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

Some Love for the Three

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

  • Some Love for the Three

    It has become fashionable to gripe about the Pacers' use of the 3pt shot.

    Let's take a moment to reflect on a couple of facts.


    Greater reliance on the 3pt shot is an NBA wide trend. All teams are using the 3 more, and the trend continues from year to year.



    The reason the Pacers (and everybody else) are ussing the 3 more than in the past is that players are getting better at shooting it, and so it has become a very potent scoring tool.

    Plus it spreads the floor!



    Next, the Pacers are not, repeat not, out of line with the rest of the league in their use of the 3. The Pacers have never been the top user of the 3 in any season:




    If you follow the yellow markers, you'll see that the Pacers trend in using the 3 is going up over the long run -- not just under O'Brien. Look back at the years when Rick Carlisle was coach, and you'll see that the Pacers increased their use of the 3PA during his years by a wider margin that O'Brien has done subsequently.



    The bottom line is winning, of course. And the evidence of the past 20 years is that 3pt attempts are not just for losers. I know I've read the argument that only under-skilled teams like the Knicks, Warriors and Pacers use the 3pt shot, as a way of trying to make up for other deficiencies. That is probably true in particular cases. But over the long run, the 3 is used just as much be winning teams as by losers:



    Each dot depicts an NBA team since 1990, aligning the team's reliance on 3PA and its season winning percentage. The complete random placement of the dots shows that there isn't any relationship between shooting 3s and winning (or losing) games.
    Last edited by Putnam; 08-25-2010, 01:34 PM.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  • #2
    Re: Some Love for the Three

    Or, if none of that matters to you, consider this. A high arcing jumpshot is probably the most beautiful thing about the game of basketball -- and the most exceptional skill possessed by basketball players:













    .
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Some Love for the Three

      Or, if none of that matters to you, consider this. A high arcing jumpshot is probably the most beautiful thing about the game of basketball -- and the most exceptional skill possessed by basketball players


      That was freakin amazng!!! To shoot from over 3/4 of the court so effortlessly.
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Some Love for the Three

        Thank you for this thread. It is obvious looking at the graphs, that Larry Brown was not a big proponent of the three point shoot, neither was Isiah, but Bird, Carlisle and Jim O'Brien are.

        Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan are not. Popovich, Stan Van Gundy, and Jeff Van Gundy all are.
        Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-25-2010, 04:15 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Some Love for the Three

          Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
          That was freakin amazng!!! To shoot from over 3/4 of the court so effortlessly.
          uhh, it's faked.
          (notice how the camera doesn't follow the ball, the ball disappears after it leaves his hand, then appears again coming down to the basket.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Some Love for the Three

            Yes that one is faked, but it's a commercial that was spoofed from events that were not fake.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmuEZ...eature=channel

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiBSNiab-tU

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Some Love for the Three

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              That you for this thread. It is obvious looking at the graphs, that Larry Brown was not a big proponent of the three point shoot, neither was Isiah, but Bird, Carlisle and Jim O'Brien are.

              Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan are not. Popovich, Stan Van Gundy, and Jeff Van Gundy all are.
              The successful coaches who are proponents of the three also tend to both preach defense and a slow pace, and have the interior presence that they utilize early and often to open up quality looks at the arc. They do not create space by shooting the three as their primary offensive threat. Duncan, Howard / Shaq, and Ewing / Ming were / are the primary threats of their respective offenses.

              The Bird years for the Pacers had Rik Smits as a major component of the offense, plus some highly effective 3pt shooters. The year the Pacers got to the Finals, the Pacers ranked 20th in the league in overall FG attempts, yet were 4th in 3's, and were effective primarily because they shot .392 from the arc as a team and ranked 1st in 3P%. This led to an extremely high offensive efficiency which also ranked 1st and enabled them to almost win it all.

              At no time during the tenure of the current head coach has the team met the above criteria. Also, the three O'Brien years have seen the team with the three worst league defensive rankings of the last 11, while seeing the three highest league pace rankings of those same years. There may not be a 100% causal relationship, but those factors are related, and they are also related to franchise success within the league. Pace rating tends to be inversely proportional to effective defense as well as playoff success from what I found, also.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Some Love for the Three

                Originally posted by travmil View Post
                Yes that one is faked, but it's a commercial that was spoofed from events that were not fake.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmuEZ...eature=channel

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiBSNiab-tU
                Awww Lebron was so much more likable then. Sigh... Where does the time go?



                Great charts! They made it very clear to see your point. I think it will be interesting to see how Murphy's departure effects the 3 ball stats this coming season.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Some Love for the Three

                  Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                  At no time during the tenure of the current head coach has the team met the above criteria. Also, the three O'Brien years have seen the team with the three worst league defensive rankings of the last 11, while seeing the three highest league pace rankings of those same years. There may not be a 100% causal relationship, but those factors are related, and they are also related to franchise success within the league. Pace rating tends to be inversely proportional to effective defense as well as playoff success from what I found, also.
                  is that points allowed or FG% defense?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Some Love for the Three

                    Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                    The successful coaches who are proponents of the three also tend to both preach defense and a slow pace, and have the interior presence that they utilize early and often to open up quality looks at the arc. They do not create space by shooting the three as their primary offensive threat. Duncan, Howard / Shaq, and Ewing / Ming were / are the primary threats of their respective offenses.

                    The Bird years for the Pacers had Rik Smits as a major component of the offense, plus some highly effective 3pt shooters. The year the Pacers got to the Finals, the Pacers ranked 20th in the league in overall FG attempts, yet were 4th in 3's, and were effective primarily because they shot .392 from the arc as a team and ranked 1st in 3P%. This led to an extremely high offensive efficiency which also ranked 1st and enabled them to almost win it all.
                    OK, the Pacers do not have a low post threat anywhere close to Duncan, Howard, Shaq, Ewing, Ming, Smits.

                    The question is and always is: Is the current offensive system maximixing the Pacers offensive potential. You would argue no way, I would argue, yes I think it is.

                    Another closely related (and more important) question is whether the offensive system gives this current Pacers team the best chance of winning. Here I think you have a better argument, as my position would be somewhat weaker. Using more shot clock probably would make the pacers a better team as it would help their defense, but I think it would hurt their overall offense - just a trade off defense for offense. Not sure

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Some Love for the Three

                      Originally posted by Brad8888
                      The successful coaches who are proponents of the three also tend to both preach defense and a slow pace, and have the interior presence that they utilize early and often to open up quality looks at the arc. They do not create space by shooting the three as their primary offensive threat. Duncan, Howard / Shaq, and Ewing / Ming were / are the primary threats of their respective offenses.

                      The Bird years for the Pacers had Rik Smits as a major component of the offense, plus some highly effective 3pt shooters. The year the Pacers got to the Finals, the Pacers ranked 20th in the league in overall FG attempts, yet were 4th in 3's, and were effective primarily because they shot .392 from the arc as a team and ranked 1st in 3P%. This led to an extremely high offensive efficiency which also ranked 1st and enabled them to almost win it all.
                      Even as a proponent of the 3pt shot I accept what Brad is saying. If the Pacers had more overall talent and more scoring threats, they'd win more.

                      What I'm trying to show here is that the 3 is NOT the problem that is is often made out to be. If O'Brien is susceptible to criticism for using a gimmicky game plan, it is the fast pace and not the use of the 3 that is his gimmick.
                      And I won't be here to see the day
                      It all dries up and blows away
                      I'd hang around just to see
                      But they never had much use for me
                      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Some Love for the Three

                        Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                        uhh, it's faked.
                        (notice how the camera doesn't follow the ball, the ball disappears after it leaves his hand, then appears again coming down to the basket.
                        Good catch

                        For the record, I retract my original statement
                        Sittin on top of the world!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Some Love for the Three

                          The fast pace isn't a gimmick.

                          Chuck Daly, Mike Fratello, Larry Brown and later Rick Carlisle made the "use the full 24-seconds" gimmick their game plan. And like lemmings, everybody followed it for a while. Except for Phil, Pat, Nellie, and Larry Bird. And also Jerry Sloan.

                          Now we're swinging back the other way.

                          With a 24-second shot clock, its hard to argue that any team is actually playing a slow pace. Remember college ball before the shot clock. I remember an IU-Iowa game once where IU went to a "four corners" offense and had an eight-minute possession. Was that a gimmick? Probably. But at that time, it was a common coaching technique that if you accumulated a modest-sized lead against another good team... and if you had a team of solid FT shooters... that you stretched out the possessions until a defensive breakdown resulted in a layup or they fouled you. If the defense didn't break down, you'd just re-set the four corners and try again. Eventually you'd score. They'd come down and shoot a bad shoot quickly and either way you had the ball back again and you'd have offensive patience until you got an unconstested layup.

                          THAT is a slow pace. Even though I didn't like Rick Carlisle's mentality that a 24-second violation was almost as good as scoring, its still hard to call anyting in the NBA a "slow pace."

                          I'm torn between whether a shorter shot clock or the elimination of the shot clock would make the game better. Its a trade off between activity and effeciency. With a shorter shot clock you'd have more bad shots and more possessoins. With a longer shot clock, you'd have a better opportunity to break down the defense for a high-percentage look. A shorter shot clock certainly favors the defense as (1) the offense has a better chance to score on a low-percentage shot than on no shot attempt at all; and (2) only requiring the defense to play for 24 seconds allows players to exert more energy in short bursts. If you allow an offensive player to run around screens for 40, 50 consecutive seconds, you won't have to settle for a jumper and you'll get a wide open backdoor cut for a layup.
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Some Love for the Three

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            is that points allowed or FG% defense?
                            It is the Team Defensive Rating as shown at basketball-reference.com. I am not certain how that is derived.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Some Love for the Three

                              Originally posted by ChicagoJ
                              The fast pace isn't a gimmick.
                              Good stuff, J. I've never watched much college ball, but I've seen a high school point guard stand motionless for six minutes with the ball on his hip waiting for a defender to come out to him.


                              My comment was "IF O'Brien is susceptible to the accusation of using gimmicks." I think his talk about early shots is a gimmick -- even if the team's actual use of the clock isn't far out of line with the rest of the league.

                              By contrast, the Pacers' use of the 3 is just good basketball.
                              And I won't be here to see the day
                              It all dries up and blows away
                              I'd hang around just to see
                              But they never had much use for me
                              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X