scola his 4 million or less and Danny the 3.7 million we have left and wave goodbye to Lance? Or do we have 7.7m after we sign Lance? I don't see anyone in the NBA making us an offer for either Scola or Cope where they just take the salary and let us free up money. These kind of money problems are why teams pay GM's the kind of money they do. The difference in being a profitable org. and being a tax write off drain on the City and/or the Corp. that owns the franchise is in the hands of guys like Bird, who have(in most cases) no ownership in the team at all. Having said that, I would not be surprised if Larry has a stake in the ownership of the Pacers.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                        Danny has been a beast at the FT line. Need to figure out how to get him more FT attempts
                        drive the ball
                        Smothered Chicken!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          I almost feel like Danny (a career 84.9% free throw shooter that is shooting 95.7% so far this year) has spent 2 years shooting nothing but free throws. Almost as if he couldn't run or jump due to a knee injury and had nothing else to do...
                          "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                          Comment


                          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                            In an attempt to bring the Danny discussion beyond "his FG% is crap, he sucks now" I have gathered some stats to take a more in-depth look at what is going on.

                            The Good:

                            The Pacers are +9.2 when Danny is on the court, and +7.8 when he is off for a net of +1.3, placing him 5th on the team ahead of Stephenson at +1.2.

                            Granger has the 6th best cumulative +/- on the team at +117 with only playing 24% of the minutes. In comparison Watson has played 38%, Scola 36%, and Mahinmi 32%. His per minue +/- is 5th on the team at +.1839 ahead of Lance at +.1734.

                            His Net48, the team's net points per 48 minutes of playing time for the player, is +9.2. Again fifth on the team ahead of Lance at +8.5.

                            His Win% is 65.4, 6th best on the team.

                            The team grabs 4% more rebounds with him on the floor.

                            96.2 FT%

                            His opponents at the SF position have a PER of 9.0. He is PER is 10.8, giving him a net of +1.8.

                            Drtg of 99 is the best of his career.

                            At home he has a 38.2% 3P%.

                            His 3P% is up to 36% in February, an improvement of 5% from January.

                            When playing between 20-29 minutes (17 games) he has a 3P% of 41.3% .

                            On 1 day of rest (13 games) his 3P% is 41.5%. 3 days of rest and he shoots 42.9%.

                            He shoots 43.2% FG% on Wednesday.

                            In February he is scoring 8.6 points on 2.7 FGM a slight improvement over 8.5points on 3.0FGM in January.



                            The Bad:

                            FG% 35.9%

                            On the road he has a Drtg of 105

                            On 0 days of rest he has an Ortg of 92

                            TO% 12.8% tied for highest in his career

                            FTr, FTA per FGA, is .238 lowest of his career (not including the 5 games last season).

                            3PAr is .422 highest of his career

                            TS% 49.1%



                            The Ugly:

                            With less than 5 seconds on the shot clock, which accounts for 13% of his shots, he has an eFG% of 30.4%. During which the amount of his shots being assisted drops from over 60% to 25%.

                            On the Road his 3P% is 25.6%, Ortg is 88.

                            When he plays 10-19 minutes (9 games) his FG% is 27.1% and his 3P% is 13.6%.

                            With 0 days of rest (8 games) his FG% is 33.3% and 3P% is 23.1%.



                            Conclusion:

                            Granger is struggling on the road and with back-to-backs. His FG% isn't good anyways, except for Wednesdays oddly enough, but his 3P%, Ortg, and Drtg is drastically different at home vs away and 0 days of rest vs 1 day. This to me suggests he is still struggling some with his conditioning, and just the general grind of the NBA season. The Pacers have more back-to-backs than most teams, and since Danny has been back 6 of the 8 have been on the road (overall 14 of our 20 second night of back-to-backs are on the road).

                            Comment


                            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              Man, I'll take the over on that. Care to make a friendly wager?

                              EDIT: Here's my proposal: I'll bet that Danny comes back and plays more than 50% of the remaining games between now and the playoffs. You go with your version. If I win, your signature (during the playoffs and all summer long) is "Don't necessarily believe what I say; I'm unnecessarily pessimistic. Anthem is more of a realist." If you win, I change my signature to say "Don't necessarily believe what I say; I'm unnecessarily optimistic. BlueNGold is more of a realist."
                              Between the time of your post on Dec 15th and the end of the regular season, 58 games were to be played. He came back to play exactly 29 games.

                              You said more than half, right?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                Between the time of your post on Dec 15th and the end of the regular season, 58 games were to be played. He came back to play exactly 29 games.

                                You said more than half, right?
                                Did he specify with the Pacers?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X