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 #33 Pacers vs Nets

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

    Work together? Sure. Ideal for contending? No.

    Also, Markkanen is simply a better player and Carter is 3 full years younger than Domas and Myles. They just have more potential and they already function pretty well

    But Domas is short armed and while he may play the position he's just not a stretch 4 in the sense he can guard the position that well. He's not nearly as long as Markkanen. I don't see Markkanen as a great defender at PF either so they will have trouble defending some teams, especially the teams that tend to win titles.
    They already function pretty well? No, they don't. The Markkanen/Carter Jr. duo doesn't work together well right now. Their rating together is -11.6 -> https://stats.nba.com/lineups/advanc..._NAME*E*Carter

    Domas/Turner on the other hand are at -2 Net Rating, which is obviously much better -> https://stats.nba.com/lineups/advanc..._NAME*E*Turner

    You wanna hear the crazier part? Markkanen/Carter Jr. have logged in 184 minutes together in 10 games. How many minutes have Domas and Myles played together? Only 175 minutes, even though they have played 29 to their 10 games.

    But still, here's what Zach Lowe had to say about them in his latest 10 things I like and don't like -> http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/2...teph-curry-nba

    3. The Lauri and Wendell show

    It has been a rough month for Chicago fans. The Bulls are a mutinous laughingstock. They have a freaking leadership council, and they are trying to pass it off as a serious thing. Can it craft team legislation? Can someone filibuster? Does it have a cloture rule in case someone filibusters?

    Their young core was healthy at the same time for about five seconds before Zach LaVine hurt his ankle. They are playing in mud under Jim Boylen, and jacking a disturbing number of midrangers.

    Their fans need a pick-me-up. They need these flashes where Lauri Markkanenand Wendell Carter Jr. remind you that, yes, something interesting is happening here.

    Get used to that: Markkanen and Carter working a mean double-drag, with Carter slicing to the rim and Markkanen popping outside. Those are their core skills: Carter the inside man, Markkanen the sniper. Markkanen has the makings of a slick high-low, inside-out passer.

    But their multidimensionality is what could make them special -- and unpredictable. Carter will extend his range. He's already a creative passer from the elbows. Markkanen can slice to the rim and bully smaller guys on switches.

    Carter will grow into a nasty defender across almost every possession. Markkanen has longer to go on that end, but he's smart, with a nasty streak. Bobby Portis (also injured -- of course) can play alongside either, if he's long for Chicago.

    Yeah, Markkanen is shooting just 38 percent, and barely shot at all in Chicago's loss to the Nets Wednesday. Opponents are mauling the Bulls when Markkanen and Carter share the floor.

    Ignore all that. Markkanen is finding his legs. The team around them mostly stinks. The Bulls have the skeleton of a really good, ultramodern front line.
    Multidimensionality. That's the key word here. No, Domas/Myles isn't a copy of Markkanen/Carter Jr. But they don't need to be. They possess that same kind of multidimensionality in their game that can make them lethal.

    All we need to do is give them more minutes together. I realize that we aren't in the same position as the Bulls are (they are tanking so they have no issue allowing any lineup to take their lumps) but it's not like the big lineup has been bad together. DC/Domas have an even worse Net Rating as a 2-man pairing (-4.5 in 244 minutes) and I don't see anyone saying that those two should never see the court together.

    And just so people can understand something about Net Rating that could be getting lost in the translation. When we say that a lineup has a Net Rating of -2 (like the Domas/Myles lineup has) that doesn't mean that each time they step on the floor we are outscored by 2 points. This isn't how it works. Net Rating, just like Offensive Rating and Defensive Rating is a per 100 possessions stat. It means that if they played 100 possessions together only then they'd get outscored by 2 points.

    To make the point clearer let's look at this lineup's Net Rating from our last game. Here it is ->
    https://stats.nba.com/lineups/advanc...s&LastNGames=1

    As you can see, it says that in last night's game the pairing had a 120 Offensive Rating and a 112.5 Defensive Rating. That's a Net Rating of +7.5. That should mean that we blew them out in that stretch, right? But it doesn't. The score during that stretch was 18 to 17 in our favor. We did come out ahead but we only came up ahead by 1 point. And that 1 point was enough to give the pairing a Net Rating of +7.5 if it was a per 100 possession sample (which it wasn't).

    So, while we are indeed getting outscored on average with the average lineup it isn't by much. It is a lot less than that -2. How less you wanna ask? Excellent question.

    Here are this lineup's per game numbers:

    Numbers for this lineup -> https://stats.nba.com/lineups/tradit..._NAME*E*Turner

    Numbers against this lineup -> https://stats.nba.com/lineups/oppone..._NAME*E*Turner

    In about 6 minutes per game this lineup is scoring 12.3 points and is allowing 12.5 points. That's the per game difference. 0.2 points.

    And as we can see from the rest of those stats, this lineup is out-rebounding the opposition (6.1 to 5) and going to the line more often than the opposition (3.3 to 2.3).

    So, that's what we're really talking about when we're talking of a -2 Net Rating. We're talking about a lineup that is on average outscored by 0.2 points in limited minutes (minutes that are thankfully trending up).

    Do we really think that this -0.2 point differential is important enough for us to stop playing this lineup?
    People who try to win arguments are the worst. The point of an argument isn't to find a winner, it is to find the truth.

    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

      They already function pretty well? No, they don't. The Markkanen/Carter Jr. duo doesn't work together well right now. Their rating together is -11.6 -> https://stats.nba.com/lineups/advanc..._NAME*E*Carter

      Domas/Turner on the other hand are at -2 Net Rating, which is obviously much better -> https://stats.nba.com/lineups/advanc..._NAME*E*Turner

      You wanna hear the crazier part? Markkanen/Carter Jr. have logged in 184 minutes together in 10 games. How many minutes have Domas and Myles played together? Only 175 minutes, even though they have played 29 to their 10 games.

      But still, here's what Zach Lowe had to say about them in his latest 10 things I like and don't like -> http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/2...teph-curry-nba



      Multidimensionality. That's the key word here. No, Domas/Myles isn't a copy of Markkanen/Carter Jr. But they don't need to be. They possess that same kind of multidimensionality in their game that can make them lethal.

      All we need to do is give them more minutes together. I realize that we aren't in the same position as the Bulls are (they are tanking so they have no issue allowing any lineup to take their lumps) but it's not like the big lineup has been bad together. DC/Domas have an even worse Net Rating as a 2-man pairing (-4.5 in 244 minutes) and I don't see anyone saying that those two should never see the court together.

      And just so people can understand something about Net Rating that could be getting lost in the translation. When we say that a lineup has a Net Rating of -2 (like the Domas/Myles lineup has) that doesn't mean that each time they step on the floor we are outscored by 2 points. This isn't how it works. Net Rating, just like Offensive Rating and Defensive Rating is a per 100 possessions stat. It means that if they played 100 possessions together only then they'd get outscored by 2 points.

      To make the point clearer let's look at this lineup's Net Rating from our last game. Here it is ->
      https://stats.nba.com/lineups/advanc...s&LastNGames=1

      As you can see, it says that in last night's game the pairing had a 120 Offensive Rating and a 112.5 Defensive Rating. That's a Net Rating of +7.5. That should mean that we blew them out in that stretch, right? But it doesn't. The score during that stretch was 18 to 17 in our favor. We did come out ahead but we only came up ahead by 1 point. And that 1 point was enough to give the pairing a Net Rating of +7.5 if it was a per 100 possession sample (which it wasn't).

      So, while we are indeed getting outscored on average with the average lineup it isn't by much. It is a lot less than that -2. How less you wanna ask? Excellent question.

      Here are this lineup's per game numbers:

      Numbers for this lineup -> https://stats.nba.com/lineups/tradit..._NAME*E*Turner

      Numbers against this lineup -> https://stats.nba.com/lineups/oppone..._NAME*E*Turner

      In about 6 minutes per game this lineup is scoring 12.3 points and is allowing 12.5 points. That's the per game difference. 0.2 points.

      And as we can see from the rest of those stats, this lineup is out-rebounding the opposition (6.1 to 5) and going to the line more often than the opposition (3.3 to 2.3).

      So, that's what we're really talking about when we're talking of a -2 Net Rating. We're talking about a lineup that is on average outscored by 0.2 points in limited minutes (minutes that are thankfully trending up).

      Do we really think that this -0.2 point differential is important enough for us to stop playing this lineup?
      One more thing - sports psychology. Most around NBA are confident that Domas is a starter in this league. Sure, for a while he can handle the backup spot, cause he gives A LOT to the second unit. But, if a player will settle down in the backup role - his development will slow down.The player will prepare himself for a two playing stretches, while most starters usually have to play in 4 stretches. It's all about motivation. If a player before the game knows, how he will be used - he prepares accordingly. Both mentally and physically. And what the worst thing that can happen to a young, talented guy in the NBA - minutes restriction. And everybody knows, that for the certain unit to click on the floor - they need to play a lot together in the real in-game situations.
      12-12-2018, 09:20 PM


      Myles Turner during Vic's postgame interview: "Tell you what the East is in trouble now boy"

      .

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

        They already function pretty well? No, they don't. The Markkanen/Carter Jr. duo doesn't work together well right now. Their rating together is -11.6 -> https://stats.nba.com/lineups/advanc..._NAME*E*Carter

        Domas/Turner on the other hand are at -2 Net Rating, which is obviously much better -> https://stats.nba.com/lineups/advanc..._NAME*E*Turner

        You wanna hear the crazier part? Markkanen/Carter Jr. have logged in 184 minutes together in 10 games. How many minutes have Domas and Myles played together? Only 175 minutes, even though they have played 29 to their 10 games.

        But still, here's what Zach Lowe had to say about them in his latest 10 things I like and don't like -> http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/2...teph-curry-nba



        Multidimensionality. That's the key word here. No, Domas/Myles isn't a copy of Markkanen/Carter Jr. But they don't need to be. They possess that same kind of multidimensionality in their game that can make them lethal.

        All we need to do is give them more minutes together. I realize that we aren't in the same position as the Bulls are (they are tanking so they have no issue allowing any lineup to take their lumps) but it's not like the big lineup has been bad together. DC/Domas have an even worse Net Rating as a 2-man pairing (-4.5 in 244 minutes) and I don't see anyone saying that those two should never see the court together.

        And just so people can understand something about Net Rating that could be getting lost in the translation. When we say that a lineup has a Net Rating of -2 (like the Domas/Myles lineup has) that doesn't mean that each time they step on the floor we are outscored by 2 points. This isn't how it works. Net Rating, just like Offensive Rating and Defensive Rating is a per 100 possessions stat. It means that if they played 100 possessions together only then they'd get outscored by 2 points.

        To make the point clearer let's look at this lineup's Net Rating from our last game. Here it is ->
        https://stats.nba.com/lineups/advanc...s&LastNGames=1

        As you can see, it says that in last night's game the pairing had a 120 Offensive Rating and a 112.5 Defensive Rating. That's a Net Rating of +7.5. That should mean that we blew them out in that stretch, right? But it doesn't. The score during that stretch was 18 to 17 in our favor. We did come out ahead but we only came up ahead by 1 point. And that 1 point was enough to give the pairing a Net Rating of +7.5 if it was a per 100 possession sample (which it wasn't).

        So, while we are indeed getting outscored on average with the average lineup it isn't by much. It is a lot less than that -2. How less you wanna ask? Excellent question.

        Here are this lineup's per game numbers:

        Numbers for this lineup -> https://stats.nba.com/lineups/tradit..._NAME*E*Turner

        Numbers against this lineup -> https://stats.nba.com/lineups/oppone..._NAME*E*Turner

        In about 6 minutes per game this lineup is scoring 12.3 points and is allowing 12.5 points. That's the per game difference. 0.2 points.

        And as we can see from the rest of those stats, this lineup is out-rebounding the opposition (6.1 to 5) and going to the line more often than the opposition (3.3 to 2.3).

        So, that's what we're really talking about when we're talking of a -2 Net Rating. We're talking about a lineup that is on average outscored by 0.2 points in limited minutes (minutes that are thankfully trending up).

        Do we really think that this -0.2 point differential is important enough for us to stop playing this lineup?
        Why should we play a pair that would lead to a sub .500 record...when we are.636?

        It would seem that our record would be even higher if they never played together.
        Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

          Why should we play a pair that would lead to a sub .500 record...when we are.636?

          It would seem that our record would be even higher if they never played together.
          Because we can't know that it would lead to a sub .500 record. You can't extrapolate anything out of a 6 minute sample size per game. It's the same reason why you don't use KOQ's per 36 numbers to claim that he should be an All-Star (his per 36 numbers are pretty stupid if you've taken a look at them).

          The pairings of CoJo/Myles, DC/Domas and Reke/Dipo have all performed worse than the big lineup in more minutes (granted, the minute differential is small when it comes to Reke/Dipo) and yet no one is claiming that they should never play together. That's because people generally understand that familiarity plays a big role (CoJo usually plays with Domas and DC usually plays with Myles so mixing it up throws them a bit off their rhythm) when it comes to lineups but in the case of the big lineup people seem to eschew that and expect instant results.

          You can't expect instant results when you only give that pairing 6 minutes per game. It's like bball_nomad said. Units need to play a lot in real in-game situations to develop the kind of familiarity needed to play well.
          People who try to win arguments are the worst. The point of an argument isn't to find a winner, it is to find the truth.

          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

            Because we can't know that it would lead to a sub .500 record. You can't extrapolate anything out of a 6 minute sample size per game. It's the same reason why you don't use KOQ's per 36 numbers to claim that he should be an All-Star (his per 36 numbers are pretty stupid if you've taken a look at them).

            The pairings of CoJo/Myles, DC/Domas and Reke/Dipo have all performed worse than the big lineup in more minutes (granted, the minute differential is small when it comes to Reke/Dipo) and yet no one is claiming that they should never play together. That's because people generally understand that familiarity plays a big role (CoJo usually plays with Domas and DC usually plays with Myles so mixing it up throws them a bit off their rhythm) when it comes to lineups but in the case of the big lineup people seem to eschew that and expect instant results.

            You can't expect instant results when you only give that pairing 6 minutes per game. It's like bball_nomad said. Units need to play a lot in real in-game situations to develop the kind of familiarity needed to play well.
            I'm fine with the Pacers giving it a run. But there is no evidence it has been working. They've had many times on the floor together and while not a ton of time, they've had enough time to get a feel for it. And it's not been proven to work. Again, I'm fine giving them more time on the floor to test it out. But the fact they are two of our best players does not mean they are the best combination the Pacers can put out there especially the way Thad is playing. Fact is, Thad has been outplaying almost everyone on the team lately and he's the PF. There isn't room for Domas and Myles burning through minutes as good as Thad has been.
            Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

              I'm fine with the Pacers giving it a run. But there is no evidence it has been working. They've had many times on the floor together and while not a ton of time, they've had enough time to get a feel for it. And it's not been proven to work. Again, I'm fine giving them more time on the floor to test it out. But the fact they are two of our best players does not mean they are the best combination the Pacers can put out there especially the way Thad is playing. Fact is, Thad has been outplaying almost everyone on the team lately and he's the PF. There isn't room for Domas and Myles burning through minutes as good as Thad has been.
              Thad has been playing very well lately, no argument against that. He has more than earned the minutes that he wasn't earning earlier in the season. That said, I do think that the big lineup has worked a lot of times. Take the first quarter of our last game as an example. We scored very easily inside against the Nets with those two in the game.
              People who try to win arguments are the worst. The point of an argument isn't to find a winner, it is to find the truth.

              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment

              Working...
              X