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

Stretching for wins

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

  • #46
    Re: Stretching for wins

    Originally posted by cordobes View Post
    Spacing the floor is necessary to have a functional basketball offense - it's what forces them to pick a poison. Having players who can prevent the defense from shrinking the floor, from clogging the lane, is essential to proper spacing. You don't need 5 players of that ilk though. A player who's an offensive liability is someone teams won't bother to guard closely and use that defender to facilitate traps or showing early help.

    There are plenty of players that are offensive liabilities and still play though - including Jeff Foster or Dahntay Jones on the Pacers. Guys like Ben Wallace Dampier, they're huge offensive liabilities and played a lot for good teams. It's tougher with guards especially on these days - big men can be somewhat hidden near the basket or used to set picks - , but you have Quinton Ross who's been around for years and years in spite of being someone most teams don't bother to defend. Just like you have defensive liabilities who still play because of what they offer on the other side.

    I don't think there's really a debate about the necessity of stretching the floor (at least outside of this message board).
    I don't disagree with what your saying when it comes to "stretching the floor" and how it applies as a strategy. What I'm saying is that JO'B doesn't consistently apply this to all Players across the board when choosing to play Players like Posey over a Player like McBob ( who is a better option IMHO that can help on both sides of the floor ).

    Maybe ( to your point ), this applies to a lesser degree with a Player like Foster ( who can be that single offensive liability on the floor....where he is used for defensive purposes ).
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Stretching for wins

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Cordobes, you present the argument like Jim thinks/coaches in an "average" way. He doesn't.

      Teams can stretch the floor by using a lot of different schemes, involving different positions of players.

      Jim thinks that he needs his 4 to stretch the floor. A lot of teams don't use their 4 in that capacity, and to say that it's not a debate outside of this forum is just wrong. How many teams use their 4 as a 3pt specialist? And I stand by the term "specialist" considering that Posey shoots about 6 times as many 3s as he does 2s. (I didn't look up the stat, but I know he rarely takes them)

      Most teams use their 4 in a more traditional way, the Pacers aren't one of them. That's the debate, not whether or not teams need to stretch the floor.

      Your combing issues, and trying to tell us that stretching is a necessity. Obviously it is, you can't have team full of shooters that can't shoot and expect to get good shots inside.

      Who/what position you use to stretch the floor is the topic, not that it needs to be done.
      Yeah, Jim O'Brien with the Pacers uses a 4-out formation - like Stan Van Gundy, Alvin Gentry, D'Antoni, Carlisle, Triano, Larry Brown and many other guys. Sloan has been using it a lot for the last 5 years, for example. Popovich, Phil Jackson. Some use more, some use less. In some it's the 5 who's the shooter, with others it's the 4. It's tough to find one who doesn't use it at all.

      It depends on the type of personnel you have and the preference of the coach. I don't see any type of big deviation from the norm with the Pacers. They're one of the teams that runs lots of 4 out sets, but that hardly makes them unique or anything special.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Stretching for wins

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        I don't disagree with what your saying when it comes to "stretching the floor" and how it applies as a strategy. What I'm saying is that JO'B doesn't consistently apply this to all Players across the board when choosing to play Players like Posey over a Player like McBob ( who is a better option IMHO that can help on both sides of the floor ).

        Maybe ( to your point ), this applies to a lesser degree with a Player like Foster ( who can be that single offensive liability on the floor....where he is used for defensive purposes ).
        I disagree. I'm fairly sure that the reason O'Brien is using Posey so many minutes is because of his defensive contributions. Posey isn't even hitting long shots. He's sacrificing some rebounding to get defense.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Stretching for wins

          Cordobes I thanked your post because you actually made my arguments more clear now, in almost every single picture that you posted the interior of the paint is packed with Bull players, in many of those pictures as I watched during the game whoever was guarding Posey or Josh by the three point line didn't even care to get close to them.

          Yes you are right they only doubled team Roy few times, the issue here is not just the double team I think is more about the space that he has to make a move and as your pictures show he doesn't have any.

          Your pictures also show why there is a lack of rebounding from the Pacers side, they had either Boozer or Noah guarding Roy and whoever was the free man(whoever is guarding Posey, DJ or Josh) had a better position to get a rebound of Roy's missed shot.

          Once again I understand your argument regarding the stretch forward and why they are need it, but the way Jim is using it I think is not the right way.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Stretching for wins

            Originally posted by cordobes View Post
            It depends on the type of personnel you have and the preference of the coach. I don't see any type of big deviation from the norm with the Pacers. They're one of the teams that runs lots of 4 out sets, but that hardly makes them unique or anything special.
            I didn't say unique or special, I said that there is still a debate about the way it should be played.

            You're presenting the argument like it's the normal thing to do, and that we're crazy to disagree with it because it is so normal. Sure, it's used. No one has said it isn't used anywhere else, or shouldn't be used anywhere else.

            We're talking about whether or not it should be used for the Indiana Pacers, which is and should be a debate.

            Your whole "It's not a debate other than here line" makes it seem like we're dumb for thinking that a different scheme should be used, when that's not the case.

            I can come up with a list that doesn't employ a 4 out scheme, that's just as impressive. It's a personal opinion, and when people's opinions differ it doesn't mean one side is automatically wrong and one is automatically correct.

            JOb isn't anything new. He isn't anything original. He runs a system that is very similiar to a lot of systems. That doesn't mean that it is the correct system that should be used for this team, made up with these players.

            It's not only a debate here, but I'm sure there are Utah fans that would like to see a different system. It IS a debate whereever it is, it's not just here on PD.

            It's a philosophical basketball debate that will never end, so let's not act like this is the only place that has a problem with it.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Stretching for wins

              What it comes down to is the fact that offensively, the 4 cannot be two places at one time, so they had better hit a huge percentage of their shots from the arc when they take them. Otherwise, in many cases, there are two or three other defenders going for the rebound when our center (generally Roy) has to not only establish position, but frequently has to do so after recovering from the high post area, and try to rebound by himself with no one blocking out, and therefore misses frequently amount to a change in possession without counting as an actual turnover. This is especially true if the Pacers fall behind and have more of their wings on the perimeter offensively as opposed to moving into position to grab longer rebounds when they happen. Earlier in the season, it seemed like our wings were getting more boards than they have been recently, and I think that some of those were offensive, but I am not sure.

              Stretching might win for some teams, but those teams likely have two things that the Pacers currently don't have -- namely an All-Star calliber interior presence at either the 5 or the other hybrid 4-5 that is not the "stretch" player who can get boards due to his physicality, and the stretch 4 had better be able to get to the line and make freethrows while being a good defender on the other end of the court.

              If not, the presence of the stretch player allows the opposing defenses to basically ignore that player for the most part due to the lack of offensive attack from that player (in our case it was Murphy, now it is Posey and McRoberts, in that order) and the additional possessions that will be gained by the opponents on misses are likely to be turned into points frequently, negating the positive impact of the made 3's even beyond the fact that if the opposing defense is choosing to let the stretch shoot uncontested they can pack the paint and shut down a good portion of the Pacers drive and kick offense, or the mid to high post offense of Hibbert, causing the entire offense to stagnate, as it is beginning to again with more frequency as it has in past years.

              The Lakers are likely to do exactly this packing of the paint with Bynum now able to play again, and even rusty he may make the difference between what I expect to be a 10 to 15 point Pacer loss and far worse (until they take their foot off the gas and coast to the end of the game as Jackson likes to have his teams do to conserve energy for upcoming games when they blow opponents out, which is why I have a 106-88 loss posted in the prediction thread).

              In the end, without top quality talent at just about every position, especially the interior, the "stretch 4" is a big gamble. When the shots go in at a high rate, everything works pretty well. When they don't fall, it has a large impact on the remainder of the game. That is why I can't stand it as a strategy.

              Truly, for this purpose, I almost wish there was no 3 point arc at all. It would not be as fun to watch the sport overall without it, and most fond memories of the Pacers for many fans (including me) revolve around Reggie hitting 3's, but it does cause a fundamentally unsound approach if the coach is a believer in the 3, especially if that coach uses a "stretch 4" as a primary weapon offensively, which O'Brien always has regardless of the negative consequences of not having an adequate interior presence on the floor to balance against it.

              No, I don't really want the 3 to be gone, it just causes issues for the Pacers currently due to how they go about getting those shots and who is taking a large quantity of them.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Stretching for wins

                Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                I disagree. I'm fairly sure that the reason O'Brien is using Posey so many minutes is because of his defensive contributions. Posey isn't even hitting long shots. He's sacrificing some rebounding to get defense.
                Is Posey's defense that much better then McBob's defense that it's worth sacrificing whatever McBob does contribute that Posey doesn't?

                In other words.....is whatever Posey does that much better then what McBob does that it should justify the "more then expected time" that Posey is getting now?

                I agree that Posey does contribute on some level and that his skills maybe better utilized in specialized situations......but I do not think that the mistakes ( or whatever he has done recently ) that McBob makes outweighs the contributions that he offers on both ends of the floor. IMHO...using a 3 GF rotation ( where BRush ( or Dunleavy ) / Posey / Granger ) are on the floor for extended periods of time shouldn't be a norm...but should be the exception.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Stretching for wins

                  Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                  Anyway, the Bulls basically defended Hibbert 1x1, generally from behind, never doubling him on the catch or the first dribble and sometimes bringing the guard from the top to help once Hibbert initiates his move to the basket.
                  You are confusing the post you quoted with previous posts where we debated doubling Roy Hibbert.

                  When I said: "I've seen it several times this evening where Roy is left to compete with Boozer and Noah in the paint because McBob's man does not feel the need to guard him closely."

                  ...I did not mean both were defending him. I used the term compete for a specific reason...and notice I said NOTHING about doubling Roy. Then I went on to say the Bulls could adequately defend Roy 1 on 1...but you must not have read that part.

                  Some teams like Atlanta, Chicago and Orlando are not going to double Hibbert very often with their bigs...because they don't have to do it. But they WILL pack the paint if they can...and that was my complaint about the Bulls game.

                  Against the Bulls, Boozer was often sagging off McRoberts and even your first image captures it! In fact, it shows Boozer with one foot in the paint...and McBob beyond the arc...and that's your picture. As a result, Boozer is clogging the paint and will be competing on the boards...while McMurphy watches from afar. Let's just say that this is not how a team plays with force. ...and it's not how the team played in November when it was winning and giving Tyler time.

                  ...and if you recall, McRoberts didn't get much time at all against the Bulls. I'm not entirely sure why you quoted this post which was talking about McRoberts...and proceeded to post many pics from the 4th quarter at a time that is irrelevant, to coin a term recently used by JOb.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Stretching for wins

                    Man up, Cordobes. I know you can do it. We all misread posts at times.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Stretching for wins

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Man up, Cordobes. I know you can do it. We all misread posts at times.


                      By the way have you also noticed that those pictures that he posted are actually helping us to make our point?
                      Last edited by vnzla81; 12-16-2010, 10:26 AM.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Stretching for wins

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        I think he is connected.

                        By the way have you also noticed that those pictures that he posted are actually helping us to make our point?
                        Absolutely. The first and second picture show Boozer with his back to McRoberts and with one or both feet in the paint. Like I've said several times, we are losing basketball games because we are not playing with force. This shows that the Bulls are having a very easy time collecting defensive boards. They are never having to block out with McRoberts 25 feet away....and that leaves Noah able to focus completely on Hibbert rather than help defense.

                        So very obvious.

                        ...and thanks Brad8888 for an outstanding post!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Stretching for wins

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Absolutely. The first and second picture show Boozer with his back to McRoberts and with one or both feet in the paint. Like I've said several times, we are losing basketball games because we are not playing with force. This shows that the Bulls are having a very easy time collecting defensive boards. They are never having to block out with McRoberts 25 feet away....and that leaves Noah able to focus completely on Hibbert rather than help defense.

                          So very obvious.

                          ...and thanks Brad8888 for an outstanding post!
                          Thank you BnG!

                          So, the next question becomes, when will the Pacers either 1.) acquire a "stretch 4" and a powerful 5 to balance against him, or 2.) drop O'Brien and hire a coach who understands how to maximize the strengths of players and combinations of players while minimizing their weaknesses?

                          This is an open question to both those of us who are O'Brien and "stretch 4" supporters as well as those of us who are O'Brien and "stretch 4" detractors. Which should we choose? WSLBD? (What should Larry Bird do?) In my opinion, this is a key component to the Pacers reaching the playoffs and being a consistently competitive team, so what should be done to correct this deficiency? It may not be as simple as it first appears, either, because of the changing of real world financial considerations and the potential lockout.

                          Personally, I am not sure what I would do, especially in the near term. This is a borderline playoff season assuming trends continue as they have in the past, and there won't be an appreciable pickup of actual gate receipts at the Fieldhouse due to deep discounts unless the team goes on an unlikely tear. Also, TV revenue isn't going to change much, either. Add to that the likelihood of a much lower salary structure going forward taking away some of the cap space breathing room that the Pacers would have otherwise had (yes, the players will be less expensive at the same time, but the wealthy franchises in larger markets are likely to do what they can to keep their current advantage over smaller markets for the most part).

                          Ultimately, in my opinion, the bold move would be to both replace the coach and attempt to make a move to acquire Horford and a more powerful young center (who that would specifically be I don't know) and go to a more traditional power game with less emphasis on using bigs to stretch the floor, while keeping Hibbert and McRoberts for backups as long as the price is right (keep in mind I am a big fan of both Hibbert and McRoberts). I just don't think that the Pacers would be able to get all of these things done at the same time. If they can, in my opinion Larry Bird and David Morway would deserve accolades as the next saviors of the franchise and should have recognition banners hung in the rafters of the Fieldhouse to commemorate their achievements.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Stretching for wins

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            I didn't say unique or special, I said that there is still a debate about the way it should be played.

                            You're presenting the argument like it's the normal thing to do, and that we're crazy to disagree with it because it is so normal. Sure, it's used. No one has said it isn't used anywhere else, or shouldn't be used anywhere else.

                            We're talking about whether or not it should be used for the Indiana Pacers, which is and should be a debate.

                            Your whole "It's not a debate other than here line" makes it seem like we're dumb for thinking that a different scheme should be used, when that's not the case.

                            I can come up with a list that doesn't employ a 4 out scheme, that's just as impressive. It's a personal opinion, and when people's opinions differ it doesn't mean one side is automatically wrong and one is automatically correct.

                            JOb isn't anything new. He isn't anything original. He runs a system that is very similiar to a lot of systems. That doesn't mean that it is the correct system that should be used for this team, made up with these players.

                            It's not only a debate here, but I'm sure there are Utah fans that would like to see a different system. It IS a debate whereever it is, it's not just here on PD.

                            It's a philosophical basketball debate that will never end, so let's not act like this is the only place that has a problem with it.


                            No, you're thinking I wrote something I didn't write.

                            My "it's not a debate" line was not about the need for 4out formations. Re-read my posts and you'll agree with me. It was about the principle of stretching the floor.

                            I pointed out a dozen teams that use a perimeter big in their primary line-up to prove that there's nothing unique, extreme or extraordinary about O'Brien:

                            Orlando (Lewis/Anderson), Torondo (Bargnani), Charlotte (Diaw), Cleveland (Jamison),Philadelphia (Hawes/Young), New York (Gallinari/Chandler), Milwaukee (Ilyasova/LRMAM),Oklahoma City (Green), Denver (Harrington/Melo), Phoenix (Turkoglu/Frye). Then you have Los Angeles (Odom), Dallas (Dirk), Minnesotta (Love) - of course those players can do a lot more than shooting 3s, but they serve the purpose of pulling a big from the basket too. JOB would love to have any of these players as his PF instead of what he has. With Indiana, that makes half of the league. Then you have combo forwards who need to be guarded all the way till the 3 point line like Josh Smith (Atlanta), guys playing 25mpg off the bench like Villanueva (Detroit),then you have rotational bigs like Brad Miller (Houston), Brian Cook (LAC), Yi Jianlian (Washington), Matt Bonner (San Antonio). Then all the 4th/5th bigs.

                            And teams like Boston have the "luxury" of having a couple of bigs who are very good from 18-20 feet who serve the same purpose. And you still have hard to qualify cases like Ilgauskas, who mostly shoots long jumpers now and whose role on offense is basically stretching the floor and the fact that a guy like Okur is injured.

                            Formations aren't really that important anyway. The dynamics that matter more and the talent matters a lot more.

                            ----------

                            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                            What it comes down to is the fact that offensively, the 4 cannot be two places at one time, so they had better hit a huge percentage of their shots from the arc when they take them. Otherwise, in many cases, there are two or three other defenders going for the rebound when our center (generally Roy) has to not only establish position, but frequently has to do so after recovering from the high post area, and try to rebound by himself with no one blocking out, and therefore misses frequently amount to a change in possession without counting as an actual turnover. This is especially true if the Pacers fall behind and have more of their wings on the perimeter offensively as opposed to moving into position to grab longer rebounds when they happen. Earlier in the season, it seemed like our wings were getting more boards than they have been recently, and I think that some of those were offensive, but I am not sure.
                            Players move on the floor. They can't be on two spots at one time but they can be at multiples ones during a possession.

                            Offensive rebounding is mostly about transition defense and having quality offensive rebounders or bigs extremely fast changing ends (to make the tradeoff a net positive) + having a good half-court defense (which makes the return of denying transition scores higher). The Pacers prioritize transition defense and don't have an elite rebounder. The best teams getting offensive rebounds in the league are Portland (two jump-shooting bigs in Camby+LMA, forward Dante Cunningham and have played Batum a bit at the 4), Wolves (Kevin Love and Anthony Tolliver), Lakers (combo forward Lamar Odom and some Artest at the 4, they've been without Bynum) and Toronto (Andrea Bargnani).

                            The worst offensive rebounding team in the league is Boston - a team without a single stretch big. Their 4s Garnett and PF/C Glen Davis.

                            Stretching might win for some teams, but those teams likely have two things that the Pacers currently don't have -- namely an All-Star calliber interior presence at either the 5 or the other hybrid 4-5 that is not the "stretch" player who can get boards due to his physicality, and the stretch 4 had better be able to get to the line and make freethrows while being a good defender on the other end of the court.

                            If not, the presence of the stretch player allows the opposing defenses to basically ignore that player for the most part due to the lack of offensive attack from that player
                            Unless you don't consider the 3 point shot an "offensive attack", this reasoning seems odd. Teams don't ignore those players at all. If they do, it's on the team to get them the ball and on them - the players left alone - to punish their counterparts by hitting their shots.

                            How many times did you see teams ignoring Troy Murphy like they ignore, say, Ben Wallace? The Pacers offense can be stagnant at times because they simply lack talent. The Pacers are a team with an All-Star level of player, a few quality starters and a bunch of bench role-players. Just not the type of talent you can build a top offense around regardless of the type of strategy you use.

                            negating the positive impact of the made 3's even beyond the fact that if the opposing defense is choosing to let the stretch shoot uncontested they can pack the paint and shut down a good portion of the Pacers drive and kick offense
                            Nobody does that. Teams only leave good 3 point shooters alone when they need his defender to help - on a dribble penetration or to double a post player inside. Or when the guy screws up. But the reason so many teams use those stretch bigs is specifically to make more difficult for teams to clog the lane and help inside. To pull a big away from the basket.

                            In the end, without top quality talent at just about every position, especially the interior, the "stretch 4" is a big gamble. When the shots go in at a high rate, everything works pretty well. When they don't fall, it has a large impact on the remainder of the game. That is why I can't stand it as a strategy.
                            True. If shots are going in, it's great. If shots aren't going in, it's bad. But that's true for every type of player and position on the league. That's particularly true for high-usage players, the players who shoot more. Regardless of the type of player they are.

                            -----------

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            Is Posey's defense that much better then McBob's defense that it's worth sacrificing whatever McBob does contribute that Posey doesn't?

                            In other words.....is whatever Posey does that much better then what McBob does that it should justify the "more then expected time" that Posey is getting now?

                            I agree that Posey does contribute on some level and that his skills maybe better utilized in specialized situations......but I do not think that the mistakes ( or whatever he has done recently ) that McBob makes outweighs the contributions that he offers on both ends of the floor. IMHO...using a 3 GF rotation ( where BRush ( or Dunleavy ) / Posey / Granger ) are on the floor for extended periods of time shouldn't be a norm...but should be the exception.

                            I think that depends almost entirely on how McRoberts is rebounding, how many mistakes he's committing (McRoberts turnover rate is only lower than TJ Ford's) and the type of opponent on the other side.

                            ----------------

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            You are confusing the post you quoted with previous posts where we debated doubling Roy Hibbert.

                            When I said: "I've seen it several times this evening where Roy is left to compete with Boozer and Noah in the paint because McBob's man does not feel the need to guard him closely."

                            ...I did not mean both were defending him. I used the term compete for a specific reason...and notice I said NOTHING about doubling Roy. Then I went on to say the Bulls could adequately defend Roy 1 on 1...but you must not have read that part.

                            Okay, then adapt it to the multiple posts where you claimed that teams were using McRoberts defender to double Hibbert.

                            What does compete means in this context? It's basketball, every player on the floor competes with the 5 players on the other team.

                            I think you said the Bulls "could" defend Roy 1x1 in the sense that they could but did not. That they had that chance, but they preferred to just sag off of McRoberts/Posey to defend Hibbert 2x1. Which obviously didn't happen.

                            Some teams like Atlanta, Chicago and Orlando are not going to double Hibbert very often with their bigs...because they don't have to do it. But they WILL pack the paint if they can...and that was my complaint about the Bulls game.

                            Against the Bulls, Boozer was often sagging off McRoberts and even your first image captures it! In fact, it shows Boozer with one foot in the paint...and McBob beyond the arc...and that's your picture. As a result, Boozer is clogging the paint and will be competing on the boards...while McMurphy watches from afar. Let's just say that this is not how a team plays with force. ...and it's not how the team played in November when it was winning and giving Tyler time.


                            He's on the typical ball-man defense. He's in a position to (1)deny the pass to McRoberts and to recover to him if the ball is still passed successfuly, (3) and to make a play at Hibbert if the opportunity arises.

                            Clogging the lane when the ball is already there? Where do you think he should be? That's a typical help position on that kind of situation. He'd be a step above if it was Bargnani instead of McRoberts, that's all. He'd be a step below if it was Tyler Hansbrough. He's not cheating off McRoberts, not even close. If he were, he'd be doubling Hibbert. What he's doing there is the exact opposite of cheating off. Unless you think he should be on McRoberts chest. But that doesn't happen in the NBA.


                            ...and if you recall, McRoberts didn't get much time at all against the Bulls. I'm not entirely sure why you quoted this post which was talking about McRoberts...and proceeded to post many pics from the 4th quarter at a time that is irrelevant, to coin a term recently used by JOb.

                            I posted pictures of every low post possession Hibbert had on that game (that was the first game after this post). It had nothing to do with McRoberts, he was just the guy who was with Hibbert on the floor most of the time. Feel free to pick a different game.

                            Man up, Cordobes. I know you can do it. We all misread posts at times.
                            What?

                            ---------

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            Cordobes I thanked your post because you actually made my arguments more clear now, in almost every single picture that you posted the interior of the paint is packed with Bull players, in many of those pictures as I watched during the game whoever was guarding Posey or Josh by the three point line didn't even care to get close to them.


                            If you think that is a packed lane, you'd be terrified with the way the Bulls would pack the lane if you had Jeff Foster out there instead of McRoberts/Posey (unless you guys have really unrealistic expections about hose closely NBA players are guarded off-the-ball, which seems to be the case).

                            Don't let the fact that most of those pictures are at the moment of a shot mislead you. When Hibbert makes a move from the post to attack the basket, defenders will sink all the way to the basket to try to contest the shot/secure the rebound.

                            Yes you are right they only doubled team Roy few times, the issue here is not just the double team I think is more about the space that he has to make a move and as your pictures show he doesn't have any.
                            You believe in that? There's plenty of space out there. I mean, what kind of space are you expecting him to have? Yeah, you're never really comfortable to the point of putting the ball on the floor without worrying about someone being close enough to make a play at it, but that's the nature of the NBA game. The space is diminutive. I mean, which teams do you think that creates great spacing for their post-up isolations? I can put up pictures of that team and you'll see your point is not grounded on reality. Hibbert isn't doubled, that's as much spacing as he can expect and will get.


                            Your pictures also show why there is a lack of rebounding from the Pacers side, they had either Boozer or Noah guarding Roy and whoever was the free man(whoever is guarding Posey, DJ or Josh) had a better position to get a rebound of Roy's missed shot.
                            That's what happens in basketball games. Defenders are betweent he attackers and the basket hence they'll have better rebounding position on pretty much every player. That's why defenses get 7 or 8 rebounds for every 10 missed shots.

                            Actually, I think this is a great example: there were 52 rebounding opportunities on the Bulls side. The Pacers got 13 of those (the Bulls kept the remaining 39 obviously). That means Indiana's offensive rebounding % was 25% (13/52). The league average is 26%. So it was pretty much an average offensive rebounding effort for Indiana. Not some catastrophic rebounding night because defenders generally had better position to rebound - that's just a regular feature of any basketball game.

                            Once again I understand your argument regarding the stretch forward and why they are need it, but the way Jim is using it I think is not the right way.
                            Okay: what is the right way of using it; who does a good job with it; what exactly does that coach do differently than JOB?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Stretching for wins

                              Cordobes - It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand there was a reason I used the term "compete" instead of the terms "double" or "front" as I had in the previous posts.

                              If you're talking about doubling a man in the paint...you don't use the term compete. You use terms like "front", "defend", "double" etc....just like I did in the previous posts.

                              Everyone watching these games know who doubles Roy and it's not teams like Chicago and Atlanta.

                              The fact is, you didn't read the post you quoted and spent the next hour going over Chicago film...attempting to refute something I did not even say.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Stretching for wins

                                I don't think you'll ever point out which teams have been doubling Hibbert by cheating off McRoberts/Posey, as you claimed to be the case. You won't do that because it's a fantasy.

                                "Compete" is a meaningless term. Hibbert was competing vs. Noah and Boozer just like McRoberts was, just like Boozer was competing vs. Hibbert and McRoberts, etc.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X