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 Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

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

  • Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Not sure if that makes much of a case for JOb. His defense became worse each year based on your stats. In 2007-08, he was 26th. The negative slope continued with the same team as he dropped even further to 28th in 2008-09 after acquiring several good defensive players in Jarrett Jack, McRoberts, Rush and a healthy Quis. Certainly they are better defenders than Diener and Dunleavy from last year.

    PPG allowed by year:
    JOb: 2007-08: 105.4 (26th)
    JOb: 2008-09: 106.3 (28th)

    Anyway, 28th out of 30 for PPG, does not impress however you slice it when you have players like Granger, Foster, Quis, Jack, Baston, McRoberts and Rush to throw on the floor. No lockdowns there, but it's not trash.
    Three teams in the top third of the league in defense seems like a pretty good case to me. It at least solidly disproves this statement:

    Originally posted by BlueNGold
    You will never see a strong defensive team under JOb almost regardless of personnel. This is about personnel, but moreso about priorities and coaching philosophy.

    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    Our defense looked better early in the year. Where did that go? We were disrupting passing lanes and very active. A player can be open but his teammates have to be able to get the ball to him cleanly to take advantage of it.

    I think the offense is being preached to the point it's taking away from the defense. Players are finding it better to cruise on defense and work on offense and that is also the signal OBrien is sending out by his actions regardless of what he's saying. Hit your marks on defense but "go go go" on offense.

    I just don't think the team could maintain that defensive intensity AND keep the pedal to the metal on offense physically or mentally. Players like Rasho were quickly used up because of it. The pace is more than the team can stand without letting one phase of the game suffer and defense is that phase to suffer. I just don't see anything really being done to address it... at all.

    If Jim OBrien is a 'defensive minded coach' then you're not going to prove it with the Pacers.
    There is something to this, but I'm struggling to accept it part and parcel. There's no question the defense is failing. There's no question that Rasho has jumped the shark. I also see Hibbert laboring in limited minutes.

    I have always said there are limitations to O'Brien's ability. I don't think that he can overcome a paucity of talent. I also think that he gives his trust to players a little too grudgingly, and can lose the forest for the trees from time to time.

    In the Clippers post-game thread, I explained why I thought Hibbert never saw any time in OT. Basically, he'd been replaced in the fourth at about the 5:28 mark as part of the normal rotation. The Pacers then went from 3 down to 4 up with 0:31 left. (That does not comment on Hibbert, only that the team on the floor, with Rasho, was having success in that stretch.) Then, we missed a FT, and Clips got Thornton's three to push it to OT.

    I think two things led to his decision not to play Hibbert in either OT: (1) Foster was already out, so another relatively untested rookie, McBob, was playing, and (2) he was chasing the game, felt he was this close, and felt more comfortable relying on the vets to make plays than to risk upsetting the apple cart.

    Now, I'm not defending his decisions, I'm merely explaining what I think the reasoning was behind making what I consider a mistake. I think we may have seen a little of that in the Foster debacle the other night. O'Brien said afterwards that we didn't want to go to OT. That discussion, though unintentionally, probably played into Jeff's "pass for a 3 or bust" mentality.

    I think this may be what's happening with the defense. I have no doubt in my mind that O'Brien, his staff, and the team all want the defense to be better. However, I suspect that the combination of competing in all of these games and the fear that a significant change in what they are doing may bring about more harm than good is what is resulting in at least part of what we're seeing now. BTW...I think that's the mindset of the players, as well. I think they're all chasing the game, being too reactionary.

    Now, I'll be interested to see what impact Dunleavy does have. Prior to Junior's return, we had been able to win a couple of games that were tight down the stretch, but they were against admittedly bad competition. In the two games he's played, we were able to pull out a win at Phoenix, and come from behind and generally play better down the stretch against the Lakers, despite the final outcome.

    Two games do not make a trend, so I will be interested to see how this team plays over the rest of January. It is a relatively tough schedule, and today is the only one of the road games that you would put solidly in the "winnable" category. However, I'm hopeful that the return of Dunleavy, (and hopefully the soon return of Ford and Daniels) will provide more players to be comfortable with, therefore making them chase the game a little less and get back to trying to make real changes to improve the defense.

    Comment


    • Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

      I suppose JOb can adopt a good defensive team and manage to avoid an immediate collapse. I don't find that surprising. Anyone can do that simply be not making it a priority...which is basically what BBall is saying. Defense dies on the vine under JOb based on the stats. The troubling thing is, there is no precedent of JOb ever improving a defense.

      The trend is telling. Even in the course of this season, the trend is there.

      Comment


      • Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        I think the offense is being preached to the point it's taking away from the defense. Players are finding it better to cruise on defense and work on offense and that is also the signal OBrien is sending out by his actions regardless of what he's saying. Hit your marks on defense but "go go go" on offense.
        This hits the heart of the matter. There are the priorities you think you have...and the priorities you really do have.

        Words versus action. They are often not the same.

        Comment


        • Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

          Originally posted by xtacy View Post
          unless he thinks that best defense is offense he's not.
          The defensive mistakes the team make are system breakdowns during key moments. A great example is during the Hawks game when Joe Johnson's man (can't recall the player) shifted off of him while he was on the weak side even though Joe was red hot and dying to shoot. Joe got the ball, drilled the 3, and clinched the game.

          That's not a coaching mistake because no way Coach thought they did the right thing defensively.

          Our team isn't bad defensively because we have an anti-defensive coach. Our team is bad because we have several average or below average individual defenders who make poor decisions.

          Comment


          • Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Not sure if that makes much of a case for JOb. His defense became worse each year based on your stats. In 2007-08, he was 26th. The negative slope continued with the same team as he dropped even further to 28th in 2008-09 after acquiring several good defensive players in Jarrett Jack, McRoberts, Rush and a healthy Quis. Certainly they are better defenders than Diener and Dunleavy from last year.

            PPG allowed by year:
            JOb: 2007-08: 105.4 (26th)
            JOb: 2008-09: 106.3 (28th)

            Anyway, 28th out of 30 for PPG, does not impress however you slice it when you have players like Granger, Foster, Quis, Jack, Baston, McRoberts and Rush to throw on the floor. No lockdowns there, but it's not trash.
            You're mistaking PPG for defense. That really has nothing to do with anything aside from pace. Furthermore, the stats count used were defensive rating and opponent's FG% and you just arbitrarily switched it to PPG, which is obviously not a valid comparison.

            Here they are again:

            2004-2005 Philly: Defensive Rating 104.3 (10th), Opp FG% .443 (11th) (out of 30 teams)

            2002-2003 Boston: Defensive Rating 101.6 (7th), Opp FG% .435 (7th) (out of 29 teams)

            2001-2002 Boston: Defensive Rating 101.0 (5th), Opp FG% .425 (3rd) (out of 29 teams)

            And here are the Pacers under JO'B:

            2007-2008 Indiana: Defensive Rating 107.5 (15th), Opp FG% .454 (10th) (out of 30 teams)

            2008-2009 Indiana: Defensive Rating 108.8 (20th), Opp FG% .461 (21st) (out of 30 teams)

            In sum, we were average to above average last season, and crappy to rather crappy so far this year. You can't look at a coaching career of those five seasons and come to the conclusion that the coach is anti-defense. He's had four above average defensive teams and one bad one. That's not a trend. It's an aberration.
            Last edited by JayRedd; 01-11-2009, 01:36 PM.
            Read my Pacers blog:
            8points9seconds.com

            Follow my twitter:

            @8pts9secs

            Comment


            • Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              I suppose JOb can adopt a good defensive team and manage to avoid an immediate collapse. I don't find that surprising. Anyone can do that simply be not making it a priority...which is basically what BBall is saying. Defense dies on the vine under JOb based on the stats. The troubling thing is, there is no precedent of JOb ever improving a defense.

              The trend is telling. Even in the course of this season, the trend is there.
              In 1999-2000, Boston was 18th in Defensive Rating (105.6) and 27th in Opp FG% (.470). The following year, O'Brien took over from Pitino with 48 games left. That 2000-2001 team finished 16th in Defensive Rating (103.7) and 25th in OppFG% (.459). As was posted earlier, the next two years were 5th & 7th in Defensive Rating and 3rd & 7th in FG%.

              In the two partial seasons he coached (2000-2001 & 2003-2004), I am unable to provide Defensive Rating because I don't have all of the data on pace/possessions split below the full season. However, after 34 games in 2001 under Rick Pitino, the Celtics were giving up 98.3 pts on .468 shooting. In the final 48 games under O'Brien, they gave up only 95.7 pts on .453 shooting. O'Brien coached 46 games in 2003-2004 before resigning. The Celtics gave up 95.2 pts on .427 shooting. In the 36 games under his replacement, John Carroll, they gave up 98.6 pts on .449 shooting

              In Philly, he was 10th in Defensive Rating and 11th in OppFG%. The year before he got there, Philly was 10th in DR at 101.9 and 11th in OppFG% at .432. The numbers got worse, but the ranking was flat. The year after he left, the team fell to 25th in Defensive Rating at 108.1 and 22nd in OppFG% at .463.

              There's no question that the Pacers are a bad defensive team this year that must get better. However, the history appears to controvert the positions that O'Brien (a) has no interest in defense and (b) has no demonstrable history of being able to have a positive impact on the defensive performance of his teams.

              Comment


              • Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                Originally posted by YoSoyIndy View Post
                The defensive mistakes the team make are system breakdowns during key moments. A great example is during the Hawks game when Joe Johnson's man (can't recall the player) shifted off of him while he was on the weak side even though Joe was red hot and dying to shoot. Joe got the ball, drilled the 3, and clinched the game.

                That's not a coaching mistake because no way Coach thought they did the right thing defensively.

                Our team isn't bad defensively because we have an anti-defensive coach. Our team is bad because we have several average or below average individual defenders who make poor decisions.
                I actually agree in what you are saying, the problem is that the pacers don't have the players to play decent D, every time they have Dunleavy and Murphy on the floor together makes easier for the other players to get stupid fouls.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  I actually agree in what you are saying, the problem is that the pacers don't have the players to play decent D, every time they have Dunleavy and Murphy on the floor together makes easier for the other players to get stupid fouls.
                  So Dunleavy returns, we almost beat LA in LA and did beat Phoneix in the desert. You can tell this already only after two games together on this years team?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                    Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
                    So Dunleavy returns, we almost beat LA in LA and did beat Phoneix in the desert. You can tell this already only after two games together on this years team?
                    nope, I got to see this last year, don't you remember? there is not way you can make Murphy or Mike to play D, one thing is trying, another thing is doing it.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      Our defense looked better early in the year. Where did that go? .......

                      ......I just don't think the team could maintain that defensive intensity AND keep the pedal to the metal on offense physically or mentally. Players like Rasho were quickly used up because of it. The pace is more than the team can stand without letting one phase of the game suffer and defense is that phase to suffer.

                      I think you sort of answered your question, rhetorical or not.

                      Here are some things that have happened to make our defense worse:

                      -We stopped playing angles on defense. We've abandoned forcing opponents into the corners (which was working, btw), and we've abandoned forcing opponents into their 'secondary' direction (which is an extremely simple but effective tactic).

                      Someone mentioned it in another thread, but one play that's been killing us lately is the wide-open corner threes. Erase three of those and that's a 9 PPG difference. Forcing guys to the corners would eliminate this.

                      -Our players are routinely out of defensive stance. Easily correctable issue, and I'm dumbfounded that this happens. Watch the game tonight; guys aren't getting in stance AND they're not getting their hands out.

                      -The part about Rasho says it all. I think our defense stopped playing well simultaneously with Rasho's decline in quality play. I don't think Rasho was the defensive anchor, but believe they are somewhat related. The problems started happening with fatigue and refusal to have a bigger rotation.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        I actually agree in what you are saying, the problem is that the pacers don't have the players to play decent D, every time they have Dunleavy and Murphy on the floor together makes easier for the other players to get stupid fouls.
                        That's right.

                        I think Dunleavy can develop into a decent defender. I don't think it is in Murphy's DNA.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X