Tweet
Originally posted by GizzyStardust
View Post
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
I agree with your lineup/rotation and the TJ Leaf is playing out of position. He's a PF not a SF. Don't put him in a position to defend or shoot 3's when neither are really his game. -
Play Montrezl Harrell. Oh wait we did not sign him for his measly salary{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-Comment
-
Score 19 in the 3rd. That's all. Just 19.
Would have worked last game.
Comment
-
Here in lies the problem. The playoffs are not the regular season. Boston is actually trying now. We have to play considerably better than the regular season and that's just not possible.Originally posted by Mr. Mass View Post
But wait, the bar is not to humiliate ourselves. We should coast into the half and then start working after halftime to catch them by surprise.Comment
-
I was looking at one point in the first half, there were 3 bench players on the Pacers with equal or more rebounds than all of the starters combined at that point.Originally posted by owl View PostComment
-
Well game 2 is now in the books and we all know the result. So let's look and see what we covered and what we didn't.
He fell one short of my request for 7 rebounds. On the one hand he did grab more than he did in game one but once again he was part of the pathetic front court that allowed our team to get smoked once again on the boards. Also here is a clue for Nate to maybe someday learn. There is a reason why Thad is always the one left open for the three point shot. Not saying he should never take it but five for him in a game when he only hits one is a little much. Honestly he didn't have a bad game but he didn't have a great game either.Thad Young must grab more rebounds than our backup shooting guard. Simply put when we are getting smoked on the boards by a total of 13 (they actually got it down from 18) you can not have your power forward rebounding as though he were a point guard. 5 steals were great and that chasedown block was inspiring but it meant nothing because he would not or could not rebound. For us to do anything he has to grab a minimum of 7 rebounds. Hell Myles grabbed 8 so there really is no reason for him not to be able to.
Bojan scored tonight so this was somewhat a moot point but he did just have a better all around game as well, he had one less rebound than our starting power forward and center combinedBojan must not turn into Doug McDermott. What does that mean? Well if your not going to be able to score, which the Celtics have him bottled up, then for Gods sake do something else. How about grab more than two rebounds or pass for 1 assist. 2 steals were nice but I am pretty sure both of them came in garbage time along with 7 of his 12 points. I understand he is frustrated because Stevens obviously has scouted him well and has game planned him right out of existence. Let's see if he can adjust to their adjustments and score more, but if not get involved in other aspects of the game.
BTW that is not really meant to be a compliment to Bojan.
Pathetic. I know some are going to admonish me about what a great third quarter he had chasing down blocks and being a rim protector and yes he was superb in that span of time. Other than that? How the **** can you be a starting caliber NBA Center and play 32 minutes and grab 3 rebounds? 8 points and 3 rebounds and to so many people this guy is untouchable. We ran Roy Hibbert out of town for games like this but Myles just gets pass after pass.Myles Turner has to be involved in the offense. I don't know in what capacity but there is just a part of me that does not believe that Baynes can guard him if he gets going. But to get going he has to shoot. A lot of that is on Nate to work some plays to get him some offense but a lot of it is also on Myles. He can not just pass up open shots and he really can not not drive to the rim when the only player between him and the rim is Terry Rozier. I watched Jarett Allen the other night and to be honest I've never really thought much about him, I think his shot blocking is over rated and he just didn't have the size Myles has. However the more I watched him the more I realized just how much more active he is than Myles. He is always moving on offense, always working to get a lob pass or a tip back and he was attacking the offensive boards with a vengeance. Myles has the bigger body, Allen has the higher motor. Myles needs some of that if we are going to win even one game. I appreciate the 8 rebounds, I really do. Let's shoot for 10 this game and if not that I'll accept 8 if you can maybe score in double figures.
He at least shot better. I don't know I can't really look at his game tonight and tell you exactly why I hated it but for some reason I did. I guess I just do not feel he has any real ability to lead an offense. I mean maybe its not his fault because either our coach can't give him good plays to run or we don't have good enough players to run the plays or both but it just seems we get a lot of him dribbling out the clock to take a 25' jumper over some big who he believes he can score on.Darren Collison can't be what he was that first game. Honest to God he was pitiful and it wasn't just the shooting. I get guarding Irving is a tough task, which he is sharing with Mathews, but you have to make him spend some energy guarding you as well. Shooting 27% from the field is not going to get that done. We wont' win another quarter let alone game if he doesn't make a dramatic comeback.
Myles Turner had a bad game, Domontas Sabonis said "hold my beer". What a dumpster fire this playoff series has been for him. Stevens must be even a better coach than I thought because they have completely taken Sabonis out of this series. 1 point and 5 rebounds in 22 min. It's great that he got 5 assists but much like Turners shot blocking that only goes so far. He got up one shot and I wish he hadn't taken it because it was embarrassing. The one thing we have been able to count on all season long was that our Center position typically has either had the upper hand or at least held its own. Not this series. This has been painful watching both of them and as bad as I hate to say it Myles has actually had the better series so far (that is not praise btw)Sabonis is going to have to also not suck. Bad passes, poor defense, poor shot selection. Good rebounding though. Look if this is the best he is going to be this series we might as well pack it in. But I have faith in him. So what we need from him is really just a good solid game with double double production. Probably going to need 18 points from him as well because if he can get going down low that will hopefully open up some shots for other players as well and he is good at hitting shots.
Well at least he still shot it well enough hitting 50% from the field. He played solid if not spectacular defense. He had not turnovers however he had no assist either. Just a meh game really.Cory Joseph just needs a repeat of game one really. Good shooting, decent defense and no turnovers. If he gives us this game again and everybody else improves even a little then we stand a chance to at least not be the laughing stocks of this playoffs, hopefully that can be Detroit (sorry Kstat & Shags).
Well honestly he exceeded my expectation really. He had one less point but his shooting % was amazing at 56% with 75% from behind the arc. He also grabbed 7 rebounds and made an effort on defense. In this game how Wes Mathew played one more minute than he did is baffling to me. Honestly he still has his issues but you really can't lay this loss at his doorstep.Tyreke Evans, well the best thing I can say is that he out rebounded Thad, which isn't saying much. If he is going to shoot 27% then we can't play him, period. Every single minute should go to Holliday or hell even Sumners at this point. But if we are looking for positives here then Tyreke can become an unstable molecule and get to the rim, draw fouls and score. If he can give you 14 points on 45% shooting then that might change up the Boston defense at least some.
Now to other issues and sadly this is in order.
Well he tried Aaron Holiday for a whole 5 minutes so I guess I'm obligated to say he did adjust his rotation, at least some. Of course Leaf was cut out but I guess one young player at a time is all we can expect from Nate. Look I don't know really who to blame for that disaster of an out of bounds play. I don't know if Myles missed a screen he was supposed to set or if Bojan cut when he was suppose to flair out or if Wes just made a horrid pass (for all I know it was all three things). But if this was a new play that they hadn't been practicing during the season then that's a coaching error. You might actually wonder about the wisdom of doing a cross court pass against a team of quick wing players but hey no guts no glory. Was the inevitable collapse on Nate? No not really other than to say he is not the most creative offensive coach, he is also not good at in game adjustments either. But at the end of the day the players are the ones missing the shots, not rebounding the ball and losing their man on defense. Look we just have to live with this, because like him or hate him Nate McMillan will be here next season and probably beyond that because he is in with KP.Nate is going to have to adjust the strategy at least some. We all know he is not adjusting his lineups so the best we can pray for is that he somehow between Sunday and tonight realized that there are more offensive sets than a high pick and roll. At least I've read somewhere that there were I haven't seen any in years so I kind of forget what they look like. Now what completely deflates my hopes of this are the quotes I've read from him yesterday when asked about what adjustments we were going to make he said the following. "We gotta play through the contact" then in another interview I saw he literally said "stay the course". I get that you work with what you have, I get that you don't panic and change everything after one loss (a putrid one but still just one). But at some point in time you have to be willing to do something even anything when nothing is working. That third quarter was not an anomaly for the team, its really kind of our thing here in the second half of the season. So to even have a remote chance to win if we are getting the same lack of offense again, try some different players after awhile. Adjust the rotations. That starting five was not handed to Moses on a table from God. If you need to start the second half with Joseph instead of Collison do it. If maybe you can get more offense by pairing up Thad and Domantas do it. Stop sticking to the literally self imposed restrictions we have placed on ourselves. And yes if for some reason you need a spark and Tyreke isn't getting it done then yes try Aaron Holiday with some real (not garbage time) minutes.
We didn't but it wouldn't have mattered. Because when 3 of your 5 starters don't even attempt a free throw shot and you only do 10 in an entire game you know that either you are being screwed by the refs (we weren't because Boston only shot 9) or you are settling for jump shot after jump shot, which we always do.Hit your
freethrows
Bonus Discussion points: Tonight we are going to talk about 2. Once again eagle eye McDermott shot a whopping 33% from the field which btw is more than a doubling of his field goal % on Sunday while shooting 0% from three. As a reminder this was the guy we signed at the stroke of midnight because he was going to help solve our shooting woes. BTW the one basket he made was because Sabonis hit him with one of the greatest passes you will ever see a center hit. Montrez Harrell signed a two year 12 million dollar contract. We signed this guy for 3 years at 22 million. Now your going to say we had centers and we needed shooting. I'm going to retort we needed energetic athletic players who can score. Last years off season was a disaster, I said it then and I'll continue to say it.
Second topic. What would you say Wes Matthews does here? Can this guy even hit a shot if its not a three pointer? I mean watching him in the painted area is painful. I see he plays hard nosed defenses but man this guy just does not deserve to have a guaranteed starting spot on any team where there is not a superstar driver who can kick it out to him for the occasional three.
As to the game itself. I'm not sure if we can or cannot call this a humiliation. On the one hand we played hard and even had chances to maybe win. On the other hand we literally lost the game by not being able to score at the end of the game for long periods of time and had three of the dumbest plays you will ever see. You pick if it was or wasn't I don't really know or even care. Well onto game three.Last edited by Peck; 04-18-2019, 02:29 AM.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
I'm expecting some bounce back at home from Myles and Domas. They have been thoroughly worked over thus far in the series. Baynes and Horford are both superior to Myles and Domas in terms of strength, length, and agility in comparing the two tandems. Myles is long, but not as strong or agile. Domas is strong and agile, but really lacks length and lift. Hence a significant reason for the Celtics physical domination. This does raise questions for me about our duo's long-term ceiling/impact. You add the physicality/athleticism issue to their relative one-dimensional offensive arsenals, and it makes me wonder if they can aspire to anything more than solid role players - Myles being a 4th or 5th starter on a good team and Domas as a backup C.I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano ZapataComment
-
Brad Stevens is a very good coach, but I'm actually genuinely disappointed in our centers in this series. Some blame to Nate maybe, but honestly I think a lot of it falls back on Myles and Domas. Completely neutralized by Boston.Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
Which is a shame because I really was optimistic this could be the future. It ain't over yet but there are serious, serious doubts if they can be gameplanned-out so easily.Comment
-
Agree. Expect a big bounce back homestand for the two of them, or at least one a night. I recall Domas sort of did this last year, for some reason. He was a non-factor against the Cavs the first couple of games and then started to come on strong.Originally posted by D-BONE View PostComment
-
Regarding Darren, he's turned into a really savvy vet and seems to bring a lot of leadership qualities to the team. It's been nice to see his game mature over the course of his career. I disagree with you Peck and believe that he can run an offense and he's fairly adept and patient at executing a pick and roll.
That said, he's looking older with each passing month. He still has speed in bursts (we saw him try to chase down a loose ball in Atlanta, for example), but he has a much harder time beating defenders off the dribble than he used to. He needs his shot to be falling to keep the defense honest. Also, he tends to initiate the offense far too slowly at times. You could even see Nate getting on him yesterday to advance the ball quicker That's why it's such a breath of fresh air to see Holiday out there because he gets up and down so quickly. That's an aspect of our offense we have badly missed without Vic.Comment
-
I think some things are becoming very clear for the Pacers. Frankly Myles and Domas are being exposed. Myles has some offensive game but please man up and take those open shots.
I think part of this is Nate. He wanted Myles concentrating only on defense to the neglect of his offense. He needs to not care if he misses one or two.
In any case I am one more lousy game away from starting over or trading everyone but VO for a one year rental of Anthony Davis and see what happens.
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-Comment
-
Sorry dude, Turner will never be the offensive threat he is capable of being as long as Nate is coaching this team. Same with Domas. Nates system simply isn't built to maximize offensive production from the bigs. Both Turner and Domas are capable of hitting the Pick n Pop elbow jumper at a high clip, yet how many times a game do you see the Pacers actively try and run that play?Originally posted by owl View PostYou can't get champagne from a garden hose.Comment
-
Collison is a better player than the last go-round. But look at his performance in the playoffs. He tallied 3 assists in 33 minutes. That's just bad for a guy with the ball in his hands most of the time. He scored 13 points. I guess that's OK. But his numbers are down from the regular season (as usual).Originally posted by GizzyStardust View Post
The fact is, he is one of the worst starting PG's the Pacers have ever had. No offense to him. He might be better than Cory Joseph, CJ Watson and the army of so-so PG's the Pacers have dressed over the years....but he's not a good starting PG and regardless of our regular season record he isn't taking the team anywhere in the playoffs. The reason he looks decent is that the other options are worse.
....and to your point, yes he's getting old and small old PG's don't work well in the NBA. It's only getting worse for him.Comment
-
This matches my perception almost exactly. Nate was a guard in the NBA, who played in the 80's and 90's when big men were almost never featured in the offense and certainly never outside of the paint. He coaches like it's still the 80's or 90's. He was on tape referring to Myles Turner's three point shot as a "crutch" which hoped to prevent him from relying on. At this point in McMillan's career, he's proven to be a capable head coach but not one capable of helping a team take the next step. In his coaching career, he's never taken a team past the Conference Semis, which he only has one appearance in, 6 first round losses and 6 Did Not Qualifies. I really don't see him as the coach to take this (or any team) to the promised land.Originally posted by graphic-er View PostComment
Comment