Tweet
I still wonder how Alize Johnson would play if given any minutes at all. The strongest part of his game is his desire and nose for rebounding. Chances are very good Alize and Edmund Sumner will neither ever a spot in any Pacer rotation.
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 guess you can’t read. I said 1 qtr not the whole game. Yes Sabo had a better game but the 4th qtr Jordan owned him. 10 points 10 rebounds! Let Myles give someone that the whole game you will be having a temper fit like a little kid.Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
Yeah it was so bad he had a triple double GTFO .Comment
-
Brook Lopez grabs less rebounds but that doesn’t seem to be a problem. Maybe because multiple guys on the Bucks grab reboundsOriginally posted by vnzla81 View Post
.
Comment
-
Not sure what is going on all I know is I am not a fan of it, but this is the team we have, this is the coach we have & we have to make the best out of it.
Positives are that we have a genuine 23yr old franchise talent in Sabonis & I fully expect him to keep getting better. He is super smart & has an insane work ethic, that's a great combination. We need to 100% look after this one though, put the right pieces around him to succeed.
As for Brogdon I have a theory which is probably nothing close to what is happening, but I liken it a little bit to Turner's situation. He said he chose Indiana because off the role they were offering him (I'm sure the money was a factor) the role as I see it that he thought he was getting was to be our 2nd guy next to Oladipo once back. Since then he has almost found himself in the 4th spot as Sabonis has essentially taken the reigns for the team, Warren has proven himself to be the same guy he was in Phoenix but doing it on a winning team & now you got Oladipo back. I think he is a little confused about his role right now & that doesn't excuse the missed shots or lack of energy on D, but it can definitely be a contributing factor.Comment
-
I do think that one of the reasons why Brogdon is struggling right now is that we're putting him at a spot to fail on the defensive end. We keep matching him up against PGs and that simply doesn't seem to be his defending position. Every time he has faced off against bigger opponents he has managed to hold his own (he did pretty well against Siakam in the few chances he got against him) but against guards he simply can't keep them in front of him. Granted, part of it is definitely on him as his overall play does seem lacking in energy but I just believe that he'd do better if he faced off against bigger players.Originally posted by IrishPacer
Empty vessels make the most noise.Comment
-
Of course we would give up a WIDE OPEN THREE to Joe best shooter on the team ****ing Harris up 2 with 30 seconds to play.....
Also, why any of you would expect Nate ****ing McMillan to have a second sideline inbound play at his disposal is completely beyond me. I'm just received if we have a halfway decent first one drawn up.
This is easily the most talented roster we've had in some time. What a truly sad waste it's turning out to be..Comment
-
Almost every game teams make more three’s, grab more boards, and make more free throws than us. You’d figure we’d have a losing record given all that.Comment
-
This is a big pickle because the Bucks had him guard 2s or 3s because they had Bledsoe. Now do we have Dipo guard those quick PGs or do we stick Warren and cross our fingers? Because I guarantee Bledsoe is going to be too quick for Brogdon on WednesdayOriginally posted by Nuntius View PostComment
-
Here is the problem that some of you see as an easy answer but I'm here to say that it's not as easy as you think.
We have several problems at the moment but obviously one major concern has to be our rebounding. Nobody, myself included, other than Vnzla & Nate thought that going with that second unit as a unit was a good idea. We all suspected or knew if you will that they were undersized and would get killed on the boards and some teams were just going to ram it down their throats. Sounds right, we all thought, and were not happy when we went this route.
Here is the problem, that lineup worked and sorry to say it is still working to a point (in as much as anything is working currently). Let's not pretend that our starting lineup is some massive rebounding unit that is dominating teams left and right. They frankly suck. Has there been a single game in the past month where the Pacers dominated another team in the first quarter? Or better yet how many games have they even had a lead? The bench all season long has had to come in and try and catch up so that at least going into the half we either are close or may even have an occasional lead. But very rarely, if ever, is the starting unit that is doing this.
We all want to change, but where do you change at? Do you bench Justin Holiday? That would be stupid, he's literally the best defender on the team and while the past couple of games have not been great shooting wise from him he is also one of your better distance shooters. Hell he is the definition of a 3 & D guy we have wanted for so long. Do you bench Doug McDermott? Look this is going to come as a shock to many on here but I'm saying hell no you can't bench him. He has been for the most part instant offense this season and is one of about 4 players on our team who knows how to play off the ball. He is the best C+ player you will ever see. Do you bench T.J. McConnell? I will argue that you would have beat Brooklyn tonight if you would not have subbed out T.J. He makes the team move on offense when he is out there and is an absolute pest on defense. Do you bench Jeremy Lamb? Well honestly he has been a starter all season so we have no idea what he is going to look like off of the bench but he was you big free agent get of the summer (remember Malcolm was a trade) so the likelihood of the Pacers benching him is not very high. We obviously benched Aaron Holiday, which honestly I think is a mistake.
Now you can argue and I would fully agree with you that the Pacers should expand to a 10 man rotation and this would give some time to either Sampson or Goga or, Leaf or whoever but for whatever reason Nate wants to keep a 9 man rotation. To be honest I don't know how many teams use a 10 man rotation so I can't say if Nate is out of bounds with this or not.
But the point of all of this is that while that bench unit gives up rebounds and often times points it also usually scores in bunches as well. You don't win half of the games you've won this year without the significant contributions from the (I guess we are calling it the death lineup).
But again I will say this over and over, to me it is not just the rebounding (which I realize also coming from me that that phrase seems odd) it is the overall defensive scheme that collapses whenever anyone hits the painted area allowing kick out after kick out after kick out.
I think, and don't hold me to this, we actually tried a zone tonight for a play or two but then went right back into the same old same old. There simply is a reason why every rim running big in the NBA loads up on rim rocking alley oops when they play us, because our defense is designed to give them that shot. Not on purpose of course but that is the end result. I know I know you are supposed to help the helper. That sounds great but simply put that rotation happens so fast that the wing does not have time to rotate over or better yet if they do what does that leave? You guessed it, a wide open corner three with our wing player scrambling back out to only watch the ball go floating away.
As has been stated before though. This is the team we have and these are the coach's we will have at least till the end of the year (I believe beyond this year) so we just have to hope for improvement. We aren't this bad in reality however the same may be true that we were never as good as we were early in the season either. I think I've already come to accept that we are going to lose in the first round to whoever and I just pray we don't get swept.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
I believe that Dipo can do a good job guarding those guys. Warren has shown some aptitude defending those types as well but I wouldn't like that to become his permanent assignment. Both Holiday brothers have also shown the ability to stick with quick guards (it helps that their Jrue is exactly that kind of player). I do think that we have options there. We just need to be flexible enough to use them.Originally posted by Motion Offense View PostOriginally posted by IrishPacer
Empty vessels make the most noise.Comment
-
Literally just trying to understand what you're saying in regards to the bench, you think J.Holiday, McDermott, McConnell, Lamb (deserves an opportunity) & A.Holiday all deserve time in the rotation?Originally posted by Peck View Post
In order to round it to 10-man rotation with Sampson or Bitadze who is missing out as that'd make 11 guys? Also who would you go with out of Bitadze or Sampson, I really want to develop Bitadze but love Sampsons attitude so I'd go with him & use G-League to help Bitadze get better.Last edited by festar35; 02-11-2020, 02:59 AM.Comment
-
All I was trying to do was show that fixing our lineups is not as simple as people think. It's not just a matter of plugging in Sampson/Leaf/Goga and going. Until about 8 games ago we were actually doing pretty well, however a very large part of the reason we were doing so well is because the bench (which is undersized) often is the reason we were winning games or maintaining leads in games.Originally posted by festar35 View Post
Now if I could wave a magic wand I suspect I would remove Lamb from that rotation. The one thing that bench has in common is that each of them come in and play balls to the wall intensity and I just don't get that same vibe from Lamb. Thus I would enter most likely Sampson into the mix, unless that person was replacing Sabonis for a few min. then believe it or not I would put in Leaf just to see how he would do at the small ball 5.
But this is all folly to even talk about it as our coach is McMillan. Adjustments to offense, defense or lineups is not his thing. Think about that for a min. Do you realize that other than injury Nate has not to the best of my knowledge adjusted his starting lineup for the past 3 years. If he has I can't remember it. I know that consistency is important but sometimes it can lead to stagnation.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
We have a roster wing surplus and lacked the balls to pull a trigger at the deadline to improve the roster, while riding ourselves of the excess... which does eventually cause chemistry issues.Originally posted by festar35 View PostComment
-
Peck might be onto something with the Aaron Holiday benching. I know he was inconsistent, but there we several games, that we would not have won, if not for Aaron playing very well. Maybe teammates enjoyed playing with Aaron? Maybe teammates secretly think his benching is BS, and they have checked out?Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank VogelComment
-
I just sent that question to my colleagues in Toronto, but I would be surprised if the Raptors used a 10-man rotation, if not by design, then via adjustment to injuries. Last night, Quinn was talking about Nurse's willingness to try 'anything at anytime' in terms of defensive schemes and lineups. It drives me nuts to see how they've invested in developing O.G. vs what we've done (or haven't done) with Leaf.Originally posted by Peck View Post
With as many 'pleasant surprises' that we've had this year (my personal: TJW, TJM, early-season Lamb and Malcom, Dougie figuring it out, Tall-iday and flashes of Holiday, The big jump by Domas), we're drifting to one of those existential funks that make us scratch our heads for the next several seasons (god, I hope not).
Peck, I hate to bring this up, but play-calling and adjustments aside, do you think Nate is starting to approach Coach He-Who-Shall-Not-be-Named in terms of player management and development?"I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."
Bob NetolickyComment
Comment