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

Winning with Defense

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

  • Winning with Defense

    I think most of us are pretty aware of the still sputtering offense, with FG% that just won't come to life for guys like Danny and Tyler especially, along with a standard slow start to nearly every game they play.

    Naturally we all scratch our heads about how they are doing this and typically the answer is roughly rebounding, making plays and then a slight mention of defense.

    Now rebounding is great, the Pacer rank FOURTH in rebounding differential, which is about the best read you can get on that stat from the regular numbers.

    But I think it's more surprising that the Pacers rank 4th in both AdjustedFG% against and Points Per Shot against, this despite being a bit lower on the 3P% rank and middle of the pack in terms of FTAs allowed.

    They are fouling and they are allowing teams to be respectible enough from the arc, but inside the arc they are killing teams, and that's where the wins are coming from.

    It's not just Roy either. Paul, Granger, Foster and even Tyler have been tough on people inside. Apart from Foster, each is a surprise in his own way.

    Paul has been so inconsistant this year with sudden intensity drops, that it can be overlooked when he collapses to the rim for a big block or disrupts the passing lane, but he's doing this far more than he's "flaking out" on offense.

    Granger was a guy most of us were starting to write off as a defensive player, longing for those first few seasons where it seemed to be a Artest-inspired passion. But this year he's also coming to the lane/rim all the time to get in someone's face. Look no further than to his block that led to his taunting technical a few games ago for a classic example.

    And while everyone loves Tyler's hustle, in the past a lot of it was misplaced and out of position. Lately he's been much better at closing out on guys, having the hand in the face of the right guy at the right time, and of course still being insanely tenacious around the ball. Best example for him might be taking it straight out of Garnett's hands the other night as KG came to the rim.


    West has been professional and solid, but not quite as noticeably dominate. And it would be unfair to discount Hill here because he's also been really good at coming to the paint to disrupt the passing lanes or at least send guys into the paint off balance after having to avoid his defense, setting them up for his teammates.



    And on top of it all I think a lot of credit goes to the coaching strategy. The help defense has been great, especially on the drawn out PnR hedges up top where guys like Roy are slow to get back down the lane. In the past this would have crushed the team, but now they seem to always have someone watching their back which makes a huge difference.


    I'm sure a pay-stat site could tell us, but I don't know where else we could easily find the stat on "highest PCT of shots coming with 10 seconds or less on the clock" (or 2, 5, whatever), but I'd bet that the team ranks high in that area too. Even when teams pull out shots it's coming after a ton of work cycling through a lot of options and often on a lucky bail out.

    You accept those because over time the make rate isn't very high for teams and no one wants their offense living off of "I hope this works". Right now the Pacers defense is forcing a lot of teams to spend most of their night saying just that.

    My condolences to those fans that hated the JO/Ron teams (the good ones) because of the ugly defensive ball and low scores because right now it looks like this is the wagon you are hitched to this year.


    PS - the teams ahead of Indy on both AFG% and PPS? Bulls, Lakers and Philly. And only the Bulls and Lakers are also better in rebounding differential.

    That's the company this team is keeping right now - 3 of the top 5 teams by wins.

  • #2
    Re: Winning with Defense

    Defense is something we can control too, when we stake wins on defensive intensity and effort we control our own destiny. It's also the type of ball that wins playoff games. Supposedly we've been focusing on offense primarily over this 4 day break, since vogel hasn't had the time in the shortened camp to really fine tune it. If we can manage to be even average offensively, combined with our defense and rebounding (smashmouth stuff) we could seriously be a very, very good team that has a chance to suprise in the playoffs this year.
    Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Winning with Defense

      I like to win.


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Winning with Defense

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        My condolences to those fans that hated the JO/Ron teams (the good ones) because of the ugly defensive ball and low scores because right now it looks like this is the wagon you are hitched to this year.
        The bad offense has seemed to be a theme throughout the NBA so far this year. The lack of prep time is a pretty glaring reason, and has been brought up many times.

        The teams that are able to defend consistently are the teams that will be able to win consistently. That bodes very well for this team.

        The effort has to remain throughout the season. I worry about what happens when a little adversity hits. At some point, we will experience a losing streak. How will this young team, and young coaching staff react? I hope they choose to stay the course, rather than make the rash, unnecessary changes that we saw last year (from both coaches).

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Winning with Defense

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          But I think it's more surprising that the Pacers rank 4th in both AdjustedFG% against and Points Per Shot against, this despite being a bit lower on the 3P% rank and middle of the pack in terms of FTAs allowed.
          Nice post.

          One downside of stacking the box I mentioned in another thread. Opposing perimeter aces generally are getting between 2-4 wide open 3pt looks per game, and it's largely PG who seems to be failing to keep an eye on this, not even coming close to closing in on the shooter. 2's seem to regularly have 5-7 feet of air between them and any defense.

          My guess is that as PG learns to both defend the paint and keep his eye on the wing player, these open looks will decrease, and the defensive 3pt% will go down. This does not happen when Hill is on the court.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Winning with Defense

            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
            I worry about what happens when a little adversity hits. At some point, we will experience a losing streak. How will this young team, and young coaching staff react? I hope they choose to stay the course, rather than make the rash, unnecessary changes that we saw last year (from both coaches).
            Not too concerned about that. Last year we had a 6 game losing streak near the end of the year and we could have packed it up and forgot about the playoffs and coasted. They did no such thing. I think getting blown out by the Heat by 505 points qualifies as adversity as well. Yet, they just came back to win.

            I'm not going to worry myself about that.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Winning with Defense

              Been really enjoying Granger's resurgence on D. I've been down on him the last couple years because I felt his offense wasn't good enough to overcome some lazy D and selfish play. But this year he's been a force on the defensive end. Hill has really helped upgrade our D at the guard position, West is solid, and Hibbert has done an amazing job of making players change their shots while avoiding the foul.

              All in all, nothing excites the fan base like hard nosed D, blocking shots and fighting for boards especially on the offensive end, and this team has done a great job of it so far.

              On NBC Sports Pro Basketball Talk Power Rankings
              http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...into-top-spot/

              What I love isn't that the Pacers are in the fifth spot, but what it said under the Lakers:
              "10. Lakers (9-5, LW 11). Winners of five straight until they lost to the Clippers Saturday. The Lakers have won these games with great defense and average offense, despite Kobe scoring 40+ in four straight (Lakers fans, go look at the numbers before you curse my name). Brutal schedule this week: Dallas, Miami and Orlando back-to-back, then the upstarts in Indiana."

              We're now considered part of what makes a brutal schedule!!
              Danger Zone

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Winning with Defense

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                My condolences to those fans that hated the JO/Ron teams (the good ones) because of the ugly defensive ball and low scores because right now it looks like this is the wagon you are hitched to this year.


                PS - the teams ahead of Indy on both AFG% and PPS? Bulls, Lakers and Philly. And only the Bulls and Lakers are also better in rebounding differential.

                That's the company this team is keeping right now - 3 of the top 5 teams by wins.
                Didn't dislike the D of the JO era. Disliked the offensive slowdown and pitch to JO in the post. And that was a Carlisle thing, and given the personnel and the rules at the time, it was a legit strategy. But ugly basketball. It was made worse because everybody just stood and watched. Whether the fault was JO for seldom passing, or laziness about cutting, I can't say. Chicken or the egg.

                There won't be a return to that for multiple reasons.
                Last edited by danman; 01-17-2012, 02:00 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Winning with Defense

                  Originally posted by danman View Post
                  Didn't dislike the D of the JO era. Disliked the offensive slowdown and pitch to JO in the post. And that was a Carlisle thing, and given the personnel and the rules at the time, it was a legit strategy. But ugly basketball. It was made worse because everybody just stood and watched. Whether the fault was JO for seldom passing, or laziness about cutting, I can't say. Chicken or the egg.

                  There won't be a return to that for multiple reasons.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Winning with Defense

                    Outside of Jones , Collison and Pendergraph all of the Pacers who have played have a D per 100 possessions under 100.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Winning with Defense

                      Originally posted by danman View Post
                      There won't be a return to that for multiple reasons.
                      Just wait until JO is ready to dominate again...
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Winning with Defense

                        Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                        Nice post.

                        One downside of stacking the box I mentioned in another thread. Opposing perimeter aces generally are getting between 2-4 wide open 3pt looks per game, and it's largely PG who seems to be failing to keep an eye on this, not even coming close to closing in on the shooter. 2's seem to regularly have 5-7 feet of air between them and any defense.

                        My guess is that as PG learns to both defend the paint and keep his eye on the wing player, these open looks will decrease, and the defensive 3pt% will go down. This does not happen when Hill is on the court.
                        I agree, though at some point you just have to make a choice and realize that players aren't going to be able to cover it all. I like forcing the extra ball movement almost in a Tampa 2 strategy - ie, you give up little plays because the attitude is that more plays means more chances to get a TO or have the other team screw up.

                        If the other team is up to the challenge of working through 7 stages of offense (PnR, reset and PnR again, pass to baseline screen, kick out, rotate, drive and dish and finally take the corner 3) well then they are just going to beat you. But that means that all 5 guys had to touch the ball and make at least one quality play.

                        Given the often selfish, 1-2 player offenses we see from many teams this is a pretty sound attack.


                        The team that gets hot from 3 does leave the Pacers vulnerable, but then the key will be to punish those 3pt experts so much at the other end that they can't stay in the game. So far the offense hasn't been able to do that.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Winning with Defense

                          Originally posted by danman View Post
                          Didn't dislike the D of the JO era. Disliked the offensive slowdown and pitch to JO in the post. And that was a Carlisle thing, and given the personnel and the rules at the time, it was a legit strategy. But ugly basketball. It was made worse because everybody just stood and watched. Whether the fault was JO for seldom passing, or laziness about cutting, I can't say. Chicken or the egg.

                          There won't be a return to that for multiple reasons.
                          I'm not sure Carlisle had a choice if he wanted to keep JO happy but whatever the reason, it needed to go. The worse thing about running slog ball with JO was watching his lack of passing and woeful shooting percentage from the PF spot.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Winning with Defense

                            By the way, one problem I've had the last year or so is being much busier with work and other stuff that cuts into my reading/posting time, so my apologies to all the posters who've made mentions about the defense in other threads. I didn't see a "master" thread for the subject which is why I started it.

                            It's been like this growing topic and awareness where we are all trying to learn the team's identity. Inside power offense we saw last year, more use of bigs in general, but really it was tough to read much beyond "post up Roy" last season.

                            Then add in West and Hill, remove Josh and Rush, and increase the usage of Tyler and Paul in a more formal manner, rather than just as part of the youth development, and it's been kind of tough to know just what the team's identity is.


                            Yes, it won't be JO-ball on offense, and as a Rick fan I felt like a lot of that was based on JO's personality, salary and the rest of the team's offensive skill set, but to be fair to that team the offense this year early on is bad even by the measure of the lockout lowered bar.

                            The Pacers are just not a good offensive team right now. In some ways its worse than slow down ball because this is often more slop, junk, starts and fits. It can be maddeningly poor in long stretches with surprising, sudden bursts of really good movement and plays.

                            One minute you have a PnR, a low post score, then a low post give and go layup and it feels like a well constructed playbook and attack plan, then the next minute the spacing goes to crap, the floor freezes and you get some one on one junk.


                            So this thread was contrasting that with the defensive system which has felt surprisingly reliable. I expect them to get stops now. I didn't know to feel that way a few weeks ago. Better, sure, but not dialed in and aggressive.

                            And in my opinion the push to drive the offense toward the baseline (ie, scoring in the paint or near the low block) is also helping the defense by reducing the amount of nasty transition situations they put themselves in.

                            You want to come at the Pacers, you better bring a deep playbook or an insanely hot shooter.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Winning with Defense

                              playing defense=winning!
                              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X