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

Who Should Really Be Pacers' Starting SG in Oladipo's Absence?

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

  • Who Should Really Be Pacers' Starting SG in Oladipo's Absence?

    While reviewing commentary from the Pacers/Bucks post-game thread, I came across this post:

    Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
    1. This team is still good. My respect for Pritchard grows every game.

    2. McMillan L tonight, but he's been tremendous overall since Oladipo went down.

    3. McDermott is unplayably bad. Give me any other lineup permutation.
    And that started me thinking once again about our starting lineup/player rotations particularly at the 2-Guard spot. Who should be our starting and back-up Shooting Guards?

    Oladipo and Evans made a decent tandum. When Oladipo went down, Evans and Holiday were decent replacements. Of course, things went in flux once Oladipo and Evans went down forcing coach McMillan to shuffle our Guard play around a bit, but since the acquisition of Matthews, I haven't seen any statistical evidence that suggests the Pacers should go away from an Evans/Holiday pairing. The only Guard combination that seemed to work better was starting CoJo at the Point with DC at Shooting Guard, but that puts the team at risk of not having a viable ballhandler late in the game. So, what should the Pacers do to really solve this particular problem?

    I think all coaches want to plug in veteran players at their relative position. So, I don't blame coach McMillan for wanting to test the waters with Matthews just to see what he can do and to see just how well he fits with other players, but forcing him into the lineup so soon can have its draw-backs. For starters, team chemistry can be affected. While I'm not sure we're seeing that play out now, it is something to keep an eye on once games resume after the All-Star break. For the player who now has to ride the pine, he loses his sharpness. Of course, one has to wonder if Holiday or McDoormat were ever truly "sharp (shooters)" to begin with. McDoormat certainly is not, but I liked the energy he brings to the hardwood and his feisty play. So, now if we are to look at all of our Guards who could assume the starting Shooting Guard role, we have:

    Evans, Holiday, McDoormat, Matthews and DC

    Of those five, I'd prefer plugging DC into that role. Unfortunately, we need him as our starting PG. So, that leaves:

    Evans, Holiday, McDoormat and Matthews.

    McDermott hasn't shown me anything that would convince me he's worthy of either a starting or back-up SG role. He just hasn't cut it. So, he's out. So, now we're down to:

    Evans, Matthews and Holiday


    Holiday is still young, but he shows potential. He doesn't shy away from a challenge and he's not afraid to take the (high percentage) shot even if he misses. His accuracy (scoring efficiency) may certainly be a problem, but his lack of courage is not. What he lacks in offense, he makes up for on defense. Still, it's that lack of experience that remains his downfall. Given time, I think he'll thrive. None of the head-to-head simulators I've tried provides statistic when comparing Holiday to other SGs on the team, but a rough review of his numbers compared to Matthews in both player's last two games would suggest Matthews isn't performing any better than Holiday. That may change over time, but the Pacers may not have the time to experiment for much longer.

    It's become apparent to me that this team needs a solid tandum at the 2-Guard spot. My vote right now as things stand would be: Evans and Holiday.

    Coach McMillan: Stick with what has worked for you thus far. If you have to use a Shooting Guard off the bench, I'd go with Matthews over McDoormat. Sit his *** down!!

    That's my 2-cents worth. Thoughts?

  • #2
    Wesley. i think he has fit in quite well and will only get more comfortable. I don't think having a combo of Evans and Wesley ion the court at the same time is a good idea as both are not shy about shooting. So keep Wesley in the SL and bring Evans off the bench.

    I have a completely different opinion of McDermott than most people on here do. Sure his shooting isn't as good as we would hope. But he is still one of the smartest players on the team. Best mover without the ball, excellent passer, plays well with Domas, doesn't hold the ball. Defense is no where nearly as bad as many seem to suggest.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-14-2019, 01:41 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Wesley. i think he has fit in quite well and will only get more comfortable. I don't think having a combo of Evans and Wesley ion the court at the same time is a good idea as both are not shy about shooting. So keep Wesley in the SL and bring Evans off the bench.

      I have a completely different opinion of McDermott than most people on here do. Sure his shooting isn't as good as we would hope. But he is still one of the smartest players on the team. Best mover without the ball, excellent passer, plays well with Domas, doesn't hold the ball. Defense is no where nearly as bad as many seem to suggest.
      +1

      Wesley will get acclimated and fill in nicely for the rest of this year. He's not far off as it is, just needs to get into the offense and hit his shots.

      I mean, I would've been fine with not signing him and letting the Holiday and Sumner rotation to continue. But that's not the way Pritchard went, so I think Matthews is the way to go now.
      It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

      Comment


      • #4
        I love Holiday's potential and his attitude. However, I think against top-shelf opponents and once playoffs begin, he is not going to be ready to help you win now.

        In that sense, I understand the Matthews pick up. And, honestly, I see nothing I dislike about Matthews assuming his short comes around at least a little bit. So, given circumstances I'm fine with Matthews and Evans with the massive caveat being I do not like Holiday now getting no developmental minutes at all.

        I could live with McDermott's defensive shortcoming if we could just find a way to get him more 3 point attempts. Assuming, of course, he made them more at his career clip. But if the only way to get holiday 8 to 10 minutes per is at his expense, I think I would do it. That might mean just going with a slightly larger rotation until right before playoffs.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          Wesley. i think he has fit in quite well and will only get more comfortable. I don't think having a combo of Evans and Wesley ion the court at the same time is a good idea as both are not shy about shooting. So keep Wesley in the SL and bring Evans off the bench.

          I have a completely different opinion of McDermott than most people on here do. Sure his shooting isn't as good as we would hope. But he is still one of the smartest players on the team. Best mover without the ball, excellent passer, plays well with Domas, doesn't hold the ball. Defense is no where nearly as bad as many seem to suggest.
          Well Doug's teammates don't think much of him. Every time down the floor he would be waving his arms like he is open and DC, Cojo, and Evans would look him off. They know he can't play. These guys practice with each other and they know who can play.

          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • #6
            All I know is it shouldn't be Evans

            Comment


            • #7
              We promised Matthews the starting job in order to sign him. We should keep him there until he plays himself out of the starting line-up...which I don't think will happen. His defense has been decent but he shot sucks so far, but he has only played 2 games. He'll have an opportunity to get a couple of practices in over the all-star break which should help. I have confidence that he will get acclimated to the team pretty quickly and he will start shooting better.

              Matthews should start, Evans off the bench at SG for the rest of the season.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I have a completely different opinion of McDermott than most people on here do. Sure his shooting isn't as good as we would hope. But he is still one of the smartest players on the team. Best mover without the ball, excellent passer, plays well with Domas, doesn't hold the ball. Defense is no where nearly as bad as many seem to suggest.
                That is fine but he brings almost nothing else to the table. He shoots a three or a dunk. Nothing in between and no rebounding or steals. Defense? Average at best.
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by owl View Post

                  That is fine but he brings almost nothing else to the table. He shoots a three or a dunk. Nothing in between and no rebounding or steals. Defense? Average at best.
                  Cory and Tyreke are the problem, both of them shoot more than Doug, and they are not good at it. You are right that Doug doesn’t do much else, he is here to shoot the ball, he needs to shoot the ball. Why is Tyreke shooting the ball 10 times per game at 39 percent, when Doug is shooting 39% from 3.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by owl View Post

                    That is fine but he brings almost nothing else to the table. He shoots a three or a dunk. Nothing in between and no rebounding or steals. Defense? Average at best.
                    Not sure what you want the 9th man on the team to bring. he is a serviceable player who helps the offense flow just being out there. Just being a reasonable offensive threat, just being a quick passer and willing to move without the ball - those things keep the offense flowing. The last thing we need with Evans on the court is someone else who has to have the ball in his hands to be successful.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

                      Cory and Tyreke are the problem, both of them shoot more than Doug, and they are not good at it. You are right that Doug doesn’t do much else, he is here to shoot the ball, he needs to shoot the ball. Why is Tyreke shooting the ball 10 times per game at 39 percent, when Doug is shooting 39% from 3.
                      I was waiting to see if anyone would comment about the disparity of touches McDooormat receives compared to Evans and CoJo. Moreover, I've also noticed that the only player who seems to pass McDoormat the ball is Sabonis. No one else seems to look for him at all. I've begun to wonder if that's intentional, i.e., if the Pacers are running set plays that don't include McDoormat, or if players (except Sabonis) are just ignoring him on purpose? If so, it has to be a matter of trust or the lack thereof. If DC, for example, doesn't trust that McDoormat will knock down the shot, I can't say I blame him for not passing him the ball. Of course, you have to also take into consideration DC or CoJo making the right defensive reads. For me, if I see one of my guys camped out on the corner wide open, I'm going to do what I can to: 1) recognize him and make sure my teammates recognize that he's open; and 2) PASS HIM THE BALL! But now, here's the catch: McDermott has to knock down that shot!! And I think that's the biggest reason why he's so often left on an island by himself. He's just not knocking down his shots. So, why pass him the ball when I see Turner, Evans, Sabonis down in the paint and they have a much more favorable match-up and they've been making a good share of their FGAs than the guy standing out their waving his arms indicating "I'M OPEN, I'M OPEN!"

                      Now, I like the fact that McDoormat (and Bogdanovic) continues to make himself available and doesn't always just camp out along the perimeter. But if you're suppose to be our deep ball threat, you need to KNOCK DOWN YOUR SHOTS! So, I can see why McDoormat's getting fewer touches. Why reward him when he hasn't earned the respect? KNOCK DOWN YOUR SHOTS, and I'll pass you the ball more.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yea, I don’t get the McDermott hate. Defensively I don’t even think he’s that bad. If you look at the 5 man groups he’s played the majority of his minutes with, they’ve been very good defensively this year. If Nate didn’t run the pick and roll 90% of the time he’d be way more useful. His shooting percentages are fine, and the fact that he doesn’t shoot much in the midrange is fine too. That’s the worst shot in the game. My only complaint is he’s not aggressive enough looking for his shot or taking it to the rack.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          To the OP’s question... as bad as Tyreke has played for most of the year, he’s the guy that may need to start to get the most out of this offense post Vic. I’d start him and just pray he regains his form from last year. I like Wes, but he adds another non playmaker to the starters now. DC is really the only guy capable of running the pick and roll effectively, and when they switch like last night, he doesn’t have the size or explosiveness to ISO against good defenses.

                          I really hate that we had to hand over the starting SG position to get Wes to come here btw. He’s not the type of player that should be guaranteed a starting spot on a playoff team.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

                            Not sure what you want the 9th man on the team to bring. he is a serviceable player who helps the offense flow just being out there. Just being a reasonable offensive threat, just being a quick passer and willing to move without the ball - those things keep the offense flowing. The last thing we need with Evans on the court is someone else who has to have the ball in his hands to be successful.

                            This is kinda why CoJo and Evans really doesn't work. CoJo isn't a pass-first PG. He and Evans prefer to shoot first, pass second. Both need the ball in their hands to be effective. It's why Evans will probably remain our starting SG which takes me back to the OP.

                            What's broken right now with the Pacers is clutch shooting. Just as concerning, however, is team chemistry particularly at the 2-Guard. IMO, perhaps what coach McMillan should've done was let the Evans/Holiday tandum continue and bring Matthews off the bench in spurts just to give him a feel for how this team plays. He could have made the switch to a veteran Shooting Guard duo after the ASB. There is some good news for the Pacers here, however. Since Oladip went down on 01/23/2019, they're 6-5. The bad news is they're barely playing +.500 ball. This can be attributed to poor clutch shooting and arguably inconsistent play at the 2-Guard spot.

                            I still think their best 2-Guard duo is Cojo and DC, but the risk in not having a viable back-up PG is too great. I'm all for going with a veteran Shooting Guard backcourt after the ASB, but Matthews - or McDoormat...somebody - needs to start lightin' it up from downtown fast!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I don't get why people are saying McDermott can't knock down shots. His effective FG % is .572 & his true shooting % is .606. Both are the highest of his career.

                              I get that he has gone through a couple of cold streaks but so does every shooter in the NBA. If he gets that 3 PT % to or above 40% by the end of the year he will be right there with some of the best bench shooters in the game.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X