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:
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

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

With the Warriors’ Reign Over, Can NBA Teams Think Big Again?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • With the Warriors’ Reign Over, Can NBA Teams Think Big Again?

    If you’re looking for the moment when the NBA’s small ball era first dawned, Andre Iguodala’s slow-developing jump shot might be the closest thing to a streaking comet. Before shooting guards tried their hands at power forward or the Rockets hopped aboard the Tuckwagon, the Warriors swung the 2015 NBA Finals by starting Iggy and forcing the Cavaliers’ jumbo-package frontcourt to defend in space. The Death Lineup became a staple of Golden State’s offense from there, and the unit upgraded to the Hamptons Five when Kevin Durant joined the party. The rest of the league, meanwhile, has tried to keep pace by appropriating some of the elements of the style that spawned a dynasty the best it could.

    Alas, this week’s hailstorm of transactions brought an end to the Warriors as we knew them, and with it, the dissolution of the lineups that have come to define modern gameplay. Durant’s departure for Brooklyn broke up the Hamptons Five, and Iguodala’s trade to Memphis rendered any version of the Death Lineup DOA. The Warriors’ subsequent moves—signing D’Angelo Russell, Willie Cauley-Stein, Kevon Looney, etc.—suggest the franchise that’s been light-years ahead won’t exactly devolve into caveman-ball anytime soon; they might play even smaller, especially with Klay Thompson, now the presumed starting small forward, on the mend. But the ability to raze any opponent almost at will? That went out the window when Iggy asked to be played off by his favorite meme.
    The significance of that era’s ending extends beyond symbolism. It’s true that numerous teams have tried to replicate the traits that gave rise to the Warriors’ dynasty, but no one team has been able to put them all together like the originals. Shooting is everything now, and Golden State had three of the best shooters in the game’s history for three straight seasons, but an essential part of its dominance was its ability to keep all of them on the floor without sacrificing anything on defense. The Warriors were loaded with players of a similar body type—sturdy 6-foot-8 (or thereabouts) types with long arms and the savvy to adjust on the fly. That allowed them to seamlessly switch across all five positions on defense while maintaining an unparalleled level of skill and shooting on offense. Most teams struggle to find two or three of those kinds of players, let alone fill all five positions with them. The only one that’s come close is Houston, which is why its recent playoff matchups with Golden State have become master classes in modern basketball.

    Playoff games between the Rockets and Warriors turned into some elite version of street ball: If you couldn’t create or make shots, you couldn’t stay on the court. This past postseason, Golden State didn’t even give one of its centers the ceremonial starting spot, going with the Hamptons Five straight from the tip. That was a problem for Houston. Clint Capela is an integral part of the Rockets’ regular-season success and, after signing a five-year, $90 million contract last summer, a huge chunk of their salary cap too. But it was tough to keep the 6-foot-10 center on the court at times against Golden State. Capela had a 5.4 net rating in the regular season and a 13.6 net in the first round against the Jazz; against the Warriors, he had a minus-14.7 net, second worst on the team. Without the same reserve stock of long, athletic wings to fill out the Tuckwagon lineup when Capela sat, the Rockets couldn’t even best the Warriors without Durant at home in the series-clinching Game 6.

    But Durant and Iguodala have now scattered across the NBA map, and gone with them is the lineup that struck fear in the hearts of any XXXL-size player without a credible shot. Which brings an interesting question as we wrap up the transactions and begin to look ahead to the 2019-20 season: Does the Death Lineup’s demise create an opening for more teams to play big?

    The Raptors, with two centers in their seven-man playoff rotation, certainly benefited from Golden State’s injury-ravaged roster in the NBA Finals. And this week, it seemed like some teams were starting to think bigger than you’d expect given what we know about the power of the 3-ball. Several draft analysts have suggested that Zion Williamson will be best used as a small-ball center—perhaps even as a point center; yet the Pelicans followed up the Zion pick by drafting Jaxson Hayes, a nonshooting big man, seven picks later, and trading for veteran center Derrick Favors a week and a half after that. The Pacers appear committed to making the frontcourt of Myles Turner and Domantas Sabonis work, and even drafted a third center 18th overall, while the Bucks gave Brook Lopez a four-year deal to continue opening up a runway for Giannis Antetokounmpo. And the Sixers made one of the biggest commitments to Big Ball in recent memory by shelling out massive sums to Al Horford and Tobias Harris.

    There’s a logic to those moves that goes beyond any possible opening created by the Warriors’ crumbling: Zion won’t be a full-time center, the Pacers need to make it work with whatever talent is willing to stay in Indiana, the Bucks just won 60 games with a Brook-Giannis frontcourt, and the Sixers … well, the Sixers have a lot going on, but atop their list of concerns is keeping Embiid fresh for the playoffs. Teams certainly assess the landscape of the league before making a substantial move, but they also have to make do with the hand they’ve been dealt.

    Even if those teams preferred to stay on trend and load up on the wing, though, they would’ve been hard-pressed to find a viable option. Shooting comes at a premium now. And if you want that shooter to stop anyone on the other end? You better dig deep into your owner’s pockets. Only 24 players last season had a defensive real plus-minus above one and shot above league average from 3 (minimum 41 games played and two 3s attempted per game), and only five of the ones not bound to the rookie scale or unsigned by an NBA team will make under eight figures next season. It took the Pacers $85 million, a first-round pick, and two second-round picks just to land Malcolm Brogdon, a 50-40-90 Club member. The Kings, meanwhile, shelled out $25 million over the next two years just to double-check if Trevor Ariza (33.4 percent from 3 last season) is washed. The 3-and-D wing market is tapped.

    But just because those teams didn’t sign wings doesn’t mean they aren’t after 3-and-D skill sets. Look at the frontcourt pairings for those four teams again—every one of them has a big man who can already shoot (Lopez, Horford) or is counting on one to develop a shot (Turner/Sabonis, Zion). It’s almost impossible to create efficient offense anymore with more than one nonshooter on the floor; the math advantage of shooting 3s over 2s is simply unavoidable. So even if you’re playing big in the frontcourt, at least one of your bigs has to be able to play more like a wing on offense. That’s probably one of the reasons why there’s such a wage gap between a shooting big like Lopez ($13 million a year) and a nonshooting big like Looney ($15 million total over the next three years).

    Still, even a shooter like Horford could struggle depending on how he’s used. I posed my original hypothesis of a big (heh) opportunity next season to a former front-office member, and though they were dubious of the premise, they pointed to the Bucks last season as a possible template for a two-big lineup. Milwaukee created the league’s best defense through the unconventional approach of being selective about which 3-point attempts it allowed and focusing on rim protection; with two excellent rim protectors in Embiid and Horford, the guess here is the Sixers will try something similar. The bigger question will be on offense. Lopez usually launched his moonshot 3s from above the break, which allowed him to get back on defense quicker and play sentinel around the rim. In Philly, that’s where Embiid likes to fire away. Maybe Horford will often be relegated to a corner? But will defenses respect Horford, a 36 percent catch-and-shoot 3-point shooter last season, enough to provide Ben Simmons cover in the dunker’s spot? (How useful the dunker’s spot is these days is another subject.) Are there enough other shooters on the roster for Horford to ever go in the paint without the defense engulfing him like a pack of baby opossums riding their mama? And how does a team of galoots intend to keep up with teams playing at some of the fastest paces in modern history? Brett Brown will likely (hopefully?) stagger Embiid and Horford, but even then, it will take a lot of creativity to make this experiment work.

    Maybe the advantage lies not with teams with more big men, but a team with one elite traditional big man. Rudy Gobert has been dominant the past two regular seasons. He won back-to-back Defensive Player of the Year awards while leading the Jazz to back-to-back top-two finishes in defensive rating; Utah, as a result, has been every blog boy and girl’s favorite sleeper over that span. The Jazz’s problem has been the playoffs; they’ve been eliminated in each of coach Quin Snyder’s three postseason appearances by either the Warriors or Rockets, raising legitimate questions about the viability of a 7-1 behemoth if he can’t step out of the primordial paint.

    But the Jazz have been spurred into action this offseason. Whether it was the playoff flameouts or the Warriors’ bleeding their own blood, Utah has gone to great lengths to diversify its offense. The trade for Mike Conley should provide a much-needed steady hand in the backcourt after relying too heavily on Donovan Mitchell to pace the team, while the signing of Bojan Bogdanovic should create an open concept’s worth of space down low after years of bashing their heads against the wall with Gobert-Favors frontcourts. Perhaps most importantly, there’s only one team left in the West that’s proved it can force Gobert out away from the basket, and it is currently waging a very public civil war while its GM threatens to trade players needed to make the Tuckwagon run.

    Some of the biggest players on the court are still caught in the transition from one era to the next. Several bigs from the past two draft classes have come packing a shooting stroke, or at least an understanding that they’ll need to develop one eventually, yet the vast majority of veterans are still scrambling to remain relevant. A title race more open than in recent memory—as long as Kawhi Leonard doesn’t jump-start a brand-new superteam in California—could lead to a wider variety in approaches, including a pivot to more heft on the court than we’ve grown accustomed to. But the 3-point boom is here, and there’s no turning back; the requirements of successful basketball will be the same no matter the size of the players carrying them out. The next best team doesn’t have to spark another revolution, but it will have to hit some damn shots.
    The Death Lineup is DOA, which means big men across the league have a better shot to stay on the floor. But how much can size matter in an era dominated by shooters?
    Sittin on top of the world!

  • #2
    Just more nonsense regarding the 3 point shot's value over quality 2 point shots, especially those near the basket. A 3 at x% is worth more than a 2 at x%, but the variables are countless, and rarely have I seen anyone actually dig deeper into the analysis.


    • #3
      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
      Just more nonsense regarding the 3 point shot's value over quality 2 point shots, especially those near the basket. A 3 at x% is worth more than a 2 at x%, but the variables are countless, and rarely have I seen anyone actually dig deeper into the analysis.
      Shots at the rim still tend to be the absolute most valuable when you combine their percentages and the shooting fouls they create. But the thing that has made it so hard to build any other way is that the two work symbiotically. Shooters make getting shots at the rim easier, and players who can get it into the teeth of the defense make it easy to get open shots. If you have a team that is only one or the other, they are much easier to defend.


      • #4
        Bottom line is the three has forever changed the game and how it is approached. Shooting the three is King. Players and teams have figured that out. Everyone can hit them anymore at some level of proficiency.
        No need to overthink it or try and analyze it deeply.


        • #5
          to equal Domas' 59% (total) you would need to go above 39.33 % from 3 to improve
          (and take a 100 shots )
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


          • #6
            I think Small ball is an ignorant way to describe what has happened over the past decade. Just because there aren't any traditional back to the basket centers doesn't mean teams have gone "small" The post game is not used much now. But every team wants long defenders at every position. Warriors IMO are not small. The Raptors are not small. Sixers are not small. Pacers won't be small.


            • #7
              What makes it work well is if the center can shoot and guard the perimeter.. that’s why Capela, Whiteside, Drummond and Enes Kanter were all benched.
              Wish we could run a lineup of Brogdon Vic Jaylen Brown (Oubre) Warren and Myles


              • #8
                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I think Small ball is an ignorant way to describe what has happened over the past decade. Just because there aren't any traditional back to the basket centers doesn't mean teams have gone "small" The post game is not used much now. But every team wants long defenders at every position. Warriors IMO are not small. The Raptors are not small. Sixers are not small. Pacers won't be small.
                Not playing a post game is a real loss though and it makes for a much less complete game to watch. I don't see the return of the post game ever happening in the NBA unless there are rule changes that reduces the number of 3 point shots and rewards post play.
                Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

                Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.


                • #9
                  The rules have not changed. Size still matters but not the way you might think...

                  Since the rules have not changed, the game itself will not be changing much. The 3 will remain king. Bigs in terms of lumbering bigs don't belong in the NBA anymore and have not for a number of years. Bigs in terms of being mobile and long and strong remain valuable. Nothing is changing except talent is flying around the league.

                  Honestly, I don't even know the make-up of the teams now. I don't follow the NBA like I used to because it' boring. The Pacers will remain the Pacers and that means they will make the playoffs and nothing will ever come of it. Teams that are lucky enough to load up on talent because players decide to play there will compete for a title. Maybe there will be half a dozen teams each year that are the contenders and there is unlikely to be much in terms of rivalries because players move too often. The league is essentially trash at this point.
                  Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-08-2019, 11:27 PM.