Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Post game #48 Pacers vs Spurs

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post

    Wow thats actually pretty impressive, so the question is....why isn't it translating into wins.....
    Because the price for that defensively is that they give up the most attempted shots at the rim and they also foul a lot. They allow a league low FG% at the rim which helps quite a bit, but the fact that teams get there so often is still a problem.

    The offense though is a little bigger of a problem. The biggest issue on offense is that the Pacers don't get to the free throw line very often. Since they don't do anything else exceptional (they are average at taking care of the ball, they don't offensive rebound, and they are pretty average at 3 as well), that doesn't leave them with anything to hang their hat on offensively, which is why they are a little below average on offense.

    Comment


    • #62
      Anyone know the record of the Pacers are when TJM starts?

      U have to wonder whether the Pacers would benefit from starting a legit PG ( like a TJM "pass first PG" ). You can then run him with Brogdon and Lavert as secondary and tertiary ball handlers that can help move the ball and find scoring opportunities.
      Last edited by CableKC; 04-05-2021, 04:36 PM.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post

        I wouldn't trade Sabonis. No way! I'd keep him with the understanding that the Turner/Sabonis pairing as starters can't work.

        Sabonis is a very active player. He plays like a Center but doesn't have the body size. But I love his aggressiveness. He's just not a shot blocker. So, in reality he's a PF, not a Center. Turner, on the other hand, plays like a PF, not a Center and he lacks the big body of a Center but he has the ability to stretch the floor with his 3-pt shooting yet is definitely a rim protector. In t hat regard, Turner reminds me of Jermaine O'Neal in many respects. That said, I've never considered Turner to be a Center but rather a stretch-Forward.

        With the above understanding, I'd keep Sabonis but bring him off the bench as was the case in the past coming into this season. The experiment is over. Go back to what worked!
        So you would put an all-star on the bench? Sabonis probably wouldn’t be very happy about that. You are also paying $18-19 million for a bench player. Pacer management and ownership would not be very happy about that. Then what happens to Goga? In my opinion he will be better than Turner or Sabonis in a couple of years if we give him minutes so he can develop
        ​​​​​​.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post

          I wouldn't trade Sabonis. No way! I'd keep him with the understanding that the Turner/Sabonis pairing as starters can't work.

          Sabonis is a very active player. He plays like a Center but doesn't have the body size. But I love his aggressiveness. He's just not a shot blocker. So, in reality he's a PF, not a Center. Turner, on the other hand, plays like a PF, not a Center and he lacks the big body of a Center but he has the ability to stretch the floor with his 3-pt shooting yet is definitely a rim protector. In t hat regard, Turner reminds me of Jermaine O'Neal in many respects. That said, I've never considered Turner to be a Center but rather a stretch-Forward.

          With the above understanding, I'd keep Sabonis but bring him off the bench as was the case in the past coming into this season. The experiment is over. Go back to what worked!
          Pretty sure Domas started last year. Also, moving your two-time All Star making 20 million back to the bench is a pretty expedient way to get him to demand a trade.

          Comment


          • #65
            This team need talent. Sabonis is on a super friendly contract given his production. The only way that u trade him is for a Godfather deal.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Pacers defense is still first in the NBA in deflections and has moved to second in the NBA in fewest three point attempts for opponent.
              Does anyone know where to find what percentage we’re allowing teams to score from midrange (and at what frequency)?

              Cubs already mentioned us allowing more attempts at the rim (albeit at a lower percentage) and you would think that, with a “rim deterrent” big down low, that teams would theoretically shoot between these two areas.
              I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                This team need talent. Sabonis is on a super friendly contract given his production. The only way that u trade him is for a Godfather deal.
                Or pair him with another large contract.

                If we could pair Sabonis and Brogdon for an alpha like Beal, I’d absolutely do it.
                I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

                  Because the price for that defensively is that they give up the most attempted shots at the rim and they also foul a lot. They allow a league low FG% at the rim which helps quite a bit, but the fact that teams get there so often is still a problem.
                  And a big reason why allowing so many attempted shots at the rim is a problem is that it leads to more offensive rebounding opportunities for the opponents. We are allowing 10.3 Opponent Offensive Rebounds per game which puts us at the 26th spot, with only 4 teams allowing more (GSW, Charlotte, Sacramento and Washington) and 2 more teams allowing the same number (Atlanta and Minny) -> https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/oppo...OPP_OREB&dir=1

                  We've all seen this happen a number of times. A perimeter player gets loose for a drive, a big contests the shot and forces the miss and then that big's man grabs the board and puts it back in because no one helped the helper. And even when we do help the helper, our wings are pretty small and none of them is good as a rebounder so the opponents will grab boards over them.

                  Our defensive scheme under Vogel and Burke also dared defenders to drive and meet our rim protectors but it was much more solid than our current defense is. Under that scheme, our guards shadowed defenders to prevent kick-out passes and the wing defenders helped the helper much more consistently and they were also big and athletic enough to bump down on bigs and grab boards. Our current scheme lacks all that and it has opted to attack the ball early and aggressively. Sometimes it works but a lot of other times, it just causes massive breakdowns and allows for easy penetration.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by indyman37 View Post

                    Does anyone know where to find what percentage we’re allowing teams to score from midrange (and at what frequency)?
                    NBA.com has the answer you're looking for -> https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/oppo...ange=By%20Zone

                    As Cubs pointed out, we allow the most shots in the restricted area with 31.1 such attempts per game. Opponents are shooting 60.6% on these shots which is the third best mark after Cleveland (59.8%) and New York (60.1%).

                    We also allow 14.9 shots in the paint but outside the restricted area. That puts us around 10th best (Washington allows the most with 22, New York and Charlotte are tied for allowing the least at 11.4) in that category. Our opponents are shooting 45.5% from that range, though, which is a pretty good mark. Only 4 teams (Cleveland, Washington, Chicago and Memphis) allow a higher percentage than us.

                    As for midrange shots, we seem to be pretty middle of the road. We allow 11.5 midrange shots per game which has us tied for 14th along with Dallas and Brooklyn. Our opponents are shooting 37.7% from that area which is actually pretty good for us. Only 4 teams (Philadelphia, New Orleans, Charlotte and Golden State) allow a lower percentage than us.

                    I don't think that midrange shots play that big of a deal. Teams have generally moved away from them and most of them are not taking enough shots from there anymore to change the way you play defense. I think that what is still troubling our defense (other than the issues I mentioned above in my reply to Cubs) is our 3-point defense. Unclebuck is right when he says that we've generally done a much better job at running teams off the 3-point line as we are indeed allowing the 3rd least 3s in the league -> https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/oppo...rt=FG3A&dir=-1

                    The problem is that opponents are shooting 37.6% in those attempts. Only 7 teams allow their opponents to shoot a better percentage than that. Those teams are Sacramento, Minnesota, New Orleans, Cleveland, Washington, San Antonio and Detroit. If you take a look at these names, you'll realize that San Antonio is the only team in that bottom 8 that has a record above .500. And even in their case, they're only 1 game above .500. If you look at the teams that round out this bottom 10 (Milwaukee and Toronto) you'll see that Milwaukee is there as well so there is at least 1 very good team in that bottom 10 but, still, the majority of the teams in that bottom 10 aren't very good (and that, sadly, includes us at the moment).

                    Giving up a good percentage from 3 is a death sentence in this league and we need to improve in that area.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by indyman37 View Post

                      Does anyone know where to find what percentage we’re allowing teams to score from midrange (and at what frequency)?

                      Cubs already mentioned us allowing more attempts at the rim (albeit at a lower percentage) and you would think that, with a “rim deterrent” big down low, that teams would theoretically shoot between these two areas.
                      There are probably several different sources for the information. But NBA.com has it under stats, teams, opponents shooting. It breaks it down.

                      Pacers allow the most attempts per game inside 5 feet 33.7 per game - but only three teams allow a lower % makes for those shots.

                      Pacers don't allow a lot of shots from 5-9 feet - - only 6 teams allow fewer of those shots. However only 7 teams allow a higher shooting % on those shots.

                      Pacers are 18th in allowed shots from 10-14 ft. and are 11th worst allowing shooting %.

                      Pacers are 13th in allowed shots 15-19 feet


                      To me the stats appear to suggest Pacers defense is designed to chase three point shooters away from taking threes - not to just challenge the shot but to make them pass or dribble inside the line. Beyond that they funnel everything to Turner
                      Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-05-2021, 09:11 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post

                        Goga has been really good as the back up big so far this year. He started out in the dog house I think just because he got injured early on in camp. But he has been pretty healthy since he started logging regular minutes. I look at Goga projecting out a couple years from now as being a Jeff Foster or Mahinmi with a 3pt shot. He is gonna be physical, set really good picks, rebound, rim run, block some shots here and there, and knock down an open 3.

                        From what i've seen, when he is playing with the bench guys - he has really good instincts. When he ends up out there with the starters he puckers up a bit probably trying to not to make mistakes or get in the way.
                        Not a bad comp. Goga has infinitely better hands and he's more skilled offensively than either of those guys though IMO. He's probably not gonna be on Domas' level as a scorer and facilitator, but I think he'll be a guy that can be a key cog in a good offense.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          I really liked what imawhat said about how Goga is better than at least one of our bigs on any given skill. Which presents an interesting opportunity to choose a direction for the future.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            [QUOTE=Nuntius;n3575078]

                            And a big reason why allowing so many attempted shots at the rim is a problem is that it leads to more offensive rebounding opportunities for the opponents.
                            We are allowing 10.3 Opponent Offensive Rebounds per game which puts us at the 26th spot, with only 4 teams allowing more (GSW, Charlotte, Sacramento and Washington) and 2 more teams allowing the same number (Atlanta and Minny) -> https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/oppo...OPP_OREB&dir=1

                            We've all seen this happen a number of times. A perimeter player gets loose for a drive, a big contests the shot and forces the miss and then that big's man grabs the board and puts it back in because no one helped the helper. And even when we do help the helper, our wings are pretty small and none of them is good as a rebounder so the opponents will grab boards over them.
                            [/QUOTE]

                            Not for us though!! That statement's true normally but we're currently 2nd in % of shots attempted at the rim while in the bottom 3rd in offensive rebound rate.

                            This is just more evidence to me that we're playing the right way with the wrong players.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post

                              Not a bad comp. Goga has infinitely better hands and he's more skilled offensively than either of those guys though IMO. He's probably not gonna be on Domas' level as a scorer and facilitator, but I think he'll be a guy that can be a key cog in a good offense.
                              I agree, while Goga is the same type of player as Mahinmi or Myles, but those two have clear and obvious holes in their games. I don't see that with Goga, most of the issues I see with his game are rooted in inexperience. It is stuff that is very coachable. I think his potential lies somewhere between Myles and Gobert.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                                I agree, while Goga is the same type of player as Mahinmi or Myles, but those two have clear and obvious holes in their games. I don't see that with Goga, most of the issues I see with his game are rooted in inexperience. It is stuff that is very coachable. I think his potential lies somewhere between Myles and Gobert.
                                I think he is one player you keep
                                A mixture of Myles and Domas
                                Great contract
                                {o,o}
                                |)__)
                                -"-"-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X