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

Two quick comments on last night's game

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

  • Two quick comments on last night's game

    I'm sure these have been covered elsewhere, but I've only got a couple minutes...

    a) 26 3pt FGAs? That's shameful. The two guys that combined for 14 three-point attempts should be taking a long look in the mirror. Neither one of them should take more than 2-3 attempts per game, even they're 3-3.

    They could learn something from Marquis. (Okay, make that three quick points, I like what I've seen from Daniels - he's an excellent near-the-rim player which is something the Pacers really need from their backcourt.)

    2) What is the job of the coach? Is it his job to try to prepare a team to win a championship or is it for him to try to win every game? I thought, if the team was struggling a month into the season, we'd see him "run home to mama" - his comfort zone.

    I didn't think if the team was 1-1 he'd start the, "I may need to change the starting lineup" nonsense.

    The guy has no vision, no patience. He's very, very good at winning regular season games, don't get me wrong. But there's much more to his job than that.

    Somebody in the front office probably needs to call him up and suggest that he'd better not change the starting frontcourt until February at the earliest. Give them time to get some chemistry for defense and rebounds. Give them time to get comfortable with each other offensively.

    Good gracious. I had to laugh out loud at the line from The Star today - "Carlisle could be on his way to shaking up the lineup just two games into what's supposed to be an improved season for the Pacers..." Does anybody really expect *immediate* improvement with so many changes. Patience, fellow Pacers fans.

    Agree? Disagree? Discuss.

    JO, playing C, needs more than six rebounds. (oops, here's point #4). He seems like he's interested in turning himself into Kevin Garnett, and I don't mean that as a compliment, because I've always thought Garnett was "soft" - a seven-footer playing on the perimeter . JO now appears to be playing as soft as Garnett always has.

    Gotta run, but I'll check back in later in the weekend.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  • #2
    Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

    Jay, my personal complaint about the team the last THREE years, and that includes very strongly Reggie's final year when he stunk up the joint from 3 (most attempts, 32%) was that this team does not win if they settle for 20+ from 3.

    Preseason we saw it dip below 10 most nights. With that you see points in the paint come up as well as FTAs.


    I disagee sort of about Jack and Tinsley. Armstrong was chucking more than anyone, a couple of his 3s were forced. Jack and Tinsley were left open, crazy open. The solution is to be able to make those types of shots from the backcourt.

    If it was Pargo standing 15 feet open like Tinsley was left, EVERY SINGLE fan on this board would be ripping Tinsley for leaving him like that. At some point some of these guys need to get their "no one within miles" 3P% up above 36-37%.

    HOWEVER, what you saw Tinsley finally start to do was show the shot and then move the ball. In the end they got open looks for other players off of that. Unfortunately it ended up being things like a Granger 3PA instead, so it really didn't address the main issue.

    But the point is that this is the method the team must adapt to, don't settle for OPEN 3PAs. Daniels is a great example. He had several open looks last night, and I think a few in game 1, but he just REFUSES to take them. He always works the ball closer to the rim (and does it very, very well). He doesn't get to the cup for a layup look, often he gets cut off, but he gets the ball closer and pressures the defense.

    This is what they need to do with a lot of these open 3PAs. Teams are going to drop off Tinsley and he just needs to accept it and find another way to hurt them from doing so. Or he needs to get that decent 3P% from a few years ago back.

    Jack is a better 3P shooter, but he also needs to limit it to 4-5 max unless 3 of those were makes. Then you better go 1-2 on every shot after that if you want to keep taking them. I'm all for him taking 20, as long as when was at 10 3PAs he had hit 5 of them and he finishes with 9-10 makes.

    Some fans gag at the idea, but my point would be that this rarely happens so I'm not really advocating a lot of 3PAs. When it does (if ever) you'll love his night and he'll go for 35 in a big win.

    But in the meantime when he gets to 1-4 he needs to back off and realize he's been settling too often. He is so much better in the low post and along the baseline that it's a waste to see most of his offense come from the outside.



    I don't fault Rick for mentioning the lineup change. They have fundamental inside scoring issues and it's bad. Until Al finds his game I think you have to use Foster or David as a starter in order to get some stuff inside. Foster on clean-ups or David as a legit inside threat.

    JO and Al have had nothing on the low block. Nothing. That and all the jumpers from every starter in the first 6 minutes are why they had 2 slow starts.

    I think Al needs to try on the 30 mpg 6th man role again for a bit and see if it gets him going. Then you can look at moving him back to the starters if he wants (and the team can win that way).

    If it was just chemistry or an off-night then I would agree Jay, but I watched both games using replay 80% of the time, and it's more a problem with their inability to really show a serious low post offense of any sort. They can't get the position, feed the position, nothing. And JO's had several shots blocked inside, enough for me to worry about his lift.

    A little David muscle to soften up the opponents front line might help the situation.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

      It's weird. I've always considered Carlisle as TOO patient. It usually takes him like 3-4 games to make a change that is obvious to 70% of the board. It totally bizarre to hear someone say that he isn't patient.

      I think he's not only overly patient but he also is not a very good disciplinarian. These are two weaknesses in an otherwise *very competent* coach.

      So - It' spretty clear that this linup WILL NOT WORK. Al is totally lost. We're not big enough. And to steal a comment from UB, we don't have a dirty work player in there.

      I want Granger or Al (pick one) to be a 6th man taking a similar role as Al had in 03/04.

      My starting 5:
      Tinsley
      Jackson/Marquis (don't care which)
      Al/Granger (pick one)
      JO
      Harrison/Powell/Foster (pick one)

      Granger or Al (pick one) needs 30 minutes off the bench.

      Huh, fancy that, everyone playing their natural position. What a novel idea.
      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

        Does anyone really think Al wasn't all but guaranteed a starting spot when he agreed on this return to the Pacers? Yes, it was 'technically' a trade but it was a trade with many negotiations and Al's contract status meant he had lots of say so in those negotiations.

        I'm not saying it was in ink but I bet it was strongly implied he was coming here to start... and I bet he received some strong signals that they Pacers understood that and would honor that.

        IF SO... Then it would be shocking to see Harrington moved out of the starting lineup anytime soon. I'm not saying they eventually wouldn't try it but unless he comes to the coach and says "If you wanna try bringing me off the bench that would be cool" then I'm going to mark seeing Al coming off the bench to be a last ditch move.

        Does anyone else agree with the premise?

        -Bball
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

          Jay I agree with most of what you said I have had differing opinions on the JO thing because if he is scoring, I am happy. I believe there are enough rebounding options where if the other bigs are playing well we will be ok, but I digress.

          I however do agree 100% that Rick should NOT fiddle with this starting lineup. Why? What has been our biggest problem bar none the past two years? It has been the fact we could develop no consistency among our starters. Now we finally have all 5 projected starters healthy and ready to play and we want to shake it up after ONE bad game? PLEASE. Talk about jumping the gun.


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            Does anyone really think Al wasn't all but guaranteed a starting spot when he agreed on this return to the Pacers? Yes, it was 'technically' a trade but it was a trade with many negotiations and Al's contract status meant he had lots of say so in those negotiations.

            I'm not saying it was in ink but I bet it was strongly implied he was coming here to start... and I bet he received some strong signals that they Pacers understood that and would honor that.

            IF SO... Then it would be shocking to see Harrington moved out of the starting lineup anytime soon. I'm not saying they eventually wouldn't try it but unless he comes to the coach and says "If you wanna try bringing me off the bench that would be cool" then I'm going to mark seeing Al coming off the bench to be a last ditch move.

            Does anyone else agree with the premise?

            -Bball
            Absolutely.
            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

              Of course he was promised a starting spot and that's why a few of us see him as a hindrance to Danny's development.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

                Originally posted by grace View Post
                Of course he was promised a starting spot and that's why a few of us see him as a hindrance to Danny's development.
                I'm seeing several people mention trying Al off the bench and I just don't think that is a realistic possibility right now because of that. His spot may be as secure, if not moreso, than JO at this point.

                -Bball
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

                  Here's an idea for Tins, and to a lesser degree Jack since I don't think they tend to lay off him so extremely, step in a few feet and be ready to shoot a 15 or 16 footer off the catch. Hell, Tins could even take a rhythm dribble as far off as they are.

                  I just cringe because JO is becoming a total finesse player IMO. Maybe he always was but it seems like he was at least more agressive going after rebounds and trying to take it to the rim. Is it just me or does it seem like he's noticably lost some ups? I would think dropping the weight would have helped there. Maybe he's not really recovered from his ailments.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    Does anyone really think Al wasn't all but guaranteed a starting spot when he agreed on this return to the Pacers?

                    Does anyone else agree with the premise?

                    -Bball
                    Not at all. Al didn't really have any other options of where he was going to go. So I don't see where that kind of leverage would have come from. Rick even said the only starter going in was JO.
                    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

                      Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post

                      JO, playing C, needs more than six rebounds. (oops, here's point #4). He seems like he's interested in turning himself into Kevin Garnett, and I don't mean that as a compliment, because I've always thought Garnett was "soft" - a seven-footer playing on the perimeter . JO now appears to be playing as soft as Garnett always has.
                      "Soft" yet he has averaged 12 plus rebounds for the past 5 seasons. JO doesn't even have 12 rebounds in 2 games yet.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

                        Seems to me that the complaint about Carlisle is he's too patient. So I don't know where you are getting that from jay

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

                          Originally posted by Jay
                          Somebody in the front office probably needs to call him up and suggest that he'd better not change the starting frontcourt until February at the earliest.
                          Well then, guess I can forget about Jay helping me with the "Start Hulk" bandwagon.
                          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

                            I however do agree 100% that Rick should NOT fiddle with this starting lineup. Why? What has been our biggest problem bar none the past two years? It has been the fact we could develop no consistency among our starters. Now we finally have all 5 projected starters healthy and ready to play and we want to shake it up after ONE bad game? PLEASE. Talk about jumping the gun.
                            Actually this is a good point, stability has been the #1 issue so far.

                            My point remains that in this case you can really see some issues that were even popping up a little with JO, Al and Danny on court together in the pre-season. It might just be a chemistry thing though (on-court, not personality) that needs to be suffered through in order to sort it out and end up stronger for it.

                            As long as fans can bite that bullet.

                            But when Rick says that things need to be changed, its at least true in the sense that this current rotation has some gaping holes in it and needs a solution.



                            Also, I hadn't seen the box score before my first post in the thread, but when I did look I had some doubts about some of the 3pt CHOICES complaints...

                            Jack > 2-8 which was a problem (but 3-5 inside the arc and still had a PPS above 1.00). As noted, he got a ton of open looks, so my problem isn't so much the 8 (I don't like it though) as it is that he only hit 2. An SG left open has to have 3-4 makes at least on those.

                            Tins > 0-2, 5 of 9 from 2...ie, not really an issue after all. Turns out he was stepping in off those shots after the first 2 misses and should be recognized for doing so.

                            Also note that Tins had a couple of plays where he lept to contest a rebound and then where he denied a certain alley-oop. Gotta give him credit, those were both big time effort plays from a PG going against some bigs.

                            Granger > 2-5, my only problem is that he only took 2 shots inside the arc. Gotta have a better 2 to 3PA ratio. He was fantastic in the 2nd half in any case.

                            Armstrong > 2-4, so he only forced those late misses, must have felt like more to me because they came late in the game. Also note that he put up a 3 that he was fouled on but which wasn't a really great look. 11 points on 7 FGAs is nice regardless.

                            Marshall's 1 attempt was meaningless in this game.

                            That leaves Cabbages > 1-6, 1 of 8 from the field. Terrible 3 to 2PA ratio, and much more so when you consider the number of misses. People complain about Jack's attempts, but the dude played 37 minutes which means 1 3PA every 4.5 minutes. SarJas played 15 which means 1 every 2.5 minutes.


                            Take Al and Cabbages out and you have the team shooting 47.6%. Now add back in their FGAs and have them just be 2s and make them at 47%. You get 8 makes instead of 2 and 16 points instead of 5 (plus the 4 from FTAs).

                            So all I'm asking is to have them shoot a fair average, not make a bunch of 3s or anything, just keep up with the team. If they had just done that the Pacers would have won the game.


                            I've seen several people turn the situation into "Without SarJas to save them the team had no chance". Hardly. It was actually SarJas who along with Al did the MOST damage. 2-17 is brutal, especially with only 4 FTAs to go with it. 17 shots for 9 points is a disaster.

                            The problem wasn't that SarJas didn't show up, it was that he did. As much as he helped in game 1, he hurt them in game 2. He has one step up on Al though, as Al is 0-2 on quality games.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Two quick comments on last night's game

                              One other note, maybe mentioned in the game thread which I haven't read (had to watch via Tivo after work) CHANDLER FOULING on "rebounds". He had 4 times for certain where he came flying into players and knocked them down or clearly pushed guys out to clear space for a rebound. He flattened Cabbages (IIRC) one time like this. He sent both Al and JO off the court at least once each.

                              No calls over and over. So while we are ripping the team on their rebounding, what was the deal with letting Chandler assualt players all night? There were several rebounds he shouldn't have had because of this, and on top of that he should have been fouled out.

                              No way Foster gets to fly into the lane and literally knock a guard standing there to the floor during a rebound. You might as well let a guy double dribble or travel and then credit him for having "great moves". Really annoying.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X