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

Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

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

  • #16
    Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

    Well said!

    Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
    Not all turnovers are created equal.

    Turnovers are only a problem when they occur in a way that the team turning the ball over has a diminished capacity to defend against the resulting change in possession, or if the turnover prevents what otherwise would have been a high efficiency scoring opportunity.

    Earlier in the season, the Pacers had higher ability to defend overall, which somewhat diminished the impact of the turnovers. Also, there may have been a higher percentage of the turnovers that simply went out of bounds as opposed to resulting in a live ball change of possession.

    Higher turnover numbers also diminsh the flow of the offense, leading to an overall decrease in offensive efficiency, especially for a team that relies heavily on players creating their own shots as opposed to having an offense designed to both encourage better shot selection and make opposing teams work longer and harder on defense.

    So, while the turnovers weren't as much of an issue earlier in the season, they are much moreso now IMO.
    Go Pacers!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

      I find that I agree with UB, trader Joe, and Eleazar frequently of basketball stuff, and this is no exception.

      Turnovers are highlight plays, which make them stick out in a viewer's mind more. That exaggerates their importance.

      Transition points can be tough to gage, because at what point does a play stop being a transition play? This makes transition stats subjective.

      For what it is worth, though, Synergy Sports has the Pacers defense at 1.07 points per possession in transition, #1 in the NBA. Team Rankings has them at the #3 transition defense by raw points per game (11.7). Charlotte is #1 at 10.3, Philly is worst at 17.2.

      So, in both efficiency and raw volume, the Pacers are an elite transition defensive squad. I think this is because of the Pacer's at-all-costs aversion to fouling in transition. But I digress.

      Charlotte is also #1 in lowest (best) turnover percentage (turnovers per 100 possessions), and 26th (bad) in Offensive Rating.

      The top 10 teams in turnover % have many of the top ten offensive teams, and vice versa. But there are several teams whose TO% is the opposite of their O performance.

      Now, if you sort by eFG%? That puts teams very close to their order of offensive performance.
      The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
      RSS Feed
      Subscribe via iTunes

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        OK beast you make a good point. Let look at turnover margin. I guess no I don't think turnovers are a huge problem for the pacers. If you want to look at team stats FG shooting % is much more of a problem. Because all the other elite teams are in the top ten - we are 20th. Turnovers - many elite teams are in the bottom 3rd and several others in the middle third.

        But lets look at turover margins

        Pacers committ .08 more turnovers than they force. Which once again puts us as 20th worst in the NBA

        Rockets are -2.1 - 29th
        Blazers - 1.9 - 26th
        Spurs -1 - 24th
        OKC and the Bulls are tied with us at -.08.

        the heat do quite well as they are +1.6.
        My question is " What is easier to correct...Shooting % or turnovers." I would think it would be turnovers. Maybe not !! We are a poor shooting team and have been for several years.
        I would rather be the hammer than the nail

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

          The Indiana Pacers, on the season, have turned the ball over 15.9 times per 100 possessions.

          The Indiana Pacers, since (and including) the first Suns loss (aka Operation Poop the Bed), have turned the ball over 15.5 times per 100 possessions.

          Turnovers have gone down, people.

          The day before Operation Poop The Bed was Jan. 21st. Let's look at before and after.

          Before:
          Paul George - FG% 46, 3PT% 40
          George Hill - 3PT% 40
          Luis Scola - FG% 50

          After:
          Paul George - FG% >40, 3PT% 33
          George Hill - 3PT% 35
          Luis Scola - FG% 40

          Before:
          Pacers Corner 3 Defense: 30.9% (#1)
          Pacers Above the Break D: 32.7% (#4)
          Pacers Midrange D: 37.5% (#3)

          After:
          Pacers Corner 3 Defense: 46.8% (#29)
          Pacers Above the Break D: 35.9% (#18)
          Pacers Midrange D: 41.4% (#24)


          The Pacers are shooting like crap, and opponents are shooting like Steve Kerr.

          Do the Pacers need to get more creative on offense and close out harder on defense? Probably. The later comes with more effort. The former comes with a riskier offensive strategy, and that will come with more turnovers. Be careful what you wish for.

          Or, alternately, PG and Scola can stop being sub-average shooters and give a boost to the first and second units. I think this is more likely.
          Last edited by FlavaDave; 03-10-2014, 02:56 PM.
          The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
          RSS Feed
          Subscribe via iTunes

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

            I think what makes the turnovers stand out is that in our offense it's a product of poor offensive execution. How often do you see one person hold the ball for 15 seconds dribbling while the other team members watch and stand around? When the shot clock starts running down, the person initiating the offense has to make something up on the fly and we end up turning the ball over. Or when we start playing one-on-one basketball and make foolish attempts at passing the ball in the lane. This is why TOs are an issue for us. It's not that we commit a heinous amount, but rather, it's an extension of just horrible offensive execution.
            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

              I would tend to agree with you that tunovers are no bigger of a problem than any other part of the offense.

              The Pacers are mediocre to worse in just about everything offensively. They have very little to hang their hat on:

              13th in FG percentage
              18th in 3% percentage
              24th in 3PA (none of the bottom 10 teams in 3PA are in the top 10 in Ortg)
              tied 13th in FTA
              5th in FT%
              27th in assists (could be affected slightly by pace)
              25th in Turnover percentage
              20th in offensive rebound percentage

              The Pacers have a drastically better FG% than they did last year and a slightly better turnover percentage. However, they are around the same offensively because they shoot less threes, they get to the line less (although their percentage has improved quite a bit when they do get there), and their offensive rebound percentage has plummeted from 4th to 20th.

              Their offense especially lately seems to be geared towards the mid-range shot. West, Scola, George, Turner, and even Hibbert now have plays run for them where the end goal seems to be an open 12-18 foot shot. That's an easy way for the Pacers to get what most people call a "good" shot. And while it is a pretty solid percentage shot (for some more than others) it shouldn't be the shining example of an offensive possession. To use a baseball term, it should be a changeup that the Pacers are using as their fastball.

              What concerns me going forward for this offense is that the Pacers don't seem to have anybody who can consistently break down a defense. Who commands a doubleteam? West does against certain teams. People would rather play Hibbert 1 on 1. George can sometimes draw an extra man but is often stopping at the midrange for a shot instead of taking the ball into too much traffic. Lance often has to use his strength and go through his man to get buckets rather than beating his man and drawing a double.

              Defenses are staying home and taking their chances. People (especially announcers!) often talk about moving the ball side to side and getting easy buckets, but passes are difficult when screens are usually required to get the defense out of position whatsoever. The Pacers are effective enough individually to grind their way to a close to mediocre offense even without that. Their starting unit is also often better than that when they have five solid offensive options on the floor, but it's still a structural flaw that I'm not sure how it will be corrected. Maybe it won't have to, maybe the Pacers can win without it. But I don't think a major part of their problem is execution.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

                Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                I think what makes the turnovers stand out is that in our offense it's a product of poor offensive execution. How often do you see one person hold the ball for 15 seconds dribbling while the other team members watch and stand around? When the shot clock starts running down, the person initiating the offense has to make something up on the fly and we end up turning the ball over. Or when we start playing one-on-one basketball and make foolish attempts at passing the ball in the lane. This is why TOs are an issue for us. It's not that we commit a heinous amount, but rather, it's an extension of just horrible offensive execution.
                Well said. I think the poor shooting percentage is because of very poor execution and hero ball by Lance and Paul. And because of poorly executed offense very risky passes are attempted. Plus the Pacers appear to have a lot of unforced turnovers. Plus I do not believe the Pacers in general are a good shooting team. Hopefully they will get better as they mature. I just have a hard time seeing this team winning the championship this year. They may make it to the finals or I could see them losing in an earlier round.
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

                  Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                  I think what makes the turnovers stand out is that in our offense it's a product of poor offensive execution. How often do you see one person hold the ball for 15 seconds dribbling while the other team members watch and stand around? When the shot clock starts running down, the person initiating the offense has to make something up on the fly and we end up turning the ball over. Or when we start playing one-on-one basketball and make foolish attempts at passing the ball in the lane. This is why TOs are an issue for us. It's not that we commit a heinous amount, but rather, it's an extension of just horrible offensive execution.
                  You make an excellent point and a similar to one I made 4 or 5 weeks ago. Turnovers are not the problem, but they might be the symptom of the problem. Problem being we have some significant limitations offensively.

                  To suggest if we limit the turnovers our problems are solved is false IMO. We commit turnovers because we are limited offensively, we don't commit them because we get lazy or don't care. No, we commit turnovers because we have 24 seconds to get a decent shot off and we have some limitations that makes that difficult, so we have to try and force things a lot of the time.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

                    IMO offensive and defensive efficiency are both very important, as is number of scoring opportunities (how many more than the opponent)

                    Ignoring defense for now,

                    Our offensive efficiency would be better if
                    -we shot it better (difficult fix)
                    -we turned it over less (easier fix)

                    number of shot attempts would be better if
                    -we rebounded better on both the offensive and defensive ends (we already do this well)
                    -we turned it over less

                    So it seems that taking care of the ball is a affecting both, it can compensate in part for poor shooting, and it can reduce opponent's shooting percentages (I'd bet that opponents shoot much worse in half court than the so in fast breaks off turnovers)


                    What I'm saying is that in principle making less turnovers is an easier fix for offensive efficiency than is "shooting better" though either would help tremendously.

                    The percentage of our turnovers that seem to be careless/ unforced make it more frustrating. The coaching staff should be able to "fix stupidity" shouldn't they?
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

                      I don't think turnovers are the problem, I think it's the one-on-on iso basketball and also that our defense is no longer suffocating our opponents which used to jump-start our offense. Early in the year, you saw guys making the extra pass and trusting their teammates. When we blew out Houston, how many times did you see guys make that extra pass for a wide open three or back-cutting player? We just aren't moving the ball like we used to.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

                        I tried to see where we ranked in FGAs per game to see how many shots we get off per game, as that may show that we have less possessions to turn the ball over on due to the game being slowed down.

                        What I found was surprising. The 76ers are first in the league with 88.1 FGAs per game, everyone knows they don't play defense, but I am still surprised by that number. The biggest surprise however was that the Miami Heat are last with 77 FGAs per game. Found that to be very interesting. LeBron has had minor complaints about his shot attempts compared to other stars. This probably plays a big role in that, his team shoots the least amount of shots as a whole.

                        LeBron shoots 22.7% of his teams shots, Durant shoots 24.8% of his teams shots, Westbrook takes 20.8% of OKCs shots. PG, 21.4% of our shots. Kind of interesting his is a higher number than Westbrooks.

                        Sorry this is a bit off topic, but I was looking into this topic and saw this, and did not think this deserved its own thread.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          You make an excellent point and a similar to one I made 4 or 5 weeks ago. Turnovers are not the problem, but they might be the symptom of the problem. Problem being we have some significant limitations offensively.

                          To suggest if we limit the turnovers our problems are solved is false IMO. We commit turnovers because we are limited offensively, we don't commit them because we get lazy or don't care. No, we commit turnovers because we have 24 seconds to get a decent shot off and we have some limitations that makes that difficult, so we have to try and force things a lot of the time.
                          I remember you making this point, though your second paragraph here expands upon it much more fully than a few weeks ago. Yes, we are not a good offensive movement (man and ball) team. Our more talented passers are more careless and our more careful passers are less talented.

                          It's worth asking though if anything can be done by the coaches (and maybe some of the players) so that our ball and man movement is more effective in the half court, and whether there is a way to get more scoring opportunities in the first and secondary breaks. (For one thing, Roy and West always seem to create their own post position in the halfcourt, rather than screening for each other or catching passes on the move in the paint or going to the basket.)
                          You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            OK, so are you suggesting the Pacers commit more live turnovers than lets say the Heat, Spurs and the teams who rank worse than we do? I have no idea. We would have to see points off turnovers to determine that
                            There isnt some Stat site that tracks this specific stat ( Points off of turnovers ) to see where the Pacers ranks among other teams?

                            To me, the # of turnovers to a team tells me how well a Team takes care of ( or lack there of ) the ball....but I'd think that points over turnovers gives us a better picture of how well they defend the turnover when it happens.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

                              I always feel like possesions & shot attempts matter to the Pacer's chances of winning moreso than most teams.

                              A turnover basically negates a shot attempt by the Pacers and in turn creates an extra possesion for the opponent. When that opponent has a hyper efficient & explosive offense like the Heat the impact on winning can be dramatic.

                              Offensive rebounds and second chance scoring by the Pacers has the same type of impact on the Heat.

                              Assuming both teams regain peak form in the playoffs I still feel like whichever teams exploits the other teams weakness the best and then manages their own weakness well will win the series.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Are turnovers really a problem for the Pacers. I say nope

                                Assist to Turnover ratio is a better stat to use than overall turnovers. Spurs and Blazers are in the top 10 in the league A/T per team.

                                http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...tTurnoverRatio

                                Pacers rank 26th. OKC has been without Westbrook so to be fair I believe including them in the mix is unfair.


                                Agree Pacers definitely lack shooters, but the turnovers specifically in relation to assists is a concern.



                                Technically, turnovers imo are basically free points for the other team. Pacers strength is defense, and when the ball is turned over Pacers are not able to get back and setup on defense, essentially making it much easier for the opponent to score.

                                Against bad teams we can overcome, but vs a team like the Heat that thrives off of turnovers and scoring in the lane on fast break transition, we will get beat more often than not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X