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

Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

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

  • #76
    Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    I would think fastbreak points would increase because were averaging almost one more steal a game and causing 2 more turnovers.
    Raw turnovers does not necessarily equate to fast breaks. Knocking a ball out of bounds, drawing an offensive foul, and so forth all stop the action.

    Even if the steal is in addition to the two extra turnovers AND both those are active (in play) turnovers, that just equates to 3 possible fast break attempts. We might be looking at maybe 2 more points per game?
    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


    • #77
      Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      Raw turnovers does not necessarily equate to fast breaks. Knocking a ball out of bounds, drawing an offensive foul, and so forth all stop the action.
      For sure, which is why I also listed steals. But the more turnovers you are generating creates a larger pool for fastbreak points. But obviously not very turnover will be that.

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      Even if the steal is in addition to the two extra turnovers AND both those are active (in play) turnovers, that just equates to 3 possible fast break attempts. We might be looking at maybe 2 more points per game?
      2 more points a game is a big deal, that would boost us from 17th in ppg to top 10.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

        Well I'm just amazed that last year managed to get more fast break points per game than this season, so far, when this season's team is averaging more steals and opponent turnovers. The reasoning you're giving for thinking fast break points will go up, is already happening and yet what is happening out of it is exactly the opposite of your conclusion.

        Last years team forced 15.2 tos a game. You said last years team averaged 9 stls per game.
        This years team forces 16.0 tos a game. You said this years team is averaging 9.9 stls per game.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Did I say Vogel coached the Pacers and that he should get the credit? No.

          Let's not get this twisted. This is about Larry having another offseason vision, forcing that vision, and then having that vision crumble underneath him before a month is out. Nothing about Vogel. Nothing about not giving the coaches credit. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Nate going back to what they've done previously, makes me like Nate more. Not because it's "Vogel's" but rather because IT WORKS. My criticism has never really been about Nate, because Nate hasn't been the one pulling the strings. The criticism is reserved solely to Larry, because this is year 2 his vision has went up in flames. Hopefully he's learned, and doesn't need to make more needless changes this coming offseason.
          I'm not understanding "vision went up in flames" argument. The offense it's definitely better than last year, and the eye test says they're playing a faster pace. To me, Bird was wanting better offensive efficiency which explains the Nate hiring instead of the stagnant offense we had last year. I think you're over analyzing what Bird meant to fit your agenda. There wasn't one time where I thought he wanted a 10 seconds or less offense. If anything, he wanted to move from the Vogel half court offense of iso and post plays to more space and pace.

          And before you say something about Al Jefferson...I think he's here to help the second unit, tutor Turner, and give us some post presence/scoring if the outside shots are not falling. Also, Kevin is starting to look like a nice pickup.

          If he made any mistake, he overrated Burke's impact on the defensive end, but hopefully that's coming around. If the Pacers are forcing opponents to use more shot clock, then that's going to have a direct impact on the number possessions the Pacers get which impacts the numerical pace number.


          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
            I'm not understanding "vision went up in flames" argument. The offense it's definitely better than last year, and the eye test says they're playing a faster pace. To me, Bird was wanting better offensive efficiency which explains the Nate hiring instead of the stagnant offense we had last year. I think you're over analyzing what Bird meant to fit your agenda. There wasn't one time where I thought he wanted a 10 seconds or less offense. If anything, he wanted to move from the Vogel half court offense of iso and post plays to more space and pace.
            Bird didn't argue for better offensive efficiency. He argued that point totals would go up by increasing the pace, and that it would result in more wins. There's the disconnect. EDIT2: This goes back to what he said last offseason where he talked about scoring 6 more points per game, but giving up two more for a net increase of +4.

            The Pacers have increased their pace to 98.1. That's the seasonal average, when the last 5 games has been under 96.6 (which is what last years pace was). Nate is regressing back to a pace slower than last year, and has regressed the defense back to their traditional schemes.

            In short, they tried running and playing faster it didn't work, now they're going back to the style that Bird didn't want.

            EDIT: The pace over the last 5 games has been 95.1.
            Last edited by Since86; 11-17-2016, 02:59 PM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Well I'm just amazed that last year managed to get more fast break points per game than this season, so far, when this season's team is averaging more steals and opponent turnovers. The reasoning you're giving for thinking fast break points will go up, is already happening and yet what is happening out of it is exactly the opposite of your conclusion.

              Last years team forced 15.2 tos a game. You said last years team averaged 9 stls per game.
              This years team forces 16.0 tos a game. You said this years team is averaging 9.9 stls per game.
              Lol, how is this confusing.

              Fastbreak points will go up because we will convert more than we were earlier in the season as we begin to play better.

              We have more opportunities for fastbreak points, we just weren't taking advantage due to poor play.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

                Pacers pace through first 7 games: 99.4
                Pacers pace through last 5 games: 95.1

                99.4 would rank them tied for 7th.
                95.1 would rank them 22nd.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Bird didn't argue for better offensive efficiency. He argued that point totals would go up by increasing the pace, and that it would result in more wins. There's the disconnect.

                  The Pacers have increased their pace to 98.1. That's the seasonal average, when the last 5 games has been under 96.6 (which is what last years pace was). Nate is regressing back to a pace slower than last year, and has regressed the defense back to their traditional schemes.

                  In short, they tried running and playing faster it didn't work, now they're going back to the style that Bird didn't want.
                  Yep, we have different interpretations. The pace was faster early in the season, because the defense sucked which allowed the other team to score just a quickly as we did. As someone stated earlier, the overall pace of teams are slowing down.

                  I wish there was a site to show how much of the shot clock the Pacers use now when compared to last year. I'm pretty confident the Vogel offense used too much of the shot clock which forced the players into too many bad shots. It wasn't big deal then, because their defense was so good that they were able get a stop when needed. With the current offense, the Pacers are in motion more which is allowing them more and BETTER scoring opportunities sooner than later.


                  Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

                    Any chance our pace is slowing down because of matchups? Orlando and Cavs slowed us down? Klove posting was taking forever last night.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

                      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                      Any chance our pace is slowing down because of matchups? Orlando and Cavs slowed us down? Klove posting was taking forever last night.
                      Pacers pace for those two games were actually lower than those two teams averages, so probably not.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Pacers pace through first 7 games: 99.4
                        Pacers pace through last 5 games: 95.1

                        99.4 would rank them tied for 7th.
                        95.1 would rank them 22nd.
                        And what's the defensive and offensive ratings over the same timeframe? I'm willing to bet the offensive rating is still the same or slightly better, and the defensive rating has taken a big jump.


                        Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

                          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                          I'm not understanding "vision went up in flames" argument. The offense it's definitely better than last year, and the eye test says they're playing a faster pace. To me, Bird was wanting better offensive efficiency which explains the Nate hiring instead of the stagnant offense we had last year. I think you're over analyzing what Bird meant to fit your agenda. There wasn't one time where I thought he wanted a 10 seconds or less offense. If anything, he wanted to move from the Vogel half court offense of iso and post plays to more space and pace.
                          I wish we could say we knew the offense was better, but the evidence is pretty inconclusive so far. This year the offensive rating is 105.5 which is 0.7 under league average. Last year it was 104.6 which was 1.8 under league average. That's a decent bit better so far this year, but they've also played a super soft schedule so far.

                          I hope the offense will at least maintain and hopefully get better as the season goes along as the players get used to playing together, and I think that's a reasonable hope to have. There's nothing in the numbers so far though that makes it anywhere close to a certainty that the offense will be better than last year.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

                            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                            Yep, we have different interpretations. The pace was faster early in the season, because the defense sucked which allowed the other team to score just a quickly as we did. As someone stated earlier, the overall pace of teams are slowing down.
                            Maybe, but I don't know of a single time Bird talked about increasing efficiency, and I can think of multiple times where he talked about upping pace.


                            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                            I wish there was a site to show how much of the shot clock the Pacers use now when compared to last year. I'm pretty confident the Vogel offense used too much of the shot clock which forced the players into too many bad shots. It wasn't big deal then, because their defense was so good that they were able get a stop when needed. With the current offense, the Pacers are in motion more which is allowing them more and BETTER scoring opportunities sooner than later.

                            82games.com does exactly that.
                            2016-2017
                            Shot Clock Usage
                            Offense
                            Defense
                            Secs.
                            Att.
                            eFG%
                            Ast
                            Pts
                            Att.
                            eFG%
                            Ast
                            Pts
                            0-10
                            38% .553 54% 37.0 39% .588 55% 39.4
                            11-15
                            29% .472 66% 24.8 30% .486 68% 25.4
                            16-20
                            23% .498 61% 20.3 21% .483 53% 17.7
                            21+
                            10% .460 68% 8.4 10% .367 55% 6.5

                            2015-2016
                            Secs.
                            Att.
                            eFG%
                            Ast
                            Pts
                            Att.
                            eFG%
                            Ast
                            Pts
                            0-10
                            38% .542 49% 35.1 37% .525 54% 32.9
                            11-15
                            28% .484 64% 23.4 29% .483 61% 23.7
                            16-20
                            22% .492 61% 18.5 22% .487 57% 18.2
                            21+
                            11% .393 46% 7.7 12% .398 47% 8.3
                            Pretty much the same.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

                              Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                              And what's the defensive and offensive ratings over the same timeframe? I'm willing to bet the offensive rating is still the same or slightly better, and the defensive rating has taken a big jump.
                              I know you didn't ask, but I'm going to throw last year's ratings in there too.

                              ORtg first 7 games: 107.4
                              ORtg last 5 games: 104.1
                              Last year's ORtg: 104.6

                              DRtg first 7 games: 112.1
                              DRtg last 5 games: 98.8
                              Last year's DRtg: 102.9
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Post Game Thread: Pacers Make Emphatic Statement Beating the Defending Champs 103-93

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Maybe, but I don't know of a single time Bird talked about increasing efficiency, and I can think of multiple times where he talked about upping pace.





                                82games.com does exactly that.
                                2016-2017
                                Shot Clock Usage
                                Offense
                                Defense
                                Secs.
                                Att.
                                eFG%
                                Ast
                                Pts
                                Att.
                                eFG%
                                Ast
                                Pts
                                0-10
                                38% .553 54% 37.0 39% .588 55% 39.4
                                11-15
                                29% .472 66% 24.8 30% .486 68% 25.4
                                16-20
                                23% .498 61% 20.3 21% .483 53% 17.7
                                21+
                                10% .460 68% 8.4 10% .367 55% 6.5

                                2015-2016
                                Secs.
                                Att.
                                eFG%
                                Ast
                                Pts
                                Att.
                                eFG%
                                Ast
                                Pts
                                0-10
                                38% .542 49% 35.1 37% .525 54% 32.9
                                11-15
                                28% .484 64% 23.4 29% .483 61% 23.7
                                16-20
                                22% .492 61% 18.5 22% .487 57% 18.2
                                21+
                                11% .393 46% 7.7 12% .398 47% 8.3
                                Pretty much the same.
                                Actually, this was right on the money of what I was asking. Thanks.

                                It kinda confirms what I was thinking. The Pacers are scoring off assists more, plus at a higher FG%. Also, Indiana is scoring sooner. Last years shows that they did horrible when forced to use the entire shot clock which could imply the poor iso plays and not looking for the better shot.

                                On the flip side, defense was making opponents use more the shot clock last year, and opponents are using less time and scoring better this year when compared to last year.

                                Oh yeah...if the Pacers can maintain their current offense while tighten up their defense, then they'll achieve what Bird poorly implied.


                                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X