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

Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

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

  • Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

    There was much malaise after the 24 point loss to the Suns, but I would like to point out that there is not much cause for concern, as this game is simply an outlier. A statistical anamoly that would simply be thrown out in most analitcal measures. Further, this is a game that even the best of teams have every once and awhile; basically there is nothing you can do to keep them from happening at some point. Even the best team in NBA history record wise had a hefty loss on their way to a blistering 72-10 record. A 32 point loss to the Knicks. A Knicks team that had at that moment a winning percentage of .574 compared to the winning percentage of .585 for the Suns prior to the game. This got me thinking about the possiblity and likely hood of other past championship winners and their outliers.

    **Note, please excuse me for the lack of format in this next part...


    -96-97 Bulls had two losses of 16 and one of 17, all the opponent finished with a winning percentage in the mid to high .600s...

    -97-98 Bulls had 3 losses of 20+; 21 against the Cavs(.573), 27 against the Heat(.671), and 25 against the Lakers(.744)...

    -98-99 Spurs (in the lockout shortened season) had a 26 pt loss to the Suns(.540) and a 14 point loss to the Jazz(.740)...

    -99-00 Lakers had a 15 pt loss to Portland(.610), and an 18 and 24 pt loss to the Spurs(.707)...

    -00-01 Lakers had a 33 pt blowout to Seatle(.537), a 21 pt loss to the Suns(.622) followed immediately by a 24 pt loss to the Kings(.671)...

    -01-02 Lakers had two 16 pt losses (Nuggets[.329] and the Mavs[.695]) and three losses of 18(Twolves[.610], Spurs[.707] and the Celtics[.598])...

    -02-03 Spurs had a 19 pt loss to Portland(.610), 24 pt loss to the Kings(.720) and the Mavs(.732)...

    -03-04 Pistons had one loss for 21 points against the Sonics(.451)...

    -04-05 Spurs had a 18 point loss to the Nuggets(.598), 21 point loss to Seattle(.634), a 22 point loss to the TWolves(.537) and a 36 point smack down by the Mavs(.707)


    I am not going to list other champs and their outliers, but suffice to say, that nearly every championship team goes through these games, and we can deduce from that that everyteam goes through these games...

    Moral of the story is there is no reason to be so down on this team... It is part of the normalcy in the NBA over the course of an 82 game season. Odds are agains every team, that they will get smacked in the mouth every once and again. So stop and sit back and enjoy the ride this season... There is no telling how different it is going to be next year... Once this team is disbanded, I know that I am going to long for these seasons, and remanence on what we have before us...

    GO PACERS!!!
    Last edited by bballpacen; 01-23-2014, 04:03 AM.
    Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

  • #2
    Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

    Yep sometimes teams just shoot lights out and there's not much you can do.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

      Yep it happens, it'll happen again at least once this season.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

        Even the Jimmy O'brien led Pacer teams would beat a top team a few times a year with lights out shooting and the 3 ball.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

          Pacers didn't respect the Suns.

          "You cannot screw with the basketball gods like that, it always comes back to get you, alright! "

          Randy Wittman
          Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            Even the Jimmy O'brien led Pacer teams would beat a top team a few times a year with lights out shooting and the 3 ball.
            Yep. In 08-09, we beat the Celtics, Cavs, Lakers, and Magic - the four best teams in the league that season. The Celtics were the defending champs and we beat them before KG went down. The Cavs had Lebron and the best record in the league. Orlando and LA ended up facing each other in the Finals. Yet we managed to get wins against all four of those teams because we got hot and were able to outscore them. Of course, the problem that year is that our putrid defense meant that we lost to plenty of bad teams.

            When a team goes a ridiculous 11-16 from three last night, you just gotta tip your hat to them and move on to the next game. This game reminded me a lot of the loss in Chicago back in November. We were flat while they couldn't miss from three. It happens. This Pacer team earned the benefit of the doubt a long time ago.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
              Even the Jimmy O'brien led Pacer teams would beat a top team a few times a year with lights out shooting and the 3 ball.
              Correct. One of those years, we were the only team to have wins against the top 6 or 7 teams in the league. Teams that shoot a lot of threes can get hot and can beat anyone, but they aren't likely to win a seven game series.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

                I'm alittle less forgiving in this game considering the Pacers didn't not even try to set up their post game. Some one gonna tell me that Plumlee would be able to stop Hibbert in the post? Or that Channing Frye would handle David West down low? Even when West did score down low it was alot of pull up jumpers or fade-aways in the post. Sun's turned us into a jump shooting team, I don't even know what the Pacers were thinking.
                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

                  The Pacers should have never traded Gerald Green and Plumlee away for Scola. Mostly green. However Plumlee makes
                  Ian look really bad, which he mostly is.
                  {o,o}
                  |)__)
                  -"-"-

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

                    Originally posted by owl View Post
                    The Pacers should have never traded Gerald Green and Plumlee away for Scola. Mostly green. However Plumlee makes
                    Ian look really bad, which he mostly is.
                    Green could disappear like a fart in the wind at any moment. He's having a great season and I'm glad for him, but I don't think he was ever going to work here.

                    Plumlee is the one who stings the most. In hindsight, it would have been nice to give him some more minutes last year.

                    I don't think that a draft pick at the very end of the first round will be anything to lose sleep over.

                    We have to remember where the Pacers were when they made that trade. We just came off a postseason in which we got next to nothing from the bench. Could we really bank on Gerald Green and Miles Plumlee to deliver after what transpired last season? No way. We needed a proven bench player and Scola has been very solid.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

                      I also am not interested in Green but Plumlee would have been VERY useful this year.
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

                        Originally posted by owl View Post
                        I also am not interested in Green but Plumlee would have been VERY useful this year.
                        Not in our system. Plumlee is still a prospect. He doesn't have much of a back to the basket game, and that is how our low post offense is designed. He is athletic and will do well in an open court, fast break system, but he will struggle against set defenses.

                        He does look better on defense than I expected, but Ian is still the better defender. As the announcers said last night, this trade was a win-win for both teams.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

                          The mistake wasn't trading away Plumlee and Green; it was adding two guys to the roster who never really fit in the first place (well, one a known bad fit, the other an assumed bad fit). Not like the system changed overnight, so decisions were curious.

                          Look...Suns aren't going to shoot 11-of-16 from range against IND again, but this team really has the efficient pace (as opposed to sporadic pace of someone like LAC) to bother the Pacers. I don't think it's a freak thing; I think they match up well vs the Pacers' game, especially when Lance and PG24 are as impatient as they are with that match mentality.

                          I'll concede last night was a bit of a bad luck loss with shooting, a bit of a bad coaching loss (which I never say) with some puzzling Vogel decisions, and overall, a team effort loss. I think most of those things, you can move on from easily. I was a bit concerned about team body language last night, quite honestly. It sounds like one of those dumb, overanalyzed things in sports, but the body language from nearly everyone last night was just horrific, and almost from the start. It reminded me a lot of the Heat in their cold stretch, how it was so much less about the fight than the frustration and blame game.

                          Here's to hoping these guys clear their heads and take it out on SAC.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

                            What killed the Pacers was that they didn't defend!!! I always liked Goran Dragic and campaigned for the Pacers to sign him. Gorgan drove to the basket at will. It was stated numerous times he is one of the top players doing it 10 times a game, so this shouldn't have been a secret to the Pacers. The Pacers backcourt couldn't stop him. The nice "D" game Hill had in the GS game was no where to be seen last night. I've said it since the Pacers got Hill that his "D" is overrated, but it just wasn't his lack of "D" that hurt the Pacers last night as there was plenty of blame to go around.

                            The Pacers got out scored in every qtr by a team that was shooting well, but then the Pacers shot 50% themselves. They also out reb'd GS. It was lack of "D" that shot the Pacers in the foot. It's not the Pacers didn't know who G Green was and his capabilities, or the fact he wanted to have a good game against the Pacers. 23 points

                            If you think about it, take the 5 pts Scola scored and subtract it from the 34 points that Green and Plumlee scored and that's pretty much what the Pacers got beat by. Well a little more than that, but you get the point. The ex-Pacers had a point to prove and did just that! KUDOS TO THEM.

                            The Pacers need bring their "D" EVERY game in order to not have a game like last night!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Case Study: 24 point loss to the Suns...

                              I'm not really sure it was a lack of defensive effort. When players like Green are pulling up and hitting threes with someone closing out on them, it's just a good shot.

                              Some players benefit from aggressive on-ball defense, and Dragic is one of them. It forces the offensive player to play up-tempo and it played right into PHX hands. I think you play Dragic by giving him a little more space, encouraging him to shoot over the top and then hope you can challenge if/when he does. You really have to keep him out of the middle paint area.

                              Defenses can handle one and even two players hot shooting, but when you start getting upwards of 3-4, or just everyone on the floor, it really gets difficult. That's not sustainable offense over the long-term, but it sucks getting caught on one of those nights.

                              I was more concerned with the offense. It went to crap for most of the night. I went to bed with about 6mins to go, and I don't know what the FG% ended up being and it felt like PG hit some tough shots to keep it respectable but there just wasn't any flow.
                              Last edited by Since86; 01-23-2014, 11:45 AM.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X