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

Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

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

  • #31
    Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    It's not like a stretch 4 is the only way to have good spacing.
    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Yes sir. Antonio McDyess spaced the court with his mid range shot just fine. Same with Duncan. Same with Garnett. None of those guys shoot many threes.

    That type of game leaves them close enough to the paint to contend for offensive boards, set picks for cutters...and force the other team's C to help.
    I'm going to respond to this post right now before I start dissecting BlueNGold's megapost.

    Who, on this roster, is currently capable of playing the stretch four position?

    And when I mean stretch floor, I mean space the paint out so that at least the four is a threat from 14-27 feet. Because Dyess, Duncan, and Garnett are all threats from at least 14 feet out.

    I know the answer in my head, and it involves three candidates, four if you are willing to include Granger. And out of those three, two are playing that position right now, and the third probably can- but should not.

    Just putting that one out there right now.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

      As a quick sidenote before I start this, when referring to Adelman, I think this article is a great way to sum things up.

      http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/5194395.html


      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

      Looking at the players, we have a tall relatively slow C in Roy Hibbert. As a result, he's not going to be moving about the court that quickly. The good news is that he can shoot, pass and has a high bball IQ. But he will never be ideal in this system. He gets a B for this system.
      While I can think of a few other systems where Hibbert would in theory work better in, I would like to point out that he can easily play both high and low post in this system, and because he is such a finisher for a big, I don't think we really aren't building parts of the system around his strengths. I would at least rate this system as a B+ or A- for Hibbert offensively. Of note, I would like to point out that at times this reminds of what Adelman sometimes likes to do in Houston, and that if you make Hibbert a poor man's Yao, then this system sounds a lot better. This is the basis of why I would like to put this grade higher.
      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Danny is a great player and he can shoot great, but he's not as intinctive as you would like for this offense. Also, other than shooting it, he's not that skilled of a player for a franchise guy. IOW, he should be perfect for this offense because he's by far the best player...but he's far from perfect for it. He gets a B for this system
      Once again, I would like to disagree with this slightly. I think that this system does play off to a bit of Danny's strengths- it lets him try to get a rhythm and with all the other things we do, we allow him to get open looks or open up the center of the lane to allow him to drive and get it to the line- one of the few players on this roster who can do that. I would at least rate this a B+ or A-, and I'm sure if I thought about this more, I could talk myself into an A. I remember a while back count55 wanted to talk about how this offense is actually a great fit for Danny, but as far as I know that hasn't been posted yet. I'm sure his knowledge on this subject is much better than mine.


      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Collison is not a good fit for the system at all. Although not as bad as TJ, Darren needs the ball in his hands to be most effective. IOW, he excels at the PnR as he demonstrated last year, and while he can shoot from the perimeter it's simply not his game. He's shown far more in terms of driving to the bucket and tear drop moves than he has perimeter shooting. He gets a C for this system.
      Very much in agreement here. I hated the Collison trade from a system standpoint and he's still struggling. But I'm all for him learning this system- it will make him a better point guard. It's also why I think while Paul is a flashier point guard, Williams is better- because he's learned the system and knows how to play with it- while in my opinion the recent offensive struggles by NO show why it's difficult for Paul's team to win.
      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      McBob is a terrible fit for this system and that's why he's losing minutes. He gets a D for this system.
      This is where I start disagreeing dramatically. McRoberts is probably rated decently well in this system as far as halfcourt schemes go. His passing and ability to get hockey assists are maximized in this system. He can play like Webber or Miller passing wise. His three, while not quite good enough yet, is being developed. This is a case where the player is trying to buy into the system and the system wants a player like McRoberts. I feel like he can definitely thrive in this system as long as he is willing to learn it. After all, Miller has made a career somehow. I'm sure McRoberts can be a poor man's Miller as long as he keeps on molding his talents to the system, which is better passing, better shooting, better reading, etc. For now I'd give him a B-/B
      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Posey is a better fit for JOb's system and probably gets a B-.
      I don't think he's as good as you think he is in this system, it's just that we don't have any other stretch fours that we could legitimately play, plus he brings a winning attitude and veteran leadership. I'd actually give him a C or C+ in this offense. I don't think he really reads well.

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Tyler is a horrible fit and will continue to sit on the bench with an F.

      Rush is an OK fit for this system. He is very instinctive, can shoot, moves well off the ball and the offensive scheme doesn't seem to make him take plays off on D. I would give him an B+ for this system. He would get an A if they had Rush curl off screens like Rip Hamilton...but that's not JOb's offense.

      Dun is a great fit for this system. He can do virtually anything Jim wants and its a shame he doesn't have 2007's version of Dun. I'd give Dunleavy an A for this system.
      Agreed with all parts here except one. I don't think that Rush has the BBIQ to get to dunleavy's level and Rush is doing quite a lot of moving as is. I don't think Rush is the type of shooter you want running off of curls. I wouldn't say that he would be an A if Rush was curling.
      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      TJ gets about a D. Foster gets a C. Lance gets and F. Paul would get a B if he played. Price is an unknown really. I will give him an I (i.e. incomplete).
      I would give both lance, paul, and price Incs, although in limited minutes Price probably runs our offense the best. TJ I think has become a C at this point, just because it seems he's learned enough skills and was taught just enough to at least pass right now running the offense at times. I think it took him three years to buy into the system and realize that he has to learn it. Now he has a few tools, I think he's a poor fit but passable.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

        Yes sir. Antonio McDyess spaced the court with his mid range shot just fine. Same with Duncan. Same with Garnett. None of those guys shoot many threes.

        That type of game leaves them close enough to the paint to contend for offensive boards, set picks for cutters...and force the other team's C to help.
        This right here. Especially the last part.

        My definition good proper-fundamental stretch four is a four that can be deadly at the pick 'n pop. So much so that he can roll to the basket like Carlos Boozer. He can also score off of the low-post if need be- he isn't completely one dimensional scoring wise.

        My crusade is spreading the word that we should really pick up David West. He'd make Hibbert and Collison much better than they are right now.

        Jim's definition of a stretch four is a four that stands at the three and creates from there. That actually hurts spacing at large doses since the perimeter is too crowded. When Josh makes entry passes to Hibbert stretched out at the three point line there is too much space; so much so that he can't cut to the basket. All he can do is shoot a three and probably a contested one.

        That is why it is better for Josh to make passes into the mid-post. He has plenty of room to move w/o the ball to make cuts or crisp passes. And that isn't even the best thing to do; it's just our best option.

        When there is a four camped at the outside that makes our offense stagnant and asking for questionable shot selection. That is why Murph could almost never hit a three in a half-court set; It always had to be on a fast break three point attempt (and for you all to know, that is why TJ and Watson go so many assists last couple of years.)

        Right now the only guy capable of hitting 14-18 foot shots is Tyler, and he's not even remotely consistent at it. Our offense in the starting lineup isn't that great because while I love what Josh brings, he isn't a good option at he pick 'n pop/roll and he isn't a good player to pass out of a double team to. He scores off of broken plays, and we simply need more of a dynamic scorer at the four spot to become a good team.

        So court spacing is very, very important, but I am not talking about Troy, Posey, or Mehmet Okur type spacing. I'm talking about Carlos Boozer, David Lee, Luis Scola, Kevin Garnett, etc. Those guys create balance in the offense. None of our fours are capable of balancing our offense and keeping defenses honest.

        As BlueNGold said, they need to be far enough from the basket to keep defenses honest and close enough to where they can putback shots and offensive rebound.
        Last edited by hoops_guy; 12-20-2010, 01:44 AM.
        We need better than solid. No JJ Redicks, Andray Blatche, Mike Dunleavy type guys to have big roles on our team.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

          Yes sir. Antonio McDyess spaced the court with his mid range shot just fine. Same with Duncan. Same with Garnett. None of those guys shoot many threes.

          That type of game leaves them close enough to the paint to contend for offensive boards, set picks for cutters...and force the other team's C to help.
          The Spurs have routinely been the worst team in the league getting offensive boards in the last decade. The Celtics are 2nd to last this season. Kevin Garnet's offensive rebounding rate for his career is comparable to Troy Murphy's.

          The reason those guys force doubles is because they are/were incredibly good and had a very versatile offensive game. Because of their ability to create their own shot at a high level. It's because of the difference in talent, not style.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

            Originally posted by cordobes View Post
            The Spurs have routinely been the worst team in the league getting offensive boards in the last decade. The Celtics are 2nd to last this season. Kevin Garnet's offensive rebounding rate for his career is comparable to Troy Murphy's.

            The reason those guys force doubles is because they are/were incredibly good and had a very versatile offensive game. Because of their ability to create their own shot at a high level. It's because of the difference in talent, not style.
            Yes, and that is because I would imagine that the Spurs and Celtics prefer transition defense to crashing offensive boards. I know that there is a good time to go after offensive boards and a good time not to, but most times they just prefer to get back on defense and not allow easy buckets.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

              Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
              Yes, and that is because I would imagine that the Spurs and Celtics prefer transition defense to crashing offensive boards. I know that there is a good time to go after offensive boards and a good time not to, but most times they just prefer to get back on defense and not allow easy buckets.
              Yeps, offensive rebounding is mostly about how hard you're willing to crash the boards and the price you're willing to pay defensively. The proper decision depends on the quality of your rebounders + half court defense + transition defense. Crashing the offensive board is not always the smartest decision, especially if your opponent best hope to score on you is early on the shot clock and you lack elite rebounders (guys like Love, who will come up with the ball very often). The Spurs changed their philosophy a bit lately, they're attacking more (also true for their offense/defense, not only the boards).

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

                Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                Yes, and that is because I would imagine that the Spurs and Celtics prefer transition defense to crashing offensive boards. I know that there is a good time to go after offensive boards and a good time not to, but most times they just prefer to get back on defense and not allow easy buckets.
                Add that to the fact that the Celtics make a ridiculously high percentage of their shots (51% this year), why do they need to go for offensive boards? Shooting 51% and playing lockdown defense, they're almost unbeatable.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

                  Flox - No doubt McRoberts' passing skills are useful in any system, but they are more useful in a precise half court offense. Passing is what the half court is all about.

                  Also, while crisp, precise passes is exactly what he can do, others need to be ready for them. In a motion offense like this, they are less likely to be ready.

                  Anyway, I see McBob maximizing his game by staying within 20 feet of the basket most of the time. If he's a threat to drive and dunk, Roy's man has to honor that and help. Josh has the ability to put the ball on the floor and drive for and-ones...but he can't do that on the perimeter. More than anything, the Pacers need someone in the paint to help the lanky, lean Roy Hibbert who is 7'2" and only grabs 3 boards because Okafer is too much man for him.

                  These are simply not the priorities for JOb's offense IMO...and why I think Josh's talents are not being maximized.

                  BTW, not saying Josh will be an ideal PF in any case...but I think he could be used more appropriately.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

                    Originally posted by flox View Post
                    I'm starting to wonder if people understand how important spacing is in terms of the offense that we are running and in general for certain offensive schemes.
                    I'm starting to wonder if you do since you think the only way to space the floor is to have guys that can stand at the arc and chuck 3s.

                    It's not even the best way to space the floor, you space the floor by setting ball screens or shot screens or picks away from the ball, not to mention cutting and constantly looking to force the defense to continue to play...you know, like Josh does so well and like Troy/Posey never did/do.




                    Remember how Reggie and Rik could never get open because Dale and Tony couldn't shoot the three?

                    Yeah, neither does anyone else.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

                      When it comes to spacing there is two ways of thinking, balanced and post.

                      Balanced spacing is the 2 post 3 wing set up that people traditionally think of. This balances the floor and gives both the post players and wing players a good amount of spacing, although it can make it tougher for a wing player to cut to the basket because there will most likely be two post defenders in their way. The ideal offense for this is a motion offense where both the players and the ball are constantly moving.

                      Post spacing is the kind of spacing that JOB typically is talking about. You need 4 wing players and 1 post player for this. It is designed to open up the middle of the court to make it more difficult for the weak side defender to help out in the post, and open the lane for cutters, but it is easier for a wing defender to recover to his player because it takes more time for the ball to get to that player and the defender has proportionally less space to recover. The ideal offense for this is based around cutting to the basket and pick and rolls.

                      From what I can tell is that JOB is thinking backwards. He is trying to mix two different ideas that aren't easily mixed. He wants the offense to be based around the wings, but he wants to use a kind of spacing that works best when the post player is directly involved 75% of the time, either by passing it to a cutter, setting up a PnR, and just generally playing inside out which generally works no matter how your offense is set up. Having 4 wing players isn't a bad thing, but you have to play the the strengths of the spacing.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Remember how Reggie and Rik could never get open because Dale and Tony couldn't shoot the three?

                        Yeah, neither does anyone else.
                        To play Devil's Advocate.....it's been mentioned that many aspects of the game has changed ever since the days of Reggie and Smits ( oh, how I miss those days ). If Reggie, Smits, Dale and Antonio were magically transported into today's NBA and play under today's NBA game....would they be as effective?

                        I don't entirely agree with all of this "spacing the floor" ( specifically as to how it pertains to a roster like the Pacers ) but I understand that it could be effective ( at times ), but you have to wonder if having a Dale/Antonio/Smits Frontcourt rotation would be as effective in "todays" NBA.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          To play Devil's Advocate.....it's been mentioned that many aspects of the game has changed ever since the days of Reggie and Smits ( oh, how I miss those days ). If Reggie, Smits, Dale and Antonio were magically transported into today's NBA and play under today's NBA game....would they be as effective?

                          I don't entirely agree with all of this "spacing the floor" ( specifically as to how it pertains to a roster like the Pacers ) but I understand that it could be effective ( at times ), but you have to wonder if having a Dale/Antonio/Smits Frontcourt rotation would be as effective in "todays" NBA.

                          While styles of play may have changed it is still basketball, and the only way that transporting those players into today's league could change their effectiveness is by how the refs ref the game. The only time different eras of play have an affect on how effect a player would be is because of rule changes, size of players, and athleticism of players. In these discussions you have to adjust those aspect of the players to today's equivalent, in this specific example there is no need for this adjustment because all but one played in the NBA in the past 6 years. So that only leaves rule changes, and compared to the NFL there have been relatively few rule changes. So it comes down to a specific aspect of rule changes which is how do the refs ref differently. If anything Reggie would thrive even more because of all the ticky tack fouls called anymore, I mean that is what people complained about most when their team played the Pacers in the 90's. Dale's physicality might hurt him because of foul trouble. I don't think it would affect Antonio in the least. I'm willing to bet that Smits would be considered one of the best C's in the league since he wouldn't be playing in an era with so many great big men as the 90's.

                          We are talking about 10 years ago. Most of the current older big names were already big names 10 years ago. (Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Shaq, etc. etc.) Seriously this isn't like comparing today's NFL to when they were wearing leather helmets. Anyone who says such a thing, and isn't just playing Devil'd Advocate, has no sense of history. I would only hope they are young, and when I say young I mean can't even remember 9/11.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

                            Thought this was pretty cool to see where Darren comes from.

                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrX2N...eature=related

                            It's pretty funny how much his dad wanted him to do track...haha, well he sure makes use of those track genes here in the nba.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Darren Collison and his coach are both confused (Ball don't lie)

                              Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                              The Spurs have routinely been the worst team in the league getting offensive boards in the last decade. The Celtics are 2nd to last this season. Kevin Garnet's offensive rebounding rate for his career is comparable to Troy Murphy's.

                              The reason those guys force doubles is because they are/were incredibly good and had a very versatile offensive game. Because of their ability to create their own shot at a high level. It's because of the difference in talent, not style.
                              I guess we can agree on one thing. Those guys were doubled with alot of attention paid to them. That's why Garnett wasn't all over the offensive glass being that close compared to a true stretch 4.

                              But this should put an end to the discussion:

                              http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holli...ate%26page%3d2

                              There are your stretch 4's at bottom of the ORB% list. Nowitzki, the all world sharp shooter is nearly at the bottom. With him are all the other suspects from Rashard Lewis, Murphy, Charlie V., Al Harrington, Boris Diaw, Jamison, Jianlian, Bonner, Softy Bosh, Brian Cook, etc.

                              Like a Who's Who list of stretch 4's...all with a horrific ORB%.

                              Edit: Goodness, even the blue print for the 21st century's stretch 4, Lamar Odom of the LA Lakers, is 44th on the list for ORB%.
                              Last edited by BlueNGold; 12-23-2010, 12:56 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X