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

Thru 17 games: P's biggest concern area

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

  • Thru 17 games: P's biggest concern area

    Well, we are almost to the quarter post of the season. I will take this opportunity to throw out my theory as to our biggest concern area. Of course, there are myriad options from which to choose so feel free to elaborate on mine or suggest your own.

    IMO at this juncture the Pacer's biggest problem area is the PG situation-particularly defensively. Here are some thoughts/questions that I have based on observing our play so far:

    1) Do JT's offensive capabilities outweigh his painfully obvious defensive deficiencies, not to mention his sometimes questionable decision making, ball handling, and shot selection (which at times rivals Jacks alleged level IMO)?

    2) Will DA continue his current level of on-court performance throughout?

    3) Will Sarunas ever really play significant minutes at the point and should he?

    4) Will we ever see our defensive-oriented options (Greene, Daniels) at this position even only in situational use?

    5) Can we aspire to being anything more than a .500ish team this year with the PG coprs/rotation as currently constituted?

    My thoughts on these issues:

    I am, as I have been for the last several years, completely ambivalent about Tinsley. I just don't know. True on ocassion, as in GS, his offensive abilities outweigh his weaknesses. But in order for that to happen in the big picture, he'd have to bring that level on offense regularly and he definitely has not so far.

    Then you have to look at other areas that are also highly variable like decision making, turnovers, and shot selection. And finally there's his painfully obvious defensive liabilities, which in my opinion are the single biggest defect in our team play in the early season. Ridnour is a good player, but against JT he looked like a top tier NBA PG. The consistent penetration he allows absolutely undermines an otherwise solid group of individual and team defenders.

    Yet it appears like RC has supreme confidence in him. Will we ever see some of our stronger defensive oriented possibilities at this spot-Daniels, Greene? At least in stretches when it's worth an attempt to cool off the opponent a bit? HOW ABOUT AGAINST SEATTLE ON THEIR LAST POSSESSION TO GUARD RIDNOUR FOR EXAMPLE?

    If not, do we or will we have the pieces at the right time to obtain either another starter who offers more balance of O and D or maybe a back-up with tough D yet enough ability to manage the O that RC would give him consistent minutes and trust him as a strategic defensive sub?

    For the record I do not think DA or Saras are really answers at this position with the second unit either. I think DA will cool down and wear down a little. His on the ball D generally is the best we get at the position but he's not a big minute answer. Sarunas has similar defensive struggles as Tins and therefore isn't a big minute answer as a backup point either. Although I like him getting minutes in the two PG look.
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

  • #2
    Re: Thru 17 games: P's biggest concern area

    Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
    1) Do JT's offensive capabilities outweigh his painfully obvious defensive deficiencies, not to mention his sometimes questionable decision making, ball handling, and shot selection (which at times rivals Jacks alleged level IMO)?


    Then you have to look at other areas that are also highly variable like decision making, turnovers, and shot selection. And finally there's his painfully obvious defensive liabilities, which in my opinion are the single biggest defect in our team play in the early season. Ridnour is a good player, but against JT he looked like a top tier NBA PG. The consistent penetration he allows absolutely undermines an otherwise solid group of individual and team defenders.

    Yet it appears like RC has supreme confidence in him. Will we ever see some of our stronger defensive oriented possibilities at this spot-Daniels, Greene? At least in stretches when it's worth an attempt to cool off the opponent a bit? HOW ABOUT AGAINST SEATTLE ON THEIR LAST POSSESSION TO GUARD RIDNOUR FOR EXAMPLE?

    If not, do we or will we have the pieces at the right time to obtain either another starter who offers more balance of O and D or maybe a back-up with tough D yet enough ability to manage the O that RC would give him consistent minutes and trust him as a strategic defensive sub?

    For the record I do not think DA or Saras are really answers at this position with the second unit either. I think DA will cool down and wear down a little. His on the ball D generally is the best we get at the position but he's not a big minute answer. Sarunas has similar defensive struggles as Tins and therefore isn't a big minute answer as a backup point either. Although I like him getting minutes in the two PG look.
    This is by far my area of concern, Tinsley does not keep guys in front of him. It makes it really difficult because he really is a rare creator offensively.

    Here's the rub, I think JT can play better defense he just spends so much energy offensively. I am really pleased that he has stayed healthy and asserted himself offensively. I have said this from the start of the season, lock him in a room and play a loop of Mark Jackson playing D. Mark was half as quick and about equally effective. If Tinsley, again, would just stay in front of his man, it would be a huge improvement.

    Give up the jumper in transition, but not a lay up. It puts so much pressure on the team defensive concept.

    I've watched Saras improve this year, he'll never be a good defender but it's not a lay up drill most of the time. Saras will try to recover after being beat and if not he'll take a foul to protect his big guys.

    I still think you'll see Tinsley get some nagging injuries at some point that may keep him out for 3-4 games and Greene will be such a dramatic difference defensively that this board will cry for Tinsley to not come back, but the truth is Tinsley as an offensive point guard is a top 6 or 7 guy and you need him.

    Currently, however, he is probably the worst starting pg defensively in the league about half the games.

    Now, the last play last night had nothing to do with Tinsley, imo, it was a switch, nothing wrong that he did.

    So what needs to happen is that he has to get better, as we all suspected a big part of the season depends on JT.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Thru 17 games: P's biggest concern area

      Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
      Ridnour is a good player, but against JT he looked like a top tier NBA PG.
      Ridnour's stats last night were dead-on his season averages.
      PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Thru 17 games: P's biggest concern area

        The only real worry I have is our inability to keep guys from scoring inside the paint. Is Chuck Person in charge of our defense? If so, it shows.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Thru 17 games: P's biggest concern area

          Originally posted by Speed View Post
          Now, the last play last night had nothing to do with Tinsley, imo, it was a switch, nothing wrong that he did.
          I don't find fault with him on the Ridnour final circus shot. The way I stated it in the post does sound like it so my fault for not phrasing better. What I was trying to convey was that it would be a quintessential situational substitution context for a stronger defender. How bout Quis on Ridnour for 6 seconds? That's more of a commentary on the coaching/substitution patterns than directly on JT. Greene's lack of PT wouldn't lend itself to coming in cold for one play of that importance I suppose.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Thru 17 games: P's biggest concern area

            Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
            Ridnour's stats last night were dead-on his season averages.
            Point taken. However the key word is look. Watching the game, I felt like Ridnour clearly outplayed Tinsley with ease. Important point, he was probably fresher than Tins based on our recent schedule.

            Along these lines, and I am unable to watch the game again, but Ridnour's ability to set the tone and tempo and penetrate via the dribble or pass (SETH, they stuck it to us on the PnR all night!) continually destabilized our D. That might not all show up in his stats as leading to a score or assist by him. But there were many sequences of Seattle making a series of nice passes leading to a made shot initiated by penetration. So the penetrator might not wind up getting the assist but is key in destabilizing the D by forcing extreme amount of help rotation.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Thru 17 games: P's biggest concern area

              I'm confident Sarunas can play big minutes at the point, especially when paired up with someone like Daniels who can also handle the ball. Sure he struggles with pressure sometimes, but that's because he's the only PG on the Pacers who gets any pressure from other teams while bringing it up. The bottom line is that in the halfcourt, he combines both timely shot making and playmaking which is a combination that Tinsley simply doesnt have

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Thru 17 games: P's biggest concern area

                SETH, they stuck it to us on the PnR all night!
                It's not just Tinsley either. It's how they are playing it. I need to get Visio going to post a decent diagram, but basically my issue (which I said in another thread) is the space the PG gives the pick.

                Say it's Jeff and Tins, they PnR and Foster does his best to force the PG out wide. Fine. Tins will pursue. Fine.

                The problem is that Tins will follow the same curving path that the PG and Jeff are taking, in an effort to close out from behind/side and eventually trap it (I think that's their goal). When the PnR is done at other places on the court which involve the PG going more to the lane where he can be cut off and closed out, this often works and then Tins and Jeff switch back.

                BUT...if the PnR is off the elbow (corner of FT line to be clear) and their BIG goes straight toward the basket while the PG curls from the elbow toward the baseline, this has been leaving a passing window clear to the big in the lane.

                If instead Tins would go straight along the side of the FT lane mirroring the big, I think he'd be able to deny that passing opportunity, and then around the low block or even sooner he could stop and then move in a straight line to help Jeff with the PG, who by now will be going into a cross-over or spin to go past him (and will if he doesn't get help from Tins).

                So Tins does a check-mark path instead of a curve that goes away from the lane.


                Now it could be that this spacing looks worse on TV and that they are trying to do what I'm suggesting. If so then they really need to come up some serious rotation help because otherwise this will never stop, and it's not just with Tinsley involved.



                A different aspect that to me looks GOOD on the PnRs - a lot of times the big spaces well and the small is able to go between the pick and the Pacer big. The Pacers have been playing a lot of PnRs this way and as long as the small hustles he typically can cut off the dribble. But this isn't really a pure PnR, more like PnPops or perhaps the Pacers big has just done a good job of denying roll motion by the other big.

                I just don't recall the Pacers playing any PnRs this way last year. Seemed like nearly everything was over the top or underneath, and a lot less switching I think. Hard to remember for certain.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Thru 17 games: P's biggest concern area

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  It's not just Tinsley either. It's how they are playing it. I need to get Visio going to post a decent diagram, but basically my issue (which I said in another thread) is the space the PG gives the pick.

                  Say it's Jeff and Tins, they PnR and Foster does his best to force the PG out wide. Fine. Tins will pursue. Fine.

                  The problem is that Tins will follow the same curving path that the PG and Jeff are taking, in an effort to close out from behind/side and eventually trap it (I think that's their goal). When the PnR is done at other places on the court which involve the PG going more to the lane where he can be cut off and closed out, this often works and then Tins and Jeff switch back.

                  BUT...if the PnR is off the elbow (corner of FT line to be clear) and their BIG goes straight toward the basket while the PG curls from the elbow toward the baseline, this has been leaving a passing window clear to the big in the lane.

                  If instead Tins would go straight along the side of the FT lane mirroring the big, I think he'd be able to deny that passing opportunity, and then around the low block or even sooner he could stop and then move in a straight line to help Jeff with the PG, who by now will be going into a cross-over or spin to go past him (and will if he doesn't get help from Tins).

                  So Tins does a check-mark path instead of a curve that goes away from the lane.


                  Now it could be that this spacing looks worse on TV and that they are trying to do what I'm suggesting. If so then they really need to come up some serious rotation help because otherwise this will never stop, and it's not just with Tinsley involved.



                  A different aspect that to me looks GOOD on the PnRs - a lot of times the big spaces well and the small is able to go between the pick and the Pacer big. The Pacers have been playing a lot of PnRs this way and as long as the small hustles he typically can cut off the dribble. But this isn't really a pure PnR, more like PnPops or perhaps the Pacers big has just done a good job of denying roll motion by the other big.

                  I just don't recall the Pacers playing any PnRs this way last year. Seemed like nearly everything was over the top or underneath, and a lot less switching I think. Hard to remember for certain.
                  Seth, in my book there are 2 ways to defend against PnRs:
                  1. Switch. Always. In your scenario - if Foster has to guard a PG, then he does his best, while the other guys always look to help him out. Now Tins is mismatched off the ball on a big, so he has to switch off the ball (!!!) with the other big, and so forth. Switch & help, switch & help. It means that you need guys who can guard anybody decently. Not shut down, but at the very least not foul and force a tough shot. Even Sarunas can do that...
                  2. Zone. All sorts. 2-3, 3-2, 1-3-1, boxN1, whatever... PnRs have little to no significance against a zone - a good zone. For the Pacers I'd go with a classical 3-2, with Al on top, JO & Jeff on the blocks, and Tins & Jax on the wings. Pair Jax with Jeff and Tins with JO. Al & Jax can switch between them as well. Quis can do great in a zone, with his long hands and all. Even Harrison can stay out of foul trouble in a zone D. And you get more long rebounds and can run more, get transition baskets, etc. In a nutshell - I like zones, and the Pacers can play it more.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X