Tweet
Re: Post game thread - Double OT Win Against Bucks
You guys are makng my ignore button pointless.
You guys are makng my ignore button pointless.
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.
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
-
Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town? -
Re: Post game thread - Double OT Win Against Bucks
Huh?Originally posted by Dat Dude View Post
For the most part, I think JO recieves his accolades here. Of course, no player is going to be liked by everyone.
I haven't seen where anyone thinks that Dun is even in JO's league. They just regonize that he fits in well with the team and is a decent player, not an all-star.
Also, for what it's worth, I think you are treading on some very thin ice. It doesn't take much "reading between the lines" to get your agenda..Comment
-
Re: Post game thread - Double OT Win Against Bucks
Odeez, please stop quoting Unclebuck. We don't want to upset Skaut any further.......Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View PostYou guys are makng my ignore button pointless.
PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731Comment
-
Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?Comment
-
Re: Post game thread - Double OT Win Against Bucks
The only thing good about this game - after the first quarter - was that the Pacers won. Other than that I felt like they worked very hard to lose a game that they should have won by 10 or more points.
I like RC, but here's something I don't understand: The Foster/Baston frontcourt. Maceo played well, but with both these guys on the floor there was no offense coming from the post. It was a terrible lineup and the only way any offense was generated was by Marquis driving and finding some way to finish what appeared to be an impossible shot. I'm fine with Baston getting more minutes, but he needs to play alongside JO or Murph or Ike, someone who can score.
This was the best game I've seen from Marquis. He was great.
Ike looked lost. I was glad he didn't come back into the game.
I thought this was a game where Shawne could have been used at the 4 a bit. The Bucks were severely undersized and he rebounds well.
For the most part Marquis was initiating the offense for most of the 4th quarter. I don't see why Greene or McLeod couldn't have been used to guard Bell or Boykins or Williams. They blew by Tins whenever they wanted.
I judge bad shots by whether or not I groan when the player takes it. I'll admit this is biased. Last night's count, from memory, was Tins - 4 or 5, Dunleavy - 2, DA - 2, Murphy - 1, Daniels - 1 (I think it was a 3), JO - 1 (a turnaround fadeaway with Reiner guarding him)."A man with no belly has no appetite for life."
- Salman RushdieComment
-
Re: Post game thread - Double OT Win Against Bucks
One thing to add is that, Terry Stotts used to be an assistant coach for the warriors, and that he knew that Troy is a bad defender, so thats his gameplan
oh yah, Dunleavy has been playing hard ever since the trade, imma keep sayin this, "he is playing better with the pacers, than he has with all his years in the warriors"...sigpicComment
-
Re: Post game thread - Double OT Win Against Bucks
Granger is the 2nd best player on the team, not Quis. But Quis makes a strong case for 3rd best. He and Tinsley are close, Tins fluctuates more than Quis does in what he gets done from night to night, sometimes more than Quis can and sometimes less than he does.
The team still struggled to get stops at times and was rather sloppy against a very weak Bucks team, Redd or not.
Buck agrees with me I see.
DunleavyOriginally posted by UncleBuck
Here's why DunDun sat for about 15 minutes or more until Granger's foul out forced him back in (a short list of exampes from the 4th).
1) In the 4th in MAN coverage he is out on the weakside with his man almost at the arc. I think Foster and his man were under them, but Dun was clear of being screened. Ball was on the baseline, I think DA was defending with is back to the lane (naturally) - point is that a pass to the lane was available due to DA's height.
So Dun's man flat out RUNS BY HIM free to the lane and he doesn't realize till he's 3 steps behind. Easy entry pass to the cutter for a LAYUP. That's all on Mike. Zero defense and in this case no reason to have allowed his man to run straight to the lane, moreso with the ball low and the baseline side protected by Foster if needed.
All Mike had to do was stay between his man and the lane, but he got caught ball watching. This is one where the casual fan only sees the end of the play because it was off the ball and blames in on the help defense or something and gives Dun the free pass (which is wrong).
2) He then comes down a within a few trips and makes a terrible PnR bounce pass attempt that never gets past his defender. 6 seconds of offense and it's already Bucks ball, wasted trip.
3) A little after that he's allowed to run through a screen (Pacer teammate makes space so he can follow his man through) and he STOPS to guard the screener for a return pass even though his man is on his way to the rim. Another easy score by giving up a few steps simply on a choice/awareness (not an athletic ability issue - he's very athletic).
4) Right in this same sequence they came down and he put up the quick three 4-5 seconds into the shot clock IIRC, coming off a pass on a hard break. Wild, forward leaning shot misses badly.
5) And even earlier he forced an off-balance drive to the lane that looked nice (ala Fred Jones) till he actually put it up. In that case Granger was there to fight for the board (it was contested, so not truly just setup by Dun) and get the putback out of it. But this is a Dun standard, that twisting drive to the lane ending with a Jackson-esque flip toward the rim that shouldn't count as a legit shot, especially when it rarely falls...basically the opposite of what Daniels does when he gets to the rim.
It was after this flurry of bad plays (and I didn't list everything since I don't have the Tivo on it) that Dun left and was finished for the night till Danny fouled out.
I actually like Dunleavy's attitude and that he is athletic, at least laterally and generally moving with the ball. He and Murphy showed what real spacing on a break looks like and the result was a dunk (man, have I missed seeing a break run properly).
I don't like the fans' attitude regarding he and Jackson and their ON-COURT ability. Again, they give you similar results, period. Dunleavy is the guy for people to defend if they want to know what I felt like defending Jackson. Simple as that.
Thing is, I'm not really anti-Dun either, I'm not saying he sucks. It's just that you have 2 players that are very similar and a core group of fans considered one terrible and the other great. What's wrong with both just being moderately decent most of the time?
Quis
The best thing from the trade might actually be that Quis is getting Jackson's playing time (as other's said at the time of the deal). That's working out very well. The one play of Jack's that seemed unique to him with the team was his baseline give and go with JO.
Well last night we saw Quis run an equally impressive give and go with JO, but this was laneside rather than baseline. That really made me happy to see, knowing that they still have a way to feed the post and punish help and doubles this way. It's a great way to keep an open HC going, even if you can't hit the go man, his run through creates space for other passing windows.
I understand the point, but that's what rotations rather than full 5 swapouts are supposed to create. Dun can some in while Tins and JO are still out there, then Quis can come back with DA and Ike, for example.2.) Marquis needs to come off the bench because if MDJ came off the bench we would have no punch at all with the 2nd unit. Marquis is obviously the key to this team now and I think Rick is learning how to use him correctly. He's going to be finishing every game from here on out, don't worry.
Quis' ability to penetrate is the best on the team, and it doesn't really seem close at this point. That's an ability you want on the court 35 minutes a night.
I agree. You might recall someone starting a Quis=McKey thread even, simply off of what he was doing early in the year. He's the grease for the gears IMO. He fixes those offensive lulls that the team grinds into and does just a little bit of everything to help the team (which is why I did the McKey comparison way back when). It's obvious that the team goes better with him on the court, scoring or otherwise.Originally posted by UBuck
Granger - I think the dude it really coming along. He looks A LOT better than he did in NOV. He's reading the defensive end a lot better, he was even able to stay with Redd on several plays. He's not biting the fakes as much which was a huge problem in his 1 on 1 defense.
Offensively he had been a 3 camper, but he fixed that awhile ago. Still his drives to the lane are stronger than ever in the last few weeks, his initial moves/fakes and ball handling look a lot more solid.
I've been saying that he's improving, but last night (yes the Bucks are weak but still) he looked even better than I thought. I'd seen some flashes but I wasn't sure those weren't just random moments. Last night he rarely fouled things up and was a part of the solution nearly every trip.
The next test for Danny will be the playoff pressure test. If responds well to that this year I'll be extremely impressed.
Comment
-
Re: Post game thread - Double OT Win Against Bucks
This is an RC criticism I agree with. Baston's post offense is just as bad as Foster's. He can't get and hold position very well. He's got good awareness and moves properly on that end, but at some point you just have to have the ability to make it work. He's so freaking long though and can get that dunk.Originally posted by rexnom
I chalked it up to the sudden loss of JO and probably Rick's desire to replace his SHOT BLOCKER rather than his post scorer (no one else does both like JO).
My disappointment was that RC didn't start the OT or 2nd OT with Foster rather than Murph, at least for a minute or 2 so Murph could catch his breath. All 5 guys were really struggling down the stretch and showed the PT hurting their game (JO and Murph most of all I thought).
The first 5 maybe you think "ok, let's just get this win" but when you hit a 2nd OT it's time to get some guys a breather. More so when it's an energy guy like Foster who's been sitting for awhile, ready to outhustle the also-tired Bucks frontline.
I see what you like about it, that's for sure. I'm not sold that it's the best way to go, but I don't hate it either. I can see a plan of attack from Rick and I REALLY, REALLY like him trying to get the rotations and roles settled. Guys play better when they know what's expected of them and what they can expect from the 4 other guys on court with them.Originally posted by rexnom
Dun or Quis starting isn't going to make or break this team, that's for sure. They need to tighten up the defense a little. Not much, sometimes it's damn impressive, but I also saw things like Quis and JO letting a guy drive right between them on a high trap (which BTW just took your shot blocker out of the lane). If you come out you have to kill that space or you are going to look bad (which they did on that play).
Room to improve, reason to think RC will get some of that taken care of, and reason to think that while the team isn't all that hot, it does have moments of inspired play that could make them a decent playoff team if they could extend those moments into minutes.
Comment
-
Re: Post game thread - Double OT Win Against Bucks
Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
I'm not sure why, but that was easily the worst Dunleavy has looked in man defense. As the game wore on, I felt like every play he made was getting matched on the other end. You could see his frustration with it. Usually his biggest problem is floating too far away from his guy (i.e. Mike Miller), but last night it was man defense. Charlie Bell had his number.
Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
I think he looked great last night for several reasons. One of them is the way our team played at the beginning of the game. I saw an offense that I haven't seen much of. Players were rotating, heck, even Tinsley was screening in the lane. It's the first time I can remember Granger starting a game rotating instead of camping on the line. Another reason is that he only took 8 FGA. Most of them were dunks/putbacks/etc. I can't remember if he took any 3s, but there was a noticeable difference in where he was positioned on the floor.
The interesting thing is that I still don't see the aggressiveness he had in the preseason or in the first game. Remember after the FanJam, you could just notice a difference in his swagger and confidence? Against the Bobcats he really went at the hole strong and fast, and I haven't seen him do that since. The great news is that he scores almost every time he goes to the basket, but it looks tentative. Not a bad thing because it works, but I'd love to see that force I saw at the beginning of the season. I feel like he's been picking it up a little, and at the rate he's progressing at we might see it by the end of the season. I can't wait.Comment
-
Re: Post game thread - Double OT Win Against Bucks
Someone correct me if I am wrong......before the end of the 3rd QTR.....did Marquis only play 9 minutes and then ( I'm guessing ) came in and played the majority of his minutes in the 4th QTR where he provided some solid scoring towards the end of the game?
I could be wrong....but is this ( playing Marquis some spot minutes in the 1st half and then bringing him off the bench to play the majority of the 4th QTR to close games ) something that Carlisle has done before? I seem to recall that this has happened in recent games.Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: Post game thread - Double OT Win Against Bucks
I think he's done it with both Quis and other players previously. One reason why I scoff at the "he doesn't play the hot hand". Of course he does, or at least the guys that seem to be the most overall effective down the stretch.
Unless of course he's worked the snot out of a guy just to get the game where it is and he flat-out needs a breather.
Hmmm, I think Granger has already looked a little more confident about his drives in the last 4-5 games. It feels like he has found a couple of go-to moves that he feels comfortable with and that have been effective in getting him space for a decent shot at the rim.
I started to work up his 3 to 2 FGA ratio way back when I was ripping on him camping so much (back around Dec 1 or so) but I don't think I posted it. At the time his highest scoring games weren't when he didn't shoot the three so much as when he simply kept a good ratio of 3 to 2 attempts. When he settled for 3s he actually wouldn't score as much.
When he mixes up his FGAs better his scoring goes way up, or at least at the time that's what the stats said. I haven't checked lately, but I suspect its the same now.
Dunleavy - he's not known as a great defender anyway, but possibly some of the problem knowing the system? Seeing him caught ball watching reminded me of Saras to be honest, and I just haven't thought he was normally that bad.
He's not fast, but for his size he's decent. Outside of mismatches he should be able to get the job done. His game is odd because he often looks fundamentally sound, yet still unproductive. Many of his jumpers LOOK like quality shots, but after seeing him in action game after game you realize that it's not really a shot he's normally going to sink (at least since joining the Pacers).
His defense is similar. Seems like he can be a decent defender, but somehow makes mistakes that create big spacing issues. It only takes a few steps to go from contested to easy layup (as my example pointed out).
Trophy OTOH is way out defended by Foster. I like what Troy brings and simply accept that aspect as part of the package. But watching him on the defensive end should make anyone appreciate Jeff.Comment
Comment