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

Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

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

  • Ace E.Anderson
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
    Whenever I read about how good a defender Lance is, the game vs the Kings in January comes to mind.

    http://on.nba.com/1qpIF3q 11:45 - First play of the game. Lance gets screened by a half-assed screen by Jason Thompson and Thornton missed a open jumper.

    http://on.nba.com/1qpJLfz 11:14 - Lance standing around and watching Thornton go to the rim and get a 1 ft tip in.

    http://on.nba.com/1qpKnlt 10:17 - Lance getting picked by Jason Thompson and Thornton hitting a jump shot.

    http://on.nba.com/1qpKIo8 9:49 - Lance going under a pick and Thornton missing an open 3 pointer.

    http://on.nba.com/1qpNb26 8:21 - Lance playing follow the leader with Thornton around a couple of picks and Thornton making a real nice running hook.

    http://on.nba.com/1qpNKZN 6:26 - Lance sticking to an Aaron Gray pick like they were both wearing velcro and Thornton making a corner 3.

    After that, Lance got switched to covering Outlaw. Hey, I get it. Thornton is a good offensive player. But there were just too many nights like this where Lance just got stuck on every pick or played follow the leader around picks for him to be an above average defender. I think Zach watched him vs LeBron and extrapolated his defense a little.
    Lowe is an admitted Lance lover and isn't exactly subjective about him.

    Edit: before BnG or anyone else misconstrues my words, I think Lance is a pretty good on ball defender when he puts in the effort
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 07-19-2014, 05:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nuntius
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by Tom White View Post
    If you pay attention to watching the game, your eyes will tell you all you need to know without having to pour through a bunch of stats.
    That's not true. Some people only see what they want to see and that makes the eye test unreliable as the only piece of evidence. The eye test is too dependent on someone's personal biases.

    Statistical data is not manipulated by personal biases that easily.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kstat
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Offensive rating and defensive rating. Not particularly reliable statistics.

    Analytics in basketball are pretty much crap. Far behind baseball and football. It seems every other day someone comes out with a new stat that either doesn't reveal anything new or completely misrepresents what it's trying to calculate.
    Last edited by Kstat; 07-19-2014, 04:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom White
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by cgg View Post
    Lance also was a net overall positive when you include the ortg. I doubt he would have had a negative drtg if he hadn't played with Turner. I don't think it was negative last year. Scola was only a little bit negative.

    I think the only meaningful comparison is Granger at +7.9 drtg to Turner at -7.7. That seems like a really big swing for what should have been the same place in the rotation.
    OK. We have more acronims from the dictionary of stats.

    For those of us who prefer to just watch the game, can you tell us what ortg and drtg mean?

    Leave a comment:


  • xIndyFan
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Whenever I read about how good a defender Lance is, the game vs the Kings in January comes to mind.

    http://on.nba.com/1qpIF3q 11:45 - First play of the game. Lance gets screened by a half-assed screen by Jason Thompson and Thornton missed a open jumper.

    http://on.nba.com/1qpJLfz 11:14 - Lance standing around and watching Thornton go to the rim and get a 1 ft tip in.

    http://on.nba.com/1qpKnlt 10:17 - Lance getting picked by Jason Thompson and Thornton hitting a jump shot.

    http://on.nba.com/1qpKIo8 9:49 - Lance going under a pick and Thornton missing an open 3 pointer.

    http://on.nba.com/1qpNb26 8:21 - Lance playing follow the leader with Thornton around a couple of picks and Thornton making a real nice running hook.

    http://on.nba.com/1qpNKZN 6:26 - Lance sticking to an Aaron Gray pick like they were both wearing velcro and Thornton making a corner 3.

    After that, Lance got switched to covering Outlaw. Hey, I get it. Thornton is a good offensive player. But there were just too many nights like this where Lance just got stuck on every pick or played follow the leader around picks for him to be an above average defender. I think Zach watched him vs LeBron and extrapolated his defense a little.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom White
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by cgg View Post
    Stats show trends that can be investigated further with tape.
    If you pay attention to watching the game, your eyes will tell you all you need to know without having to pour through a bunch of stats.

    Stats can be manipulated to say whatever a person wants them to say.

    Basketball is not a complicated game. People just try to make it more complicated than it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • cgg
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Good post. I don't know how many times I have seen invalid conclusions drawn from valid statistical information...but where the bigger picture is either not seen or purposefully ignored. Reality just has too many factors and that's why real statisticians often have PhD's.
    Again, I DID NOT make any conclusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • cgg
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by Tom White View Post
    But he was on the court more with those two than the other starters were, right? If so, wouldn't their deficiencies defensively pull down his numbers as well? If Paul was on the court with Scola and Turner more, would that not pull down his defensive numbers too?
    Lance also was a net overall positive when you include the ortg. I doubt he would have had a negative drtg if he hadn't played with Turner. I don't think it was negative last year. Scola was only a little bit negative.

    I think the only meaningful comparison is Granger at +7.9 drtg to Turner at -7.7. That seems like a really big swing for what should have been the same place in the rotation.

    Leave a comment:


  • cgg
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    I've seen several posts here recently about stats. Be very careful attempting to make valid conclusions from stats. The stats, even if accurate, are almost always accurate for a narrow range and the conclusions are often too generalized.
    Stats show trends that can be investigated further with tape.

    Leave a comment:


  • joew8302
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by idioteque View Post
    Well I had a really long response and it got deleted, but I'll at least try to summarize how I feel.

    Pacers have an interesting dynamic right now. Last year, we had two three point specialists on the roster that rarely played (Copeland and Butler), and Butler only got PT in the postseason because Turner was so obviously awful and Frank really had no choice but to bench him. Now the Pacers go out and sign CJ Miles and Damjan Rudez, both who seem like three point specialists, and Miles is probably going to start next year. Seems like a loud message from Bird to Vogel (who is on the last year of his deal, and the Pacers don't seem in a hurry to renew his contract) that the offensive system needs to be changed up a bit, and that Vogel needs to stop jamming square pegs into round holes and adjust his system and rotation to fit the talent we have on the roster.

    Yet I am not a believer in this revamp, not yet by a longshot. We are basically gambling on Paul George to assume a bigger burden on both sides of the court next year, since Miles can't do anything off the dribble OR play great defense. So PG is going to have to take the toughest wing defensive assignment every night, and he'll be expected to create penetration on nearly every offensive possession to create the space that every other starter with the possible exception of George Hill absolutely needs to do anything on offense. As another poster so eloquently wrote, both West and Hibbert are like Miles in a way in that they are not really post-up creators and generally score off of wing penetration or other motion generated elsewhere on the offensive side.

    So I agree with Lowe that PG is going to be TIRED at the end of next year. Not sure if that's a good thing. The worst case scenario for the Pacers moving forward is for PG to play his heart out for a 41-41 squad, and feel that our roster doesn't give him enough help or safety valves that allow him to step back a bit and not have to play at 100% all the time on the court. Meanwhile he's playing for a small market far from home...and the future of the Pacers starts to look uncertain.

    The one big variable next year really is George Hill. If he can be aggressive, create offense every night and act as a consistent PG sidekick, we'll be okay. I would also like to see some Stuckey/PG action where Stuckey is the creator and PG is a little more freed up to shoot threes or mid range jumpers. People **** on the Stuckey signing (me included) but damn this guy is going to be an important part of our team next year. But we are going to have to be careful to manage PG next year and ensure that while he is the featured guy, he doesn't feel like T-Mac on some of those Magic teams or AI on some of those Sixers teams where they were otherwise so thin you had legitimate scrubs in the starting lineup.
    Good post. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I do think this "rebuild" or "reload" (however one wants to put it) could work on several levels though. First, without Lance I would expect there to be more ball movement in the half court offensive sets. If we can move the ball more and maybe play inside out, that would mean less one on one from Paul which would preserve his legs somewhat. Also, Stuckey is a physical, athletic defender and Hill is quick with long arms. That gives us versatility to potentially switch one of these guys on an elite wing (depending on the skillset of the guy we are playing) to potentially give Paul a blow here. Also, I think Solomon Hill is ready to be a good defensive player in the league. If you put Hill at 1, Solo at 2 (and put him on the opponents best wing) and Paul at three I believe Paul cold get a little bit of a blow there.

    I agree wholeheartedly with you stance on Hill. For us to be a contending team he needs to be more aggressive and much more of a factor on offense. There is no denying that. He reportedly has been staying in Indianapolis and working his butt off though, which is encouraging. Minus Lance I would expect him to get more offensive opportunities. I honestly think Hill is going to have a productive year and prove a lot of people who think he is worthless on these boards wrong. Another big question mark going in to next year for me is Hibbert. Is Hibbert going to be engaged defensively and give us 8 rebound per game, or are we going to get the Hibbert who blames teammates, pouts, can't rebound and throws up wild hooks? Let me just say I am more optimistic about Hill than I am with Hibbert.

    Leave a comment:


  • idioteque
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Well I had a really long response and it got deleted, but I'll at least try to summarize how I feel.

    Pacers have an interesting dynamic right now. Last year, we had two three point specialists on the roster that rarely played (Copeland and Butler), and Butler only got PT in the postseason because Turner was so obviously awful and Frank really had no choice but to bench him. Now the Pacers go out and sign CJ Miles and Damjan Rudez, both who seem like three point specialists, and Miles is probably going to start next year. Seems like a loud message from Bird to Vogel (who is on the last year of his deal, and the Pacers don't seem in a hurry to renew his contract) that the offensive system needs to be changed up a bit, and that Vogel needs to stop jamming square pegs into round holes and adjust his system and rotation to fit the talent we have on the roster.

    Yet I am not a believer in this revamp, not yet by a longshot. We are basically gambling on Paul George to assume a bigger burden on both sides of the court next year, since Miles can't do anything off the dribble OR play great defense. So PG is going to have to take the toughest wing defensive assignment every night, and he'll be expected to create penetration on nearly every offensive possession to create the space that every other starter with the possible exception of George Hill absolutely needs to do anything on offense. As another poster so eloquently wrote, both West and Hibbert are like Miles in a way in that they are not really post-up creators and generally score off of wing penetration or other motion generated elsewhere on the offensive side.

    So I agree with Lowe that PG is going to be TIRED at the end of next year. Not sure if that's a good thing. The worst case scenario for the Pacers moving forward is for PG to play his heart out for a 41-41 squad, and feel that our roster doesn't give him enough help or safety valves that allow him to step back a bit and not have to play at 100% all the time on the court. Meanwhile he's playing for a small market far from home...and the future of the Pacers starts to look uncertain.

    The one big variable next year really is George Hill. If he can be aggressive, create offense every night and act as a consistent PG sidekick, we'll be okay. I would also like to see some Stuckey/PG action where Stuckey is the creator and PG is a little more freed up to shoot threes or mid range jumpers. People **** on the Stuckey signing (me included) but damn this guy is going to be an important part of our team next year. But we are going to have to be careful to manage PG next year and ensure that while he is the featured guy, he doesn't feel like T-Mac on some of those Magic teams or AI on some of those Sixers teams where they were otherwise so thin you had legitimate scrubs in the starting lineup.
    Last edited by idioteque; 07-19-2014, 01:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • NuffSaid
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    A lot is going to depend on Hibbert going forward, he needs to bounce back in a big way because it appears we are going to be running a lot of offense inside out through the post again. My bet is that CJ Miles and improved spacing should help in this department. The defense should be just as good as ever, the offense will continue to be the question mark. Paul George improving his handle would also be a big deal.
    Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
    Well this is where George Hill comes in on the creating side of the offense. Paul George will have to create more offense yes, but George Hill will now be tasked to be a creator as well. I think something the national media misses is how good of a player Hill actually is when aggressive. I think everyone who watched Hill in SA and here when aggressive knows he can create, and without Lance, he will be forced to be aggressive. Stuckey isn't a bad creator himself either.
    I think these two post hit upon two very important points:

    1) More consistent post play; and,

    2) More efficient perimeter play.

    Last season started off with Hibbert picking up where he left off the 2012-2013 season, but by the season's mid-point Hibbert wasn't so dominate and he slowly became a shadow of his former self. There were spurts of good play, but nothing like what he was for the 2012-2013 season or the post-season thereafter. I'm still not sure what to make of how fast he fell from being a dominate defensive anchor to a virtual non-factor, whether it was teams just figuring out how to play him and no one from Hibbert himself to the coaching staff figuring out how to counter or if Hibbert just isn't mentally tough, but one thing is certain: The Pacers need a strong, defensive force anchoring the middle. And if they are to rely on Roy Hibbert again to be that anchor, he needs to regain his dominance from 2012-2013 and be the Hibbeast the fans thoroughly enjoyed watching play.

    On the other end of the spectrum, we have our Guard-play. There were two reasons I loved watching Lance Stephenson play:

    1) He's a balla! The kid played with an aggressive attitude every time he stepped onto the court. He's very athletic, has very good ball control and has outstanding court vision making him a great passer. Although his 3-point shooting often made me cringe, I enjoyed watching Lance take the game to his opponent.

    2) The kid played with an edge every game and it was natural for him; nothing fake about it. It was his energy that his teammates fed off of. Where he went the team generally followed. Fact is, Lance Stephenson often times changed the dynamic of the game for this team. He's also a playmaker. Few players on this team could take his man off the dribble - break ankles - and finish at the rim. Like I said, Lance Stephenson is a balla!

    That said, I can understand why many Pacers fans feel the loss so profoundly. They know the impact Lance made on this team and don't see where the new acquisitions will be able to fill the void Lance leaves behind. Vogel will have to resist the temptation to revert to the ways of JOB and structure the Pacers' offense around an inside-outside game where 3-pt shooting becomes too much the focus. He'll also need to guard against forcing post-play through guys like PG, DWest, or Hibbert. The key is to find another "balla" amongst the players we have. George Hill, CJ Watson and Rodney Stuckey may be the keys to the Pacers success next season.

    If the Pacers can get solid play from any of these guys where any one or a combination of any two of them can be that finesse player who surpasses expectations and becomes that "X" factor - because in truth that's what Lance was for this team -- a virtual unknown in the sense that you never knew when he'd unleash himself and go off in spectacular fashion - the Pacers can get beyond losing him and still be a force to reckon with next year. This takes me to how to use these guys to the Pacers' advantage.

    We all know GHill is somewhat a square peg in a round hole at the Point. He performed better at SG. If I were Vogel, I'd let him play from the 2-Guard rather than the Point. Let CJ Watson start at the Point and bring Stuckey off the bench. Of course, all three are inner-changeable. So, you could start GHill and Stuckey at PG & SG, respectively, and not miss a beat, but it's not something I'd do. I'd learn from last season realizing the GHill wasn't always aggressive enough at the Point nor did he always seem comfortable producing offensively from there. CJ Watson, on the other hand, relishes it! Because I'm a firm believing in allowing players to perform from the natural positions, I'd advocate to start CJ Watson at the Point and GHill at SG w/Stuckey as his backup.

    If Vogel can rekindle a flame in Roy and get this trio of Guards to perform well together with one of them taking on the bull-dog role Lance vacated, the Pacers can still be a threat in the East. If not...
    Last edited by NuffSaid; 07-19-2014, 12:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueNGold
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by Tom White View Post
    But he was on the court more with those two than the other starters were, right? If so, wouldn't their deficiencies defensively pull down his numbers as well? If Paul was on the court with Scola and Turner more, would that not pull down his defensive numbers too?
    Good post. I don't know how many times I have seen invalid conclusions drawn from valid statistical information...but where the bigger picture is either not seen or purposefully ignored. Reality just has too many factors and that's why real statisticians often have PhD's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom White
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by cgg View Post
    Technically, he was one of three rotational players that the defense was better when he was off the court, with Scola and Turner.
    But he was on the court more with those two than the other starters were, right? If so, wouldn't their deficiencies defensively pull down his numbers as well? If Paul was on the court with Scola and Turner more, would that not pull down his defensive numbers too?

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueNGold
    replied
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by cgg View Post
    Technically, he was one of three rotational players that the defense was better when he was off the court, with Scola and Turner.
    I've seen several posts here recently about stats. Be very careful attempting to make valid conclusions from stats. The stats, even if accurate, are almost always accurate for a narrow range and the conclusions are often too generalized.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X