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

And I would put the pasted article in quotes like this.
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

Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

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

  • #61
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Charlotte is now a better team, and we are now a worse team. Period
    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
      Charlotte is now a better team, and we are now a worse team. Period
      From a talent perspective I agree, it doesn't always play out that way however.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        You almost have to separate the Pacer's regular season into 2 parts. The 1st half and the 2nd half for the season stats to mean anything relevant.
        I haven't followed the rest of the arguments, but I definitely agree with this.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
          Please and thank you. I hope one thing that get banished from this team's offensive sets is the fake screen and rolls that both Roy and DWest run every time up the floor. This team never set any sort of real screens or picks for each other the entire year. I never got it. You have to big guys who aren't very mobile. Go have them plant their asses into a defender and get some separation for the wings. Instead all we see is slipping the screen or pick and basically never requiring the defense to react.
          like this?



          the Mavs run that all the time. we killed the Knicks with it so bad in the playoffs they stole it last season.

          or all the times we'd run the elevator doors

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

            Obviously Zach Lowe knows what he's talking about so I'm not trying to say the guy is wrong, but we have season of evidence that suggest losing Lance shouldn't be the detriment he thinks it will be.

            Zach continues to say that Lance is a necessary ball handler for the Pacers, but he's also for a long time criticized the Pacers lack of shooting. So which is it? Do they need more ball handling or shooting??

            IN 11-12 and 12-13 the Pacers had a HIGHER offensive rating than they did last year. Last year was the only year in which they had the additional ball handling and shot creating of Lance Stephenson. WHy was their offense worse??

            In 11-12 They had Darren Collison/Hill as the starting PG, PG and Granger as their perimeter players. The offense was better.

            12 12-13 PG and Hill were the only ball handlers. If you remember, the still underdeveloped Lance was basically non-existent on offense. The guy who stood in the corner with his thumb up his ***. So how in the hell will the offense suddenly get worse??

            We have 3 seasons of evidence that suggest this team probably needs more shooting on the floor versus ball handling. I don't see any reason why Hill and PG can't dominate the ball and this team be good. I think CJ Miles will start and help space the floor and just as is this team will be better. The team has badly missed shooting. A guy who simply sits on the outside, spaces the floor and nails three pointers. Hill was relegated to playing basically off the ball all season and his numbers badly suffered. THe season before? He put up 15-5, solid but not great numbers. This team can succeed as is, and I think we have all the evidence that they will.

            I think Lowe has done a great job and gathering the numbers of this team, but he's drawn some wrong conclusions. Lance is a very solid two way players but I do not think he was helping the team on offense. The way the offense worked last year? Sure the numbers would show he did. However, I think it was a offense that was doomed to fail. You put Hill off the ball (mistake), you took the ball out of PG's hands more than it should, and Lance took the place of what should be a dead eye shooter. In other words, Lance put up decent numbers, and he was a necessary cog in a BAD offense. I think CJ Miles could be a necessary fifth option, a nice piece that helps this team turn into a maybe an average or above average offense.

            It's going to take a lot of coaching tho. PLayers need to move off the ball, get proper spacing, do all those little things that they weren't doing last year. But I completely disagree with the idea that they need a third player in the lineup who can handle the ball.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

              I also completely disagree with the idea that Lance is suddenly going to make Charlotte that much better. In a weak conference they should be a solid team, but seriously everyone keeps forgetting what makes an offense work. Every great offense in the NBA has shooting. Every one, without fail. Yet somehow Charloette is going to defy all logic by starting three perimeter players that can't shoot? What the ****? I'm sure Kemba and Lance can put up some solid numbers next season, but to think those guys can make that team score at an above average pace when no one in the staring lineup can shoot worth a **** is insane.

              Every great offense has all these ingredients: A little ball handling, a little shooting, spacing, a little post game, and some transition offense. I mean it's different with every team, some concentrate one one thing more than the other, but you can't just leave something out. IF you have no shooting, you can't space the floor, the defense collapses on you and the games over.

              I can tell you right now if the Charlotte wants to walk into the fieldhouse with Lance, MKG and Kemba, the Pacers will eat them up on defense. They'll need to start a stretch four that's for sure. I guess if McRoberts (edit-he's on Miami, I'm dumb) improves his shooting more he could definitely help, but man that offense already has a massive flaw.
              Last edited by mattie; 07-18-2014, 06:59 AM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                That advantage shrinks without the team’s most dynamic player. It’s tempting to suggest the Pacers could replicate Stephenson’s bully game by inserting Rodney Stuckey, signed to a tidy one-year minimum deal on Wednesday, into Stephenson’s starting spot. Stuckey is another hybrid guard with mean intentions off the bounce and a useful post-up game from the left block.

                But he can’t shoot, and it will be hard for Indiana’s offense to function if George and Hill are the only 3-point shooters on the floor. Stuckey’s driving game can get a little wild and self-centered, veering into pull-up 17-footers when other guys are open, and his post game is really only a plus weapon in mismatches.
                Spot-on assessment of Rodney Stuckey. Could not have summarized his game any better in two small paragraphs. The bolded part is something I'm sure I'll have PTSD over.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                  How does this team become an effective power post team with a center that shoots less than 45% and rarely is able to establish position and receive the ball within the painted area? Or with a power forward whose effectiveness in the post is inconsistent from game to game and very match-up dependent?

                  This team will be toast next year if it makes post feeds to Hibbert & West a point of specific emphasis. We will be the easiest team in the league to defend.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                    And for those saying they aren't sure if Hill will be aggressive with the ball in his hands? There is no question if he will. HE DID. Prior to last year he was third on the team in scoring, and was second on the team in Clutch scoring according to 82games.com. (last five minutes, teams within 5 points of eachother).

                    The only difference is, how much better would Hill have looked if he had CJ Miles nailing threes instead of Lance doing little in the 2012-13 season? Or consider the massive improvements of Paul George from 2012-13 to what we can expect from him this upcoming season??

                    This is probably closer to the truth- The Pacers offense was poorly designed last year because Lance was simply a bad fit. He didn't work. Remember the first half of the season?? The Pacers didn't score that well. They were ok, but not that well. I think they were ranked 20th in those first 20 games. And that was with Paul George playing at an ungodly level! PG came down to earth and the team imploded. It wasn't sustainable. There were a lot more issues in that locker room that made the second half turn into a nightmare, but I think the offense was poorly contructed.

                    Put the ball back in Hills hand, put CJ Miles on the court... They also need to incorporate Chris Copeland. Just like what San ANtonio does, Copleand can be they guy they can hide on defense against certain teams. No reason he can't help stretch the defense against particular lineups.

                    Anywho. I believe in this team this upcoming year because I've seen them win in the past. So they'll do it again.



                    Edit - By the way, please don't misconstrue my comments as criticism of Lance. I personally love two way players and Lance has proven himself to be a solid two way player. I love his game. I love his attitude. I love his confidence. I wish he fit. He doesn't. Lance needs to play on a team with guys like Chandler Parsons as his teammates. He's a valuable player anywhere simply because he's such a good defender but he'd be even more valuable if he could be used for his strenths. A valuable ball handler who can get the ball to open shooters around him.
                    Last edited by mattie; 07-18-2014, 06:34 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                      Originally posted by mattie View Post
                      This is probably closer to the truth- The Pacers offense was poorly designed last year because Lance was simply a bad fit. He didn't work. Remember the first half of the season?? The Pacers didn't score that well. They were ok, but not that well. I think they were ranked 20th in those first 20 games. And that was with Paul George playing at an ungodly level! PG came down to earth and the team imploded. It wasn't sustainable. There were a lot more issues in that locker room that made the second half turn into a nightmare, but I think the offense was poorly contructed.
                      The rest of what you say may make sense, but I thought we scored pretty well in the first half of this year.

                      Look at the monthly splits for 13-14 (or if you prefer, pre AS vs post AS). I also put in the 11-12 splits for reference.
                      http://www.basketball-reference.com/...D/2014/splits/
                      http://www.basketball-reference.com/...D/2012/splits/

                      (Looking at PPG isn't perfect, but I'm not going to calculate per possession ORTG for these numbers. PPG will have to do.)

                      It seems obvious that 13-14's numbers are dragged down by that disastrous stretch in March. All the other months are comparable to most months of 11-12, except for the hot stretch in April 2012. So really what we need to do is capture what went well in April 2012, and replicate that in the upcoming season's roster (we have to).

                      I do think you may have a point about shooting though. Our hot start this year was fueled by some insane shooting from PG and Lance. If our new shooters can consistently hit the 3 ball... well, we could be this season's Portland. Unfortunately we don't have a Lillard to break down the defense so I dunno.

                      EDIT: I found the thread were we discussed a similar topic

                      http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...3-die-by-the-3

                      Interesting to read back on.
                      Last edited by wintermute; 07-18-2014, 07:40 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        The rest of what you say may make sense, but I thought we scored pretty well in the first half of this year.

                        Look at the monthly splits for 13-14 (or if you prefer, pre AS vs post AS). I also put in the 11-12 splits for reference.
                        http://www.basketball-reference.com/...D/2014/splits/
                        http://www.basketball-reference.com/...D/2012/splits/

                        (Looking at PPG isn't perfect, but I'm not going to calculate per possession ORTG for these numbers. PPG will have to do.)

                        It seems obvious that 13-14's numbers are dragged down by that disastrous stretch in March. All the other months are comparable to most months of 11-12, except for the hot stretch in April 2012. So really what we need to do is capture what went well in April 2012, and replicate that in the upcoming season's roster (we have to).

                        I do think you may have a point about shooting though. Our hot start this year was fueled by some insane shooting from PG and Lance. If our new shooters can consistently hit the 3 ball... well, we could be this season's Portland. Unfortunately we don't have a Lillard to break down the defense so I dunno.

                        EDIT: I found the thread were we discussed a similar topic

                        http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...3-die-by-the-3

                        Interesting to read back on.
                        That was interesting reading our perspective from the start of the season...

                        Who knows what will happen, but to perfectly honest, this years potential starting lineup, of Hill/Miles/PG/West/Roy should be my favorite starting lineup the Pacers will have EVER put together. Not saying it will work, my predictions are about as accurate as a broken clock is right, but I'm guessing it will.

                        I think Miles is going to be our Danny Green light, I think PG is our ball dominate perimeter player, I think Hill will have no problem throwing up 15-5 which is all we need from a point guard. We need nothing really from Roy on offense. I think West will play as well as we can expect- a good open jump shooter, and a solid post option. I think that can be a 12-8 ranked team on offense. And that would be good enough to make this team great.

                        I really see Vogel giving Copeland a chance to be a major contributor and I think he can. Vogel let Scola play his minutes this year because history told us, that at least up to date, Scola was clearly the better player. Well, after Scola's sub-par season I don't see why Vogel wouldn't give Copeland a chance. I also suspect, given the opportunity, that there is no reason Copeland can't be a valuable knockdown shooter off the bench. Like Ryan Anderson but not as good. Why not? We finally have all the tools. This team will continue to play defense but now I think they can score. I really do.

                        Edit- I'm a huge fan of what CJ Miles has become. Love his game. This is a guy I see who could have found his spot on a playoff contender. In Cleveland it wasn't the best situation, but maybe here, like Danny Green in SAS, I think he's really going to play well. We needed this. A healthy, shooter in his prime ready to do one thing, hit threes!
                        Last edited by mattie; 07-18-2014, 08:08 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                          It's funny the massive range of opinion of the Pacers going into the season. Some view losing Lance as a bonus, though I personally can't figure out why. He led the team in field goal percentage, rebounds and assists last year, and was the only player we had who could handle a double team. People accuse him of being a ball-hog, but statistically, both PG and Hill were bigger ball hogs that Lance, both had the ball more and held it longer, and both had lower assist ratios and shooting percentage after handling the ball. There are things I like about Hill and things I don't, but I think he's bad in the playoffs when teams ramp up defensive pressure because he just can't handle it. You double team Hill and he looks lost.

                          However, it really does all boil down to Hibbert. If he plays like he did for the first three months of last year then I think we're fine because we can play with more of an inside to out mentality. However, if Roy continues to play like he did for the last 4 months, we're totally screwed and I'd say about a 40 win team.
                          Danger Zone

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                            Originally posted by mattie View Post
                            Edit- I'm a huge fan of what CJ Miles has become. Love his game. This is a guy I see who could have found his spot on a playoff contender. In Cleveland it wasn't the best situation, but maybe here, like Danny Green in SAS, I think he's really going to play well. We needed this. A healthy, shooter in his prime ready to do one thing, hit threes!
                            Hmm, maybe I didn't pay enough attention to Miles last year. From what I remember before, he was kind of meh. Right now, I have higher hopes for Solo developing into a 3 and D guy (on practically zero evidence, LOL). But I hope you're right!

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                              That's because this team abandoned its power post identity for the better part of last year. We became a jump shooting team and our bigs were not happy about that at all.

                              Let's hope that this is going to change this season.
                              Wanted to thank this again. It is the most important part of next season, at least imo.

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              Quoted for the truth. I'm not sure why Frank allowed it to happen. It was Frank's biggest failure as a coach last year. I dunno if he felt the pressure to feature PG and Lance more, or just hard to argue against the early results the team was having. The team from 2 years ago was gritty, physical, and just plain executed from the post. Throw it down there and go to work. Crash the boards and get easy put backs. It was one ugly mo-fo of an offense, but our players were proud and wore it like a badge of honor! The power post should return in my opinion.
                              JMO, but the reason this was allowed to happen was pretty straight forward. Danny got hurt and Paul had to become a SF instead of a SG. Post ups were a strong part of Danny's game. They are not a big part of Paul's. Paul can post SG's well enough, but his post game is basically useless against most of the SF in the league. Lance can post, but evidently doesn't really like to. With both the Pacer wings uninterested/unable to post anyone, the Pacers just became a jump shooting team.

                              Paul's post game or lack of same is going to be a very important key to the success this team will have next season. If he can post guys, then teams will be unable to get away with guarding him with all the undersized guys they did last season.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                                Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
                                How does this team become an effective power post team with a center that shoots less than 45% and rarely is able to establish position and receive the ball within the painted area? Or with a power forward whose effectiveness in the post is inconsistent from game to game and very match-up dependent?

                                This team will be toast next year if it makes post feeds to Hibbert & West a point of specific emphasis. We will be the easiest team in the league to defend.
                                By crashing the boards and getting extra possessions. The 12'-13' team proved that can be successful. Hibbert has never been an efficient post player. But you get extra possessions and keep hammering. That team led the league in points in the paint. Led the league in Rebounding.

                                Don't you think we were the easiest team to defend in the league last year? All we did was settle for pull up long jumpers. Teams made us one-dimensional and the Pacers were all too happy to shoot the same shots we want to force our opponents into.. Long range 2's.

                                Thats why Vogel is the most maddening of coaches in my opinion. Defense: Cover the paint and perimeter and force long 2's. Offense: settle for long 2's. Even Scola and West's bread and butter jumpers were long 2's toward the end of the season because defenses were forcing our PnR higher and higher.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X