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

The Big Plus-Minus thread

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

  • #46
    Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

    Game 24 - vs Miami
    W 106 - 103

    18 Murphy
    3 Tinsley
    3 Dunleavy
    2 Rush
    1 Granger
    1 JO

    -1 Harrison
    -2 Daniels
    -10 Foster

    Limited Minutes


    Top three 5-man groups
    9 in 11:15 play
    Tins-Dun-Granger-Murphy-JO
    6 in 2:00 play
    Tins-Rush-Granger-Murphy-Hulk
    3 groups tied at 3




    Worst 5-mans
    -5 in 1:15 play
    Tins-Rush-Granger-JO-Hulk
    -4 in 3:00 play
    Tins-Quis-Granger-Murphy-Foster
    3 groups tied at -3



    Big minute groups
    11:15 (9)
    Tins-Dun-Granger-Murphy-JO
    9:15 (-3)
    Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster
    3:15 (-1)
    Quis-Rush-Dun-Murphy-JO

    Who the bleep is that? (new 5 mans)
    Tins-Rush-Quis-Murphy-Foster
    Tins-Rush-Quis-Murphy-Harrison
    Quis-Rush-Dun-JO-Hulk
    Quis-Rush-Dun-Murphy-Hulk
    Quis-Dun-Granger-JO-Harrison

    Interesting notes
    Foster's definitely slumping lately. Couple of really poor outings for him. But on the flipside Troy is coming on after a terrible start to the year.

    A lot of new Rush-Quis combos in this game.

    This was a "hold onto the lead" game that was basically won when the 4th opened up with a +10 by Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy. With Foster slumping and Troy improving this seems to be the new go-to group.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-30-2007, 09:38 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

      Game 25 - vs Knicks

      27 Granger
      22 Foster
      19 Murphy
      18 Tinsley
      18 Dunleavy

      16 Daniels
      11 O'Neal
      2 Harrison
      0 Rush

      (low minutes)
      1 Williams
      1 Owens


      Top three 5-man groups
      (all 5-man listed by alpha, not position)

      6 in 1:45 play
      Quis-Dun-Granger-Murph-JO
      5 in 2:15 play
      Quis-Dun-Foster-Granger-Murph
      5 in 1:30 play
      Dun-Foster-Granger-Murph-Tins
      5 in 4:45 play
      Dun-Foster-Granger-JO-Tins

      Not so much, worst 5-mans
      -4 in 0:45 play
      Dun-Foster-JO-Rush-Tins
      -2 in 2:45 play
      Quis-Dun-Granger-Hulk-Murph
      -1 in 5:00 play
      Quis-Dun-Foster-Hulk-Rush

      When -1 is one of the worst groups on the night, you probably did okay.


      Big minute groups
      17:00 (0)
      Dun-Granger-JO-Murph-Tins
      5:00 (-1)
      Quis-Dun-Foster-Hulk-Rush
      4:45 (5)
      Dun-Foster-Granger-JO-Tins


      Who the bleep is that? (New 5 mans)
      Hulk-Murph-Owens-Rush-Williams


      Interesting notes
      Starting at the 5:45 mark left in the 3rd the Pacers didn't lose or tie a single 5-man group the rest of the way (8 total groups).

      The 10 minutes played by the starters to open the game might be the most minutes any group has played straight together all year. Certainly it was a top 5 outing and probably the most in a first half at least. I'm going to check when I get a chance.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

        Game 26 - vs Philadelphia
        W 102 - 85

        20 Rush
        18 Daniels
        14 Foster
        10 Granger

        8 Dunleavy
        8 Murphy
        3 JO
        1 Owens


        Limited Minutes
        3 Harrison

        Top three 5-man groups
        8 in 3:30 play
        Quis-Rush-Dun-Murphy-Foster
        7 in 2:30 play
        Owens-Rush-Granger-JO-Murphy
        6
        in 5:30 play
        Quis-Rush-Dun-Granger-JO


        Worst 5-mans
        -6 in 12:30 play
        Owens-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
        -3 in 4:00 play
        Quis-Rush-Granger-JO-Murphy
        -3 in 1:15 play
        Quis-Rush-Granger-JO-Foster


        Big minute groups
        12:30 (-6)
        Owens-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
        5:30 (6)
        Quis-Rush-Dun-Granger-JO
        4:30 (3)
        Quis-Rush-Granger-Foster-Hulk

        Who the bleep is that? (new 5 mans)
        Quis-Rush-Dun-Murphy-Foster
        Quis-Rush-Dun-JO-Foster
        Quis-Rush-Dun-Granger-JO
        Quis-Rush-Granger-Murphy-Foster
        Owens-Quis-Rush-Granger-JO
        Owens-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
        Owens-Rush-Dun-Granger-JO
        Owens-Rush-Granger-JO-Murphy

        Interesting notes
        Obviously that's a lot of new 5 man groups. Quis-Rush as the backcourt is a big part of it, as well as some Owens at PG groups. Tinsley sat this game so you had a lot of groups with a new PG running things. Since Rush and Quis did so well I guess it all worked out.Easy to see the value of Tinsley when you see Owens go with the normal starters and get a -6 in a game the Pacers won pretty easily.

        The break open point of the game was the +8 by Quis-Rush-Dun-Murphy-Foster toward the end of the 3rd.
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-31-2007, 12:36 AM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

          Game 27 - vs Minnesota
          L 118 - 131

          7 Williams
          4 Murphy
          1 Daniels

          -8 Tinsley
          -10 Granger
          -12 Rush
          -15 Foster
          -18 JO
          -21 Dunleavy

          Limited Minutes
          3 Diener
          3 Owens
          1 Diogu

          Top three 5-man groups
          4 in 1:00 play
          Tins-Rush-Quis-Granger-Foster
          3 in 3:15 play
          Owens-Diener-Quis-Williams-Diogu

          Worst 5-mans
          -7 in 3:15 play
          Quis-Rush-Dun-JO-Foster
          -7 in 4:45 play
          Tins-Rush-Dun-Granger-JO
          -5 in 1:45 play
          Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster


          Big minute groups
          17:30 (2)
          Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
          4:45 (-7)
          Tins-Rush-Dun-Granger-JO
          4:00 (2)
          Tins-Quis-Dun-Williams-JO

          Who the bleep is that? (new 5 mans)
          Owens-Diener-Quis-Williams-Diogu
          Quis-Rush-Dun-Diogu-Foster
          Quis-Rush-Dun-Diogu-Murphy
          Quis-Rush-Williams-Diogu-Foster
          Tins-Rush-Quis-Granger-Foster
          Tins-Rush-Dun-Diogu-Murphy
          Tins-Rush-Williams-JO-Murphy

          Interesting notes
          The starters came out with a +17, yet JO and Dunleavy went -18 and -21. The -14 when they returned early in the 2nd sure didn't help.

          The +3 group with Owens and Diener came in scrub time at the end of the game with the Pacers down by 18.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-31-2007, 01:02 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

            Game 28 - vs Washington
            W 93 - 85

            14 Foster
            12 Dunleavy
            7 Rush
            6 Daniels
            3 JO

            1 Granger
            -1 Tinsley
            -6 Murphy

            Limited Minutes
            3 Williams
            1 Diogu

            Top three 5-man groups
            5 in 2:00 play
            Quis-Rush-Granger-JO-Foster
            4 in 5:00 play
            Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster
            3 - 4 tied



            Worst 5-mans
            -5 in 1:30 play
            Tins-Rush-Granger-JO-Murphy
            -3 in 14:30 play
            Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
            -3 in 1:45 play
            Tins-Quis-Granger-JO-Murphy


            Big minute groups
            14:30 (-3)
            Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
            5:00 (4)
            Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster
            4:15 (-1)
            Tins-Rush-Dun-JO-Foster

            Who the bleep is that? (new 5 mans)
            Tins-Dun-Granger-Diogu-Murphy
            Tins-Rush-Granger-Diogu-Foster

            Interesting notes
            One thing I notice that matches what I think I see in games, JO-Foster=good, JO-Murphy=not so good. There have been recent games where they did pair up on good 5 man efforts, so I could be way off. It just seems to generally run that way.

            The game was back and forth and to me the numbers show that. The biggest minutes group was in the red for example. What it boiled down to was the +4 effort over the 5 minutes to just about end the 4th by Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster. That was the only time they played together in the game since Troy had started in place of Jeff. Troy of course had the worst +/- game of the night at -6. Prior to this I think Troy had put up a string of decent games.
            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-31-2007, 07:09 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

              Game 29 - vs Atlanta
              L 95 - 107

              3 Diogu
              -3 Murphy
              -4 Dunleavy
              -5 Foster
              -8 Rush

              -11 Tinsley
              -15 JO
              -19 Granger

              Limited Minutes
              3 Williams
              -1 Owens

              Top three 5-man groups
              7 in 2:00 play
              Tins-Rush-Williams-Diogu-Foster
              3 in 2:15 play
              Owens-Rush-Williams-Diogu-Foster
              no others better than +2




              Worst 5-mans
              -6 in 2:15 play
              Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Foster
              -4 in 1:30 play
              Owens-Rush-Granger-Diogu-Foster
              -4 in 2:15 play
              Tins-Rush-Granger-Diogu-Foster
              -4 in 1:00 play
              Tins-Rush-Granger-Williams-JO


              Big minute groups
              21:00 (2)
              Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
              3:00 (0)
              Tins-Rush-Dun-Granger-JO
              2:30 (1)
              Owens-Rush-Dun-Diogu-Foster

              Who the bleep is that? (new 5 mans)
              Owens-Rush-Dun-Diogu-Foster
              Owens-Rush-Granger-Diogu-Foster
              Owens-Rush-Williams-Diogu-Foster
              Tins-Rush-Williams-Diogu-Foster
              Tins-Rush-Williams-JO-Foster
              Owens-Rush-Williams-JO-Murphy

              Interesting notes
              What's the count on game where Granger was the worst +/- guy of the night that got at least 10 minutes? Feels like a lot so far.

              Most of the new 5 man groups were Diogu-Owens-Rush based thanks to Ike's return, Tins' injury and Rush's improved contributions. One of those was the leading 5-man group.

              I mentioned JO-Murphy not always doing as well together, but clearly here they were solid as part of the huge minutes starting 5.

              I think this might be the biggest disparity between the main minutes 5 man group and the 2nd most minutes by any other 5 man group.

              The game slipped just a bit out of reach when Owens-Rush-Granger-Diogu-Foster finished the final 1:30 of the 3rd with a -4. The starters came back to start the 4th and battled fairly well for 8 minutes, but ultimately lost their set by 2 and left the team out of it for good.
              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-31-2007, 07:28 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                Game 30 - vs Detroit
                L 101 - 114

                6 Owens
                5 Williams

                -3 Granger
                -4 Murphy
                -5 Daniels
                -6 Diogu
                -9 Foster

                -13 Dunleavy
                -13 Rush
                -15 JO
                -16 Tinsley

                Limited Minutes
                8 Diener

                Top three 5-man groups
                8 in 6:45 play
                Diener-Owens-Rush-Williams-Diogu
                4 in 9:00 play
                Owens-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                No others at +3 or better



                Worst 5-mans
                -6 in 1:45 play
                Tins-Rush-Dun-Diogu-JO
                -5 in 2:00 play
                Quis-Rush-Williams-Diogu-Murphy
                No others at -3 or worse



                Big minute groups
                9:00 (4)
                Owens-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                7:45 (-2)
                Tins-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                6:45 (8)
                Diener-Owens-Rush-Williams-Diogu

                Who the bleep is that? (new 5 mans)
                Quis-Rush-Granger-Diogu-Murphy
                Quis-Rush-Williams-Diogu-Murphy
                Tins-Rush-Quis-Diogu-JO
                Diener-Owens-Rush-Williams-Diogu
                Tins-Rush-Dun-Diogu-JO
                Owens-Rush-Dun-JO-Murphy
                Owens-Rush-Granger-JO-Foster

                Interesting notes
                Obviously this game featured a good chunk of scrub time with all of Diener's 7 minutes coming with the game out of reach. That gave his group a healthy +/- bump even though it wasn't critical to the outcome of the game.

                There are surprisingly few big negative 5 man groups considering the margin of loss. Ultimately few groups were staying together on the court very long, apparently as JOB went looking for answers.

                The entire 2nd quarter was negative 5 man groups except the +1 in 1:45 that Quis-Rush-Granger-JO-Foster put up. That's 6 of 7 groups losing. That took the game from 5 points to 23 points.

                I think I posted the partial game numbers over in the post-game thread to show the totals prior to scrub time, in case you are interested in those.
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-31-2007, 07:45 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                  Game 31 - vs Detroit
                  L 92 - 98

                  1 JO
                  1 Murphy
                  -2 Granger
                  -3 Owens
                  -3 Dunleavy

                  -3 Foster
                  -4 Rush
                  -5 Daniels
                  -12 Diogu

                  Limited Minutes


                  Top three 5-man groups
                  8 in 15:45 play
                  Owens-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                  5 in 5:30 play
                  Quis-Rush-Dun-JO-Murphy
                  3 in 1:15 play
                  Quis-Rush-Granger-JO-Foster


                  Worst 5-mans
                  -7 in 1:30 play
                  Quis-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                  -4 in 2:45 play
                  Owens-Rush-Dun-Diogu-Foster
                  -4 in 1:00 play
                  Owens-Dun-Granger-Diogu-Murphy


                  Big minute groups
                  15:45 (8)
                  Owens-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                  10:30 (-3)
                  Quis-Rush-Granger-JO-Murphy
                  5:30 (5)
                  Quis-Rush-Dun-JO-Murphy

                  Who the bleep is that? (new 5 mans)
                  Quis-Dun-Granger-Diogu-Foster
                  Quis-Rush-Granger-Diogu-Foster
                  Owens-Rush-Quis-Diogu-JO
                  Owens-Quis-Dun-Granger-Murphy
                  Owens-Dun-Granger-Diogu-Foster
                  Owens-Dun-Granger-Diogu-Murphy

                  Interesting notes
                  Tinsley's injury and Owens starting seems to be making the case for Daniels to NOT play PG much. In the short amount of time he played with the starters in place of Owens in this game they run up a -7 spot. At best it's a hit and miss bandage rather than a go-to solution.

                  I've yet to run the "last 10 games" +/- figures, but I'd ballpark and say that Troy has been very effective in recent games. I think he's really turned it around. Yes his defense stinks, but in the sum total of things he's been adding more than he's been hurting. It's hard to deny that his 5 man groups seem to be winning their matchups more often than not.

                  Diogu - ugh. Granger has started to show up with some positive +/- nights, so maybe Ike will too. But so far it's been really rough. It was Owens-Rush-Diogu teams that went -4 and -3 to lose that 67-65 lead. At that point Diogu was pulled for good in the game.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-31-2007, 09:15 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                    Game 32 - vs Charlotte
                    L 103 - 107 (OT)

                    6 Murphy
                    4 Granger
                    4 Dunleavy
                    3 JO
                    0 Owens

                    -5 Foster
                    -12 Williams
                    -14 Daniels

                    Limited Minutes
                    -2 Diogu
                    -4 Diener

                    Top three 5-man groups
                    8 in 20:45 play
                    Owens-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                    4 in 2:15 play
                    QUIS-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                    4 in 2:00 play
                    Owens-Quis-Granger-JO-Foster


                    Worst 5-mans
                    -7 in 8:15 play
                    Owens-Quis-Granger-Williams-JO
                    -4 in 4:45 play
                    Owens-Quis-Granger-JO-Murphy
                    -4 in 1:15 play
                    Quis-Dun-Granger-Williams-Foster


                    Big minute groups
                    20:45 (8)
                    Owens-Dun-Granger-JO-Murphy
                    8:15 (-7)
                    Owens-Quis-Granger-Williams-JO
                    4:45 (-4)
                    Owens-Quis-Granger-JO-Murphy

                    Who the bleep is that? (new 5 mans)
                    Diener-Quis-Dun-Diogu-Foster
                    Diener-Quis-Williams-Diogu-Foster
                    Quis-Granger-Williams-Diogu-Foster

                    Owens-Quis-Dun-Granger-JO
                    Owens-Quis-Dun-JO-Murphy
                    Owens-Quis-Granger-JO-Foster
                    Owens-Quis-Granger-Williams-Foster
                    Owens-Quis-Granger-JO-Murphy
                    Owens-Quis-Granger-Williams-JO
                    Owens-Dun-Granger-Murphy-Foster

                    Interesting notes
                    Thanks to the Tins injury we saw a ton of new Owens-Quis backcourt 5 man variations in this game. Unfortunately the two with the most minutes were pretty poor and in general it wasn't all that successful.

                    Granger & Williams together continues to linger as a trouble spot.

                    JOB has talked about Dun's defense in the last week as a reason for not playing, but frankly it appears he means too much to the offense to pull. Having him fouled out of this game really hurt.

                    Looking at this situation even further, the first time in the game that the 5 man of Owens-Quis-Granger-Williams-JO was at the end of the 4th after Wallace fouled out Dun and then Murphy within a span of about 15 seconds. This brought in Williams. That group went -3 to finish. Then they played the entire OT together and went for -4 more to end with the -7 total.

                    You could have expected a far different outcome if they could have finished with the Owens-Dun-Granger-JO-Murph combo.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: The Big Plus-Minus thread

                      Okay, finally caught up so here's something more interesting than the individual games things.

                      +/-, last 10
                      42 Murphy!!!

                      15 Granger
                      8 Hulk
                      7 Owens
                      4 Daniels
                      0 Dunleavy

                      -2 Williams
                      -11 Foster
                      -15 Diogu
                      -20 Tins
                      -27 Rush
                      -28 JO

                      7 Diener (but only 12 minutes, scrub time)

                      Per 48 minutes (w/out Diener due to low PT)
                      9.09 Hulk
                      6.69 Murphy
                      2.79 Owens
                      2.02 Granger
                      1.02 Daniels
                      0.00 Dun

                      -1.61 Williams
                      -3.06 Foster
                      -3.96 JO
                      -4.12 Tins
                      -6.38 Rush

                      -11.66 Ike

                      A couple of things. JO has some huge bombs in there, the first DET game, ATL, and MIN specifically, but he's also had decent numbers in others, so it's not just him.

                      You can see that Tins was dropping pretty well too after his good start.

                      Rush has to me seemed like a nice touch, but ironically now that we think he's coming on his +/- has actually been dropping. He was better earlier in the year.

                      Granger has turned the corner a bit. It might not always look like it but after last year and the start to this year I'd consider that a huge improvement in his +/-.

                      As I did the individual games I suspect that Murphy had a good total lately, and clearly it's through the roof. I slag him all the time and bump Foster, but right now JOB is making the right call with those 2. Troy has been a part of a ton of winning groups lately, too much to just figure it as chance.

                      But more than anything this shows just how bad Ike has been. And it's not any better on the year really. I have him at -50 on the year with a -18.25 per48 average. Only Diener is near that. Granger is the next worst at -3.85 to put it in perspective (and now he's running in the black even).

                      Either Ike needs to figure it out or he needs to go. Right now if Ike was the key part of the trade then things aren't good for Indy.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X