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

Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #61
    Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

    Originally posted by Jay View Post
    You're leaving out FTs. We did this analysis a little while ago and you'd have to shoot a lot better than 35% from outside the arc to "break even" in terms of points. And not many NBA players shoot > 35% from out there.
    True, and you know I believe that which is why I run out the Points Per Shot so often. I was just being simplistic in this case, I was defending having Dun shoot the 52% 2pt shot, not attacking him for the lack of a 3 ball.

    Drawing FTAs is a huge benefit because you not only score but you also pressure the defense toward foul concerns.

    Last year early in the season I ran a chart of Danny's 3pt to 2pt attempt ratio compared to his total points scored. To no surprise the lower his 3/2 ratio was the better his scoring tended to be. Settling for 3PAs only is exactly that, settling. It's a great weapon but I hate the idea of an offense based soley around it.


    I have concerns about the Bird disconnect with JOBs approach. I read into the "no 3s, just FTAs" is that they wanted to improve his game toward the rim and make sure he could make good on it. Then JOB came in and said forget that, let's bomb the hell out of the arena.

    To me that fits much closer with the "out of nowhere" hiring of JOB after apparently courting several other coaches.



    Mal, defend JOB's system all you want, but as I pointed out before his Boston team put up 2150 3PAs one season, which is about 700 more than the Pacers most (worst) ever, the afforementioned brawl season which featured 4 bombers on court at the same time quite often.

    This isn't twisted numbers, JOB's teams have played that way, they did take all those shots that got counted up and turned into a magic 2100 number. Think about that number some more, 2100. That's nearly 26 per game. It was a full 1/3rd of their offense in 02-03.

    Every third trip down court is a 3. Compare that to being 20% of the offense last year, one that featured Danny camping the arc early, Al bombing early on, Jackson taking too many, then Troy specializing in it when he came over. Of course since they were pretty poor as a 3pt team it was smart to limit how involved it was in the offense. Has this changed?

    To meet the previous JOB standard it will mean that Danny will be taking 5-6 from the arc, Troy will shoot 5, Shawne will shoot 4, Dun will shoot 3, Rush (perhaps) will shoot 3, Tins will take 4, Quis will take 2...

    I mean that's what 25 per looks like, it's not a fantasy, those twisted numbers come from some very real, tangible events. If you disliked Jackson taking 5 a night and Tins taking 3...


    MAYBE JOB is different, but he has a history and the current comments, neither of which suggest something different. Why should a reasonable person expect some massive change out of nowhere?


    The 04-05 Pacers team that shot so many 3s had a 36% FTA per FGA rate.
    JOBs 02-03 Celtics - 31%

    But somehow JOBs teams drive MORE than the "pass around the outiside" 04-05 Pacers team?
    Regardless, JO'Bs system was really fine-tuned the year Boston made their ECF run. It turned a career 34.7% three-point shooter in Rodney Rogers into someone that shot 41.1%. Paul Pierce shot over 40% from three (career 36%). Erick Strickland shot 38.5% (career 35.1%). Walter McCarty shot 39.4% (career 34.6%). Even Antoine (only twice ever over 36%) shot 36.7%.
    02-03 - Team 2155 attempts, 33.4% makes
    Pierce - 30.2%
    Walker - 32.3%
    McCarty - 36.7%
    no Rogers, no Anderson, no Strickland

    Walker the year before was not 36%, he was 34.4%. He took about EIGHT PER GAME at that 34% rate. Remind me what Jack's typical 3P% runs and then consider how mad fans got if he took 5-6 on his high volume nights, let alone 8 being his normal attempts. Delk shot 200+ at a 31% rate as well.

    That ECF team "only" took 1946 attempts at a "nice" 36% rate. But their FTA/FGA rate was a poor 29%. That's 1.17 points per attempt that year. Last year the Pacers got 1.195 points per attempt. That's a team that was LAST in the NBA in FG% and they still were more productive than the Celtics "good" year on offense in terms of points per shot used.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-07-2007, 01:11 PM.

    Comment

    • #62
      Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

      Originally posted by Jay View Post
      Who said that? I must've skimmed right past it.

      I said back in T-bird's original JO'B thread that I thought JO'B was a good enough coach that he would adapt his gameplan to the players he had. I don't think he's a one-trick pony.

      However, his Celtics teams DID rank #1 and #4 all-time at chucking up three pointers. And he's inherited the worst shooting team in the league. The Sixers didn't fire up the three as often, but way too often for my taste. And comments in today's article are scaring me.

      Something's got to give, because this has all the makings of trying to force a square 2" peg into a round, 1/4" hole.

      This team, as currently assembled, would be a below-average shooting team if the players all achieved career highs.
      Exactly. Look Mal, you can't get on us for analyzing the possibilities next year based on the past. There is a difference between EXPECTATIONS and HOPES.

      You guys ripping about pessimissism and negative attitudes don't seem to understand this. Pull up the sunshiners post from last season, wasn't I there in the ugly end still hoping?

      But it's not sunshining to ignore reality, that's denial. There is no benefit to having your head in the sand. In fact to me that's fake hope, pretending there are no problems at hand.

      The reality is that if you went to Vegas and had them set the line on 3PA by Indy next year that the over/under would probably sit around 1700, maybe worse. I don't know if the W/L is already up, but I'm guessing the Pacers line falls around 35, also maybe worse.

      That's the reality, that's the view from outside Pacers central. It's not wrong for us to be concerned with the reality that's creating those outside expectations.


      I think most of us, certainly me, have also said that we expect better defense this year. Why? BECAUSE OF PRIOR HISTORY FOR JOB AND HARTER.

      Tell you guys what, I'll talk Jay, JRedd, Kegoy, etc into joining me in pretending that the 3PA thing won't be an issue right after the "optimists" stop expecting Harter to improve the defense.

      Just because he's done it in the past doesn't mean he will continue to do it here, I mean he'll work with what he has which is a fairly awful defensive team....right?


      See, it's okay to expect the past history to mean something if it's a GOOD thing, but if it's a bad thing then it will probably change. Does that really seem like sound logic to you guys?


      It MIGHT go different, it is sports and you never can tell, and I hope it goes very well for the Pacers. But I wouldn't put money on it right now.

      Comment

      • #63
        Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

        Seth, you're depressing the hell out of me.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment

        • #64
          Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

          Originally posted by Eindar View Post
          Are these stats accurate? My understanding has always been that you don't get counted for a missed FG if you are fouled. This means that in that analysis, Free throw attempts are only earned on FGA's that aren't recorded as such. FGA's are basically only missed shots, and are basically not connected to FTA in any way. The only time you get credited with a FGA and also shoot free throws is if you make the shot.

          While I certainly agree that attacking the basket will yield more free throws, this train of thought is flawed in that the two stats are very hard to corrolate, and also that the discussion is about long 2 vs. 3. Most free throws are earned on drives to the basket and post play.
          Its certainly not perfect, but that's why I'm counting it as points per make and not points per attempt because a missed shot with a foul in the act of shooting does not count as a shot attempt.

          Regardless of its flaws, we can all agree that a foul on a three point attempt is exceptionally rare (only a few times per team per season). If you want to be conservative, remember I only credited 2/3 of the FTAs with 2pt FGAs and assumed 1/3 were due to loose ball fouls, technical fouls, whatever. Even if you drop that ratio, the breakeven point is still pretty high for 3FG% or pretty low for 2FG%.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment

          • #65
            Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

            Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
            Seth, you're depressing the hell out of me.
            Shouldn't you be reading your blackberry?

            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment

            • #66
              Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

              People love to bring up the Celtics, while ignoring the Sixers.

              Comment

              • #67
                Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                Originally posted by Mal View Post
                People love to bring up the Celtics, while ignoring the Sixers.
                Agreed. You have to factor that in to your opinion of JO'B, IMO.

                The main problems in Philly, from my admittedly uninterested at the time perspective, were a lack of buy-in from the players, and just having a roster full of the players that don't have the skills his offense requires.

                Did I mention we were dead last in the NBA in FG% last season and he wants us to start taking more threes?

                Yeah, this should work out wonderfully.
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:
                @8pts9secs

                Comment

                • #68
                  Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                  Dead last in FG, but middle of the pack in 3pt fgs.

                  So many people have such little problem assuming Jim O'Brien is an idiot. It's amazing.

                  Comment

                  • #69
                    Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                    Originally posted by Jay View Post
                    Shouldn't you be reading your blackberry?

                    Don't have it anymore. Don't know what I'm gonna do at the party.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment

                    • #70
                      Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                      Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                      Don't have it anymore. Don't know what I'm gonna do at the party.
                      You're going to tell me who Peck is talking about since I don't know who at least half of the Pacer players are.

                      Comment

                      • #71
                        Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        True, and you know I believe that which is why I run out the Points Per Shot so often. I was just being simplistic in this case, I was defending having Dun shoot the 52% 2pt shot, not attacking him for the lack of a 3 ball.

                        Drawing FTAs is a huge benefit because you not only score but you also pressure the defense toward foul concerns.

                        Last year early in the season I ran a chart of Danny's 3pt to 2pt attempt ratio compared to his total points scored. To no surprise the lower his 3/2 ratio was the better his scoring tended to be. Settling for 3PAs only is exactly that, settling. It's a great weapon but I hate the idea of an offense based soley around it.


                        I have concerns about the Bird disconnect with JOBs approach. I read into the "no 3s, just FTAs" is that they wanted to improve his game toward the rim and make sure he could make good on it. Then JOB came in and said forget that, let's bomb the hell out of the arena.

                        To me that fits much closer with the "out of nowhere" hiring of JOB after apparently courting several other coaches.



                        Mal, defend JOB's system all you want, but as I pointed out before his Boston team put up 2150 3PAs one season, which is about 700 more than the Pacers most (worst) ever, the afforementioned brawl season which featured 4 bombers on court at the same time quite often.

                        This isn't twisted numbers, JOB's teams have played that way, they did take all those shots that got counted up and turned into a magic 2100 number. Think about that number some more, 2100. That's nearly 26 per game. It was a full 1/3rd of their offense in 02-03.

                        Every third trip down court is a 3. Compare that to being 20% of the offense last year, one that featured Danny camping the arc early, Al bombing early on, Jackson taking too many, then Troy specializing in it when he came over. Of course since they were pretty poor as a 3pt team it was smart to limit how involved it was in the offense. Has this changed?

                        To meet the previous JOB standard it will mean that Danny will be taking 5-6 from the arc, Troy will shoot 5, Shawne will shoot 4, Dun will shoot 3, Rush (perhaps) will shoot 3, Tins will take 4, Quis will take 2...

                        I mean that's what 25 per looks like, it's not a fantasy, those twisted numbers come from some very real, tangible events. If you disliked Jackson taking 5 a night and Tins taking 3...


                        MAYBE JOB is different, but he has a history and the current comments, neither of which suggest something different. Why should a reasonable person expect some massive change out of nowhere?


                        The 04-05 Pacers team that shot so many 3s had a 36% FTA per FGA rate.
                        JOBs 02-03 Celtics - 31%

                        But somehow JOBs teams drive MORE than the "pass around the outiside" 04-05 Pacers team?
                        02-03 - Team 2155 attempts, 33.4% makes
                        Pierce - 30.2%
                        Walker - 32.3%
                        McCarty - 36.7%
                        no Rogers, no Anderson, no Strickland

                        Walker the year before was not 36%, he was 34.4%. He took about EIGHT PER GAME at that 34% rate. Remind me what Jack's typical 3P% runs and then consider how mad fans got if he took 5-6 on his high volume nights, let alone 8 being his normal attempts. Delk shot 200+ at a 31% rate as well.

                        That ECF team "only" took 1946 attempts at a "nice" 36% rate. But their FTA/FGA rate was a poor 29%. That's 1.17 points per attempt that year. Last year the Pacers got 1.195 points per attempt. That's a team that was LAST in the NBA in FG% and they still were more productive than the Celtics "good" year on offense in terms of points per shot used.
                        I agree with many of the points that you and Jay bring up. I'm really concerned that we maybe trying to become something that we may not be best suited to be. Maybe we won't be taking as many 3pt shots as the JO'B Celtics.....or maybe we will fall somewhere between what the Celtics and Sixers did....but either way...we are going to be taking alot more 3pt shots that I am comfortable with given what the makeup of this team.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment

                        • #72
                          Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          I agree with many of the points that you and Jay bring up. I'm really concerned that we maybe trying to become something that we may not be best suited to be. Maybe we won't be taking as many 3pt shots as the JO'B Celtics.....or maybe we will fall somewhere between what the Celtics and Sixers did....but either way...we are going to be taking alot more 3pt shots that I am comfortable with given what the makeup of this team.
                          Can you elaborate on this? Like I said before, Murphy, Granger, and Williams are in the category I'd call "good" 3 point shooters. If Dunleavy returns to form, he will join Kareem Rush in the "solid" 3 point shooter bracket.

                          Historically, if you look at those Celtics teams which were successful under O'Brien, I think you can put Pierce in the "good" category, and maybe McCarty and Walker squeeze into "solid" territory, but if you look at it that way, this squad is actually better suited for O'Brien ball than the team he coached in Boston. I think the main issue is that JO doesn't really fit into the style of play O'Brien played in Boston, and it's making people nervous that our max contract guy is going to be used to set picks and get rebounds in this offense.

                          It's funny, people were upset when we played a slow, plodding, methodical style, and now people are upset at the prospect of playing an unconventional uptempo style that this coach has had success with. If you're looking for the NBA to take paint remover to the three point line and force everyone to wear daisy dukes again, you're going to be waiting a long time. These days, you either try to play like the Suns, the Mavs, or the Spurs. Looks like we're trying to play like the Mavs, where we penetrate and dish for an open shot.

                          Considering his point guard skillset and ability to finish if not guarded tightly, I expect Marquis Daniels to flourish this year in the Paul Pierce role. I could see us occasionally running out a lineup of Daniels, Dunleavy, Granger, Williams, and Murphy and trying to torch teams on the drive and dish game the Mavs were so successful with two seasons ago.

                          Comment

                          • #73
                            Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                            Originally posted by Mal View Post
                            I often wonder how some fans of this mold get enough joy or fun out of this to even bother.

                            It's because we are hopelessly addicted, obsessed and deranged by all aspects of the Indiana Pacers.

                            Really, I love it when the boys are winning and we have a good team, but I am also intrigued by the business side of it all as well. It goes beyond just the game for me, and I think anyone who actually takes the time to read this thread would be in the same boat.

                            Comment

                            • #74
                              Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                              I think the FG% might be a little misleading, due to how poorly we finish inside. I'm too lazy/busy right now, but is there a ranking for 3P%, and where do we rank there?

                              EDIT: We tied for 15th in the league in 3P% according to ESPN at 35% (they have us at 22nd, but they don't give enough decimal places to verify it). That's not great, but it's not horrible either, and Shawne and Danny, and probably Dunleavy will improve this season in that regard, not to mention that upgrading from Rawle Marshall to Kareem Rush will help. I think it's a little concerning, but it's not the nightmare it looks like on first glance.
                              Indiana .346
                              Lakers .353
                              Minny .353
                              Cleveland .352
                              Sacto .350
                              Clips .348
                              Wash .348
                              NY .346
                              POR .346
                              PHI .345

                              So it looks like 22nd is about right.

                              One other thing, that's with Saras, Jack and Al. But what if McLeod, Dun and Troy were here the full season instead. I'll take out their shots and put in the missing ones from the GS players.

                              Doing that puts the Pacers at .341, which would have made them 27th out of 30 teams last year. They would have had 1233 attempts. Two of the teams still below them, Utah and Atlanta, took around 1000 attempts, less than the Pacers rate last year and certainly less than what might be expected under JOB.

                              Oh, and by the way Utah drafted the shooter Bird apparently wanted, Almond, so they are actually fixing their problem.



                              I don't assume he's an idiot. I guess you thought Rick was an idiot based on your comment. I mean apparently if you just think a coach and his schemes might be a bad fit with the current roster it means you think the coach is an idiot.

                              Do me a favor and own up on crap statements like that. If you can criticize ANYONE in the NBA or even fans without implying they are idiots then I'd like to have that right given to me as well, and I'm sure plenty of other posters would too.



                              BTW, Philly DID NOT GET TO THE ECF. The lost in 5 to DET and 3 of those losses were double digit. I didn't realize you wanted to lean on a WORSE example, but fine, we can play that way. They won 43 games. They "only" took 1453 3PAs at a 34.8% rate. ONLY ONE TEAM took more threes with a % lower than that, and that was Washington. The higher volume teams otherwise shot it better, and often MUCH better (PHX for example). And let me throw out the fact that they also gave up 99.9 PPG putting them around 18th I think, and they scored less than they allowed on the year despite being over .500.

                              A big factor in limiting the 3PAs was Iverson. Iverson took 27% of Philly's FGAs in total. By limiting his 3PAs to 18.5% (his career avg is 17.5% 3PA/FGA) of his total shots he limited how many attempts the team had in total. Even still AI took 338 at a 30.8% rate. That was the MOST he had taken since his rookie year.

                              Meanwhile the good part was Korver who dropped it at a 40.5% rate. No surprise there, he's a great shooter. But the problem is that 74.5% of his shots were from three. Yes, I said basically 75% of the time he shot the 3. The following year after JOB Korver shot only 57.5% of the time from 3 and his make rate went UP.

                              Who else shot the 3 for that team - Iggy and Green. Iggy took 142 at a 33% rate, Green shot 105 at a 28.6% rate. The previous year Green had taken 40 less attempts and had a higher 3P% (about 2% better). Iggy lowered his 3PA/FGA ratio the following year and raised his 3P%, his ratio has gone from 26% with JOB to 23% to 15.6% last year.

                              Consequently Iggy's FTAs per 100 minutes (easier to read this way) went from 7.8 with JOB to 18 last year. By cutting down his 3PA/FGA ratio he more than doubled the amount of free throws he gets.


                              So I don't really see how Philly makes the case for JOB's offense. His guys still shot abnormally more 3PAs per FGA and outside of one shooting ace it wasn't very good. As a team they were still poor for a high volume 3 ball team, and worst of all their ace shooter did NOTHING but camp the 3.

                              In fact let me make one other point about that Korver 75% thing. Reggie Miller only took 56% of his shots from 3 once, in 03-04 when he only took 594 shots total and let Ron, JO, Tins and Al be the offense. He was never above 50% any other time and in his prime from 87-94 he only went over 31% 1 time.

                              Oh, and Reggie typically kept his FTA per 100 minutes in the 16-20 range despite being a 3pt ace. So that plan for Korver couldn't be more different than how Reggie went about being the greatest 3pt shooter ever, despite Kyle shooting it so well. That's been the JOB style up to this point, and he just made a comment about having DG and Shawne do nothing but shoot 3s in practice. Not hard to connect the dots here.
                              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-08-2007, 06:43 AM.

                              Comment

                              • #75
                                Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                                Don't have it anymore. Don't know what I'm gonna do at the party.
                                I won't be there, you're in the clear.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
                                Working...
                                X