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

George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

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

  • #91
    Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

    I'm certainly not pretending to be smarter than any of these guys, but shooting the **** with my buds a month before the season started, there wasn't a single person I know who thought Orlando was going to be this defensive powerhouse. Ibaka??? His man defense, even at his peak, was never really a strength, and his help defense, which I'll grant you at one point was elite, was showing signs of declining last season. The guy has visibly lost some of his athleticism, and with an increased offensive workload, you could see this coming a mile away.

    Take him away and who are you left with? Biz? You can't really play him for more than half the game because he gives you nothing on offense and there's a plethora of other bigs you need to give minutes to. Payton? An intelligent defender for sure. I like him. But hardly elite. He still occasionally gets hung up on screens and switches, and gambles too much for my liking.

    Aside from that, there was nothing. And is nothing. And I think the fact that Vogel has eked four wins out of this group so far is a credit to him, given their other obvious issues on offense.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

      Originally posted by Rogco View Post
      Actually Since, people said that Orlando was going to be a good defensive team, especially since they add a three time all-defensive first team and four time league leading shot blocker in Ibaka:
      "There’s no question the team has gotten better defensively, which has sort of become new head coach Frank Vogel’s calling card. "
      - Joel Brigham Basketball Insiders

      "Vogel’s imprint on this team should be most glaring in the way they play defense. They have the long and athletic personnel at every position to change the DNA of this team from a weak defensive bunch into one of the most improved in the entire league."
      - Sekou Smith NBA.com

      "Serge Ibaka is such an important piece to taking this organization to where we want to take it, to become a defensive monster, be one of the best defensive teams in the league," Frank Vogel

      "Adding Ibaka, and then Bismack Biyombo in free agency gave the Magic the defensive toughness and tenacity they’d been yearning for over the past few seasons. They bring in two of the premier shot blocking big men, and one of the best defensive coaches in the league, giving them hope of finally making their way to a top level defense."
      -Zach Oliver Orlando Pinstriped Post

      "``We do have some really good defensive talent and it’s going to come down to how well they learn, how well they commit and how important (defense) is to them. We’re going to put them in positions to have great defensive success. We’re going to drill the heck out of it in practice and it’s going to be something that’s one of the most important things for us. We want to take pride in being a great, great defensive team.’’
      - Frank Vogel

      ORLANDOMAGIC.COM: A recurring theme, it seems, among fans and national media is that while this Magic team will likely be fearsome defensively, there are questions about the offense. Can you score enough and do you have enough perimeter shooting?

      COACH VOGEL: ``We’ll see. I have the same question marks. We do definitely have more defensive talent than offensive talent,

      "The Magic are set up to have one of the best defenses in the league just based on that front line’s potential. They have cemented their identity this offseason."
      -Philip Rossman-Reich Orlando Magic Daily

      I think first and foremost our expectation is that we’ll cement an identity for ourselves as a smart, physical, unselfish, defensive-minded team. And we expect to make the playoffs.
      -Rob Hennigan


      There are many more out there. The Orlando Magic FO, coaches, papers, and NBA reviewers essentially said they should be a good defensive team, but struggle with shooting.
      TBH, when I read those quotes I see them in context of building a future with a defensive identity, though, and when I read Pacer quotes on defense I read them as continuing the identity. You might get a different take, but that's how I read them. Building a defensive team takes longer than continuing a defensive team.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        I went to google to find all of the links to outsider quotes about Dan Burke's great defenses or how he was a defensive coaching ace or well anything about Dan Burke outside of the indystar article's from this summer and to my shock I could not find one national commentator raving about Dan Burke's defense.

        Amazingly though you type in Frank Vogel and defense you get page's worth with quotes from all types of national commentators.

        Yes the Magic lost to the Pacers, this is a good thing. Contrary to what some of you believe not many of us who hated the firing were rooting for the Magic to win. But if you think we're going to sit here and let you fire shots at Frank without responding, your nuts.

        Also I can't speak for everyone but I will speak for me. I have gone out of my way to say that our early season struggles are not on McMillan. I am giving him a chance and while there have been things that make my head want to explode I truly believe he is working under a mandate to play a certain way. Even last night when he switched Monta back into the starting unit when asked why he refused to answer. I give him props form making the move, but I am not going to blame him for switching back because I don't think that is what he wanted.
        Thank you for a good post, and I agree we have to give Nate time. But you're not following the tone of the threads around here. Hell, there's a huge thread about how we should fire Nate. I've said this before and I'm going to say it again. I'm very disappointed with the team and I had unrealistic expectations of what the offseason moves would do to help the Pacers. But I'm also sick of reading hypocritical bull spewed by so many people on here. I posted something that I thought was obviously tongue in cheek (and had a bunch of people whistling after it) but the immediate response is how Vogel has no good defenders and no one expected Orlando to be good defensively. That is complete trash. Everyone thought that team was going to be a good defensive team, especially after they traded for Ibaka. They have probably two of the top 5 to 10 defensive big men in the game. Serge has been all first team defense three times and lead the league in blocks four times, and Biyombo is up there.

        "It's nice when I dive into NBA research and it shows me exactly what I would have wanted to see. Case in point: NBA.com's data concerning opposing field goal percentage against individual players, specifically around the rim. After narrowing things down a bit to weed out the smaller sample sizes (at least 50 games, 20 mpg, and 3 "contested" rim attempts per game), look who's right there at the top: Serge Ibaka and Bismack Biyombo, second and third respectively in opposing field goal percentage (Rudy Gobert, unsurprisingly, is first)."
        -http://www.orlandopinstripedpost.com/2016/8/8/12264192/Bismack-Biyombo-can-transform-Orlando-Magic-defense

        As I said, I'm disappointed in the Pacers and there are obvious, glaring weaknesses. I'm not overly keen on Nate as our coach. But this hatred for our current players and coach and love for former players and coach riles me up the wrong way. I appreciate your post, I appreciate people like Nuntius who will cheer for anyone who ever played for the Pacers. But I'm sick of the hearing excuses for why our current coach sucks and our former coach is great when neither team has lived up to expectations in any way, shape or form.

        Also, I'm just generally in a really **** mood.
        Danger Zone

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
          Hell, there's a huge thread about how we should fire Nate.
          To be fair, only one person really supports that idea. Yeah, others have expressed their disappointment with how Nate's been doing so far but all in all I think that most people are arguing against being fired than for it. And that makes absolute sense since it's still so early in the season.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

            So if Orlando finishes as one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA even though they don't have one of the worst defensive rosters Frank doesn't deserve any criticism?

            And pretty much everyone who hates the Frank firing hates the roster makeup, so if Nate ends up having an above average defense, what do we say about Burke then?

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
              So if Orlando finishes as one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA even though they don't have one of the worst defensive rosters Frank doesn't deserve any criticism?

              And pretty much everyone who hates the Frank firing hates the roster makeup, so if Nate ends up having an above average defense, what do we say about Burke then?
              If Orlando finishes as one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA then yeah Frank deserves criticism. I don't believe that this is going to happen but then again I don't watch Orlando enough to judge.

              Now, about us. It depends on what you mean by above average. If above average is around 11-15 then I'd say that this is our ceiling. Personally, I expect us to be where we were during JOB. His best was 12 (in the year he shared with Frank) and his worse was 19. That's where we should be realistically. We definitely shouldn't be as bad as we were before the Orlando game, that's for sure.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

                Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                Thank you for a good post, and I agree we have to give Nate time. But you're not following the tone of the threads around here. Hell, there's a huge thread about how we should fire Nate. I've said this before and I'm going to say it again. I'm very disappointed with the team and I had unrealistic expectations of what the offseason moves would do to help the Pacers. But I'm also sick of reading hypocritical bull spewed by so many people on here. I posted something that I thought was obviously tongue in cheek (and had a bunch of people whistling after it) but the immediate response is how Vogel has no good defenders and no one expected Orlando to be good defensively. That is complete trash. Everyone thought that team was going to be a good defensive team, especially after they traded for Ibaka. They have probably two of the top 5 to 10 defensive big men in the game. Serge has been all first team defense three times and lead the league in blocks four times, and Biyombo is up there.

                "It's nice when I dive into NBA research and it shows me exactly what I would have wanted to see. Case in point: NBA.com's data concerning opposing field goal percentage against individual players, specifically around the rim. After narrowing things down a bit to weed out the smaller sample sizes (at least 50 games, 20 mpg, and 3 "contested" rim attempts per game), look who's right there at the top: Serge Ibaka and Bismack Biyombo, second and third respectively in opposing field goal percentage (Rudy Gobert, unsurprisingly, is first)."
                -http://www.orlandopinstripedpost.com/2016/8/8/12264192/Bismack-Biyombo-can-transform-Orlando-Magic-defense

                As I said, I'm disappointed in the Pacers and there are obvious, glaring weaknesses. I'm not overly keen on Nate as our coach. But this hatred for our current players and coach and love for former players and coach riles me up the wrong way. I appreciate your post, I appreciate people like Nuntius who will cheer for anyone who ever played for the Pacers. But I'm sick of the hearing excuses for why our current coach sucks and our former coach is great when neither team has lived up to expectations in any way, shape or form.

                Also, I'm just generally in a really **** mood.

                There's no way of proving this now, but I really didn't think the Ibaka acquisition was going to make them any better defensively when they traded for him. This isn't me being a hypocrite. I saw clear signs of decline at the tail-end of last season that have manifested themselves in this one. I encourage you to run that same data set you quoted above for this young season. Now granted, it is an 11 game sample size, but through those 11 games, Ibaka's DFG% is 61.5% , the highest of any big in the league not named Joachim Noah, Ryan Anderson and Thad Young. So maybe he was a Top 5 defensive player at one point, but those days are long gone.

                Look, we're all frustrated. I think most of us also realize that McMillan hasn't necessarily been dealt the best hand by his management either. But the reality is this: We have a much more talented, and balanced, offensive squad. Arguably, we have a marginally less talented defensive squad (and this is very arguable in my opinion). And yet, coming in to yesterday, Orlando had played a tougher schedule and had the same exact same record. For me at least, it's very hard to look beyond that. IMO, Orlando was always gonna be in the bottom third of teams in this conference, and Vogel has done about as good a job as can be done with them so far.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  If Orlando finishes as one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA then yeah Frank deserves criticism. I don't believe that this is going to happen but then again I don't watch Orlando enough to judge.

                  Now, about us. It depends on what you mean by above average. If above average is around 11-15 then I'd say that this is our ceiling. Personally, I expect us to be where we were during JOB. His best was 12 (in the year he shared with Frank) and his worse was 19. That's where we should be realistically. We definitely shouldn't be as bad as we were before the Orlando game, that's for sure.
                  Thanks, at least we now have something to go off of.

                  But JOB was 11th, 19th, 15th, 12th (coached 44 games) - so he coached an average defensive team. Which is why I always point out the bigger problem with those teams was the terrible offense.

                  But thats another discussion. So are you saying you expect us to be at 19th and if we are better than than that we can credit Burke? Then how low would Frank have to go for it to be for it to be a disappointment? Below 20?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

                    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                    Thanks, at least we now have something to go off of.

                    But JOB was 11th, 19th, 15th, 12th (coached 44 games) - so he coached an average defensive team. Which is why I always point out the bigger problem with those teams was the terrible offense.

                    But thats another discussion. So are you saying you expect us to be at 19th and if we are better than than that we can credit Burke? Then how low would Frank have to go for it to be for it to be a disappointment? Below 20?
                    Not picking numbers here (because I look at trends, not snapshots), but one thing we need to take into account is that Frank is in a brand new situation while Nate and Burke are in a situation where one would expect some things to remain stable even though some players have changed.

                    I'd be more with Frank about having this year be a baseline (because we really have no idea where the team would have been if someone else had coached this year or if Frank had a year to work with the staff and the team), while with Nate I'm a little more inclined to look at the change from last year (especially since after Frank left there was such a strong argument that it wouldn't affect us because Burke would make things stable).
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      Not picking numbers here (because I look at trends, not snapshots), but one thing we need to take into account is that Frank is in a brand new situation while Nate and Burke are in a situation where one would expect some things to remain stable even though some players have changed.

                      I'd be more with Frank about having this year be a baseline (because we really have no idea where the team would have been if someone else had coached this year or if Frank had a year to work with the staff and the team), while with Nate I'm a little more inclined to look at the change from last year (especially since after Frank left there was such a strong argument that it wouldn't affect us because Burke would make things stable).
                      Wait a minute, Frank gets a pass because he has a new team? Don't Burke and Nate have a mostly new team? Plus Frank has guys he's worked with before and has some comfort level with a Ian and Hib like combo and a defensive point guard.

                      I don't think asking that the Magic not be one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA is expecting too much from Frank even in his first year, just like asking Nate to be a playoff team that makes a deep run isn't asking too much, even though it's a new team.

                      Comment


                      • Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

                        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                        Wait a minute, Frank gets a pass because he has a new team? Don't Burke and Nate have a mostly new team? Plus Frank has guys he's worked with before and has some comfort level with a Ian and Hib like combo and a defensive point guard.

                        I don't think asking that the Magic not be one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA is expecting too much from Frank even in his first year, just like asking Nate to be a playoff team that makes a deep run isn't asking too much, even though it's a new team.
                        Wait - you're saying that since Frank has Augustin, Rudez, and Watson whom he has worked with before it's the same as Nate having Myles, PG, and Monta carried over?

                        I'm coming from the perspective that was argued that if there was to be any drop off in the Pacers' defense at all it would be very minimal because of Burke. That implies some continuity expectation. To then turn around and eliminate that supposed advantage since it isn't panning out seems to me that it is giving in to the idea that the defense was not Burke.

                        If you are going to argue now that Nate and Burke are in a brand new situation as well then we should probably at most compare how each team does defensively compared to last year, not compared to one another. No, that's not a completely fair comparison because both situations have changed, but frankly (sic) that's an advantage for Nate and Burke because they have more defensive continuity in the players getting the bulk of the minutes.
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          Wait - you're saying that since Frank has Augustin, Rudez, and Watson whom he has worked with before it's the same as Nate having Myles, PG, and Monta carried over?

                          I'm coming from the perspective that was argued that if there was to be any drop off in the Pacers' defense at all it would be very minimal because of Burke. That implies some continuity expectation. To then turn around and eliminate that supposed advantage since it isn't panning out seems to me that it is giving in to the idea that the defense was not Burke.

                          If you are going to argue now that Nate and Burke are in a brand new situation as well then we should probably at most compare how each team does defensively compared to last year, not compared to one another. No, that's not a completely fair comparison because both situations have changed, but frankly (sic) that's an advantage for Nate and Burke because they have more defensive continuity in the players getting the bulk of the minutes.
                          This isn't that complicated.

                          Vogel is in a new situation but given the defensive talent he has, if he is a good defensive coach he shouldn't have one of the worst defenses in the league.

                          Burke and Nate have a mostly new team but if Burke is and was so influential to our defense we should still be an above average defensive team.

                          Both have different expectations, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
                          Last edited by freddielewis14; 11-15-2016, 04:27 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

                            I felt bad for Frank because I felt Oladipo was a perfect guard for him, and that trade, IMO was awful. Olidapo seemed like the type of player who would have thrived under Frank, who played hard on the defensive end, and who is a plus offensive player. And despite my early post, I think JB24 is right about Ibaka. And then you sign Biyombo. Their offseason made no sense.
                            Danger Zone

                            Comment


                            • Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

                              I think it's a little premature to be assessing Vogel, McMillain, or Burke right now on a 10 game sample size. We have ~85% of the season to go people.

                              Comment


                              • Re: George Hill: Pacers Treated Vogel "Unfair" Towards the End

                                Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                                I think it's a little premature to be assessing Vogel, McMillain, or Burke right now on a 10 game sample size. We have ~85% of the season to go people.
                                For sure, that's why I'm trying to get what people think is a success/failure mark for Frank and Nate's defense now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X