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

Today's version of the last three years article's

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

  • Today's version of the last three years article's

    Why is it that the first thing that came to my mind when I read that they call the offense "quick" was when Bilbo Baggins called the ring his precious and Gandalf said "it's been called that before"?

    As to today's article, no offense to the writer, but honestly couldn't they have just copy and pasted this from almost any article from the last three years when the team is trying to figure out why they are in a losing streak? Every year it's the exact same d@mn thing. We aren't moving on offense, we don't pass the ball, we aren't cutting, blah, blah, blah.

    Sorry I could buy this in year one, even to an extent in year two but for God's sake most of these guys have played this before. Yes Collison is new, but that shouldn't matter as every single point guard for the past four years has been new, other than T.J. and since he is playing almost as much as Collison then should that even matter.

    Is it possible that maybe just maybe the offense is flawed?

    I mean are they purposley just forgetting to move? Are they refusing to move? Or is it that defenses have cut off the lanes and thus forcing people outside the route that the want to take and thus causing a chain reaction of everybody having to try and react to what everybody else is doing?

    They need to simplify this and give themselves a set of play that they can run when they need to. Yes they can still run the "quick" (btw Isaiah was a visionary obviously) on occasion, nothing wrong with shaking things up. But sometimes being unpredictable becomes predictable.

    Anyway here is today's puzzlement.

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2010...se-stuck-place


    Written by
    Jeff Rabjohns Filed Under
    Sports

    The frustration is mounting for the Indiana Pacers.

    And it isn't just the losses. It's the loss of offense.

    It was clear watching the body language of leading scorer Danny Granger. After some of his teammates had showered and dressed following Wednesday's 104-90 road loss to the Washington Wizards, the Pacers' leading scorer was still in his uniform, sitting in a padded chair in front of his locker, his feet in an ice bucket.

    "We're not cutting with a purpose. We're not moving with a purpose, and then next thing you know, six seconds on the shot clock and we have to hoist up a shot," he said. "Too many of our possessions end that way, and we've got to figure it out or it's going to be a long season for us."

    Heading into today's game against revamped Washington (8-22), the Pacers (13-17) have lost seven of their past nine games. In those nine games, they've scored 90 points or fewer six times.

    The Pacers started 11-10 and in those 21 games, they scored 90 or fewer just three times.

    "We've got to move," shooting guard Brandon Rush said. "We're settling too much for running plays rather than running our quick stuff that we were earlier in the year. The whole thing is to keep everyone moving as one. Even when we dump in down to Roy (Hibbert), we have to keep moving."

    The Pacers' offense runs through the 7-2 Hibbert in the post and Granger on the wing.

    Hibbert, the Pacers' second-leading scorer at 13.5 points per game, has been held to single digits six times in December.

    Granger is averaging 21.1 points but has been far from consistent. This month, he has had six games of 15 or fewer points.

    "The way our offense works, it has to move as a unit. Everyone has really got to be in tune to what we're trying to accomplish on this possession or that possession, and right now we're not doing it. It's very frustrating," Granger said. "I've been in this offense for three years, and I've scored well in it over the past three or four years. This year is just straight not the same, and we've got to figure it out."

    When coach Jim O'Brien took over before the 2007-08 season, the team was in transition. With the acquisition of players such as Mike Dunleavy to join Granger on the wing and the more recent drafting of Hibbert, O'Brien's idea was to move from a team that ran half-court sets to one that ran a passing game.

    "We felt we had to invent something that would be difficult to guard, that would give our guys the best chance," O'Brien said. "It takes great conditioning. It takes an understanding that you've got to move, figure out where you're going to move and what you're doing in that movement.

    "You also have to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of your teammates, who to screen for, who to avoid, and your own strengths and weaknesses."

    The starting lineup the Pacers have used about half the season -- Darren Collison, Rush, Granger, Josh McRoberts and Hibbert -- is the second-youngest in the league, so youth is another factor.

    Collison also is in his first year with the team.

    Running their passing game, which the Pacers refer to as their "quick" offense, O'Brien said the team scores on 50 percent of its possessions. It was successful earlier in the year, leading to road wins over LeBron James and Miami and Kobe Bryant and the defending champion Lakers.

    "I'd prefer not to make any calls," O'Brien said of set plays. "I'd rather just run our passing game, but we have not shown the persistence to run and move and get into (it) on a regular basis, and we need to do that."


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

    Well, at least the players are acknowledging the lack of movement. Ironically Granger doesn't move well without the ball except for the alley-oop play from Hibbert.

    Maybe part of the confusion is where. Where should the players move?

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    "We've got to move," shooting guard Brandon Rush said. "We're settling too much for running plays rather than running our quick stuff that we were earlier in the year. The whole thing is to keep everyone moving as one. Even when we dump in down to Roy (Hibbert), we have to keep moving."
    Especially when you dump it down to Roy, which is less and less every game.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

      Isn't this the first season JOB has said he doesn't want to make calls, if they get past the half court in 8 seconds he won't make a call, etc?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

        An article earlier this year said before 3secs if I remember correctly. Definately not 8. Jim would never call a play, because the you have to get the ball over the time line in 8seconds, not 10, in the NBA.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

          This offense works with Allen Iverson or Paul Pierce. We have neither. In order to do what must be done you have to have a player who can move exceptionally - and draw a double team.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

            The quote I found most interesting was this:

            "We've got to move," shooting guard Brandon Rush said. "We're settling too much for running plays rather than running our quick stuff that we were earlier in the year. The whole thing is to keep everyone moving as one. Even when we dump in down to Roy (Hibbert), we have to keep moving."
            I can only conclude that either they mean something different by "running plays" than WE mean by it (because it is a huge majority opinion here that they need to run more), or perhaps - just perhaps - that the players buy into the system and really want to play that way but just can't get good at it.

            I really have to think about this one, and wish I was in a position to ask some follow-up questions.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              The quote I found most interesting was this:



              I can only conclude that either they mean something different by "running plays" than WE mean by it (because it is a huge majority opinion here that they need to run more), or perhaps - just perhaps - that the players buy into the system and really want to play that way but just can't get good at it.

              I really have to think about this one, and wish I was in a position to ask some follow-up questions.
              Or maybe the players think the plays are crappy, and would rather run their own stuff.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                The quote I found most interesting was this:



                I can only conclude that either they mean something different by "running plays" than WE mean by it (because it is a huge majority opinion here that they need to run more), or perhaps - just perhaps - that the players buy into the system and really want to play that way but just can't get good at it.

                I really have to think about this one, and wish I was in a position to ask some follow-up questions.
                If they mean executing set plays, then the team apparently doesn't have very many set plays to choose from, or are not being instructed to execute a very wide variety of them. I believe that this is what Rush meant, at least.

                If, however, they mean actually running plays (meaning pushing the tempo faster than average by using a running game), then the focus needs to be shifted to passing plays instead, with, as Granger indicates, the players functioning as a single unit with an understanding of what their movement and passing actually is trying to accomplish.

                It is actually encouraging to see O'Brien recognizing that the players aren't doing well by simply freelancing and playing off of one another, and that they need to work on that. It is less encouraging to see that he would prefer to call even fewer plays, because structure is important to the success of most players on the team, particularly Hibbert, Rush, and to a lesser extent Granger, Ford, and Collison. The two guys that can effectively play the type of freelancing passing game that O'Brien refers to are Dunleavy and McRoberts, with the unplayed Price probably being the third due to his ability to see the court and make higher percentage decisions as an initiator of the offense overall.

                It is also interesting to see the term "quick" being used. I have thought that there has been an eerie resemblance to the "Quick" of Isiah Thomas ever since O'Brien came here.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

                  the big difference this year and the previous years is the lack of the 'our defense sux' paragraph. there has been improvement.

                  running and doing a motion type offense is hard work at the NBA level. it looks like the players are having trouble making the commitment to do the work. if they are going to stand around all game, pacers are going to wear out TJ ford, as he is the only guy that can take his man off the dribble.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    The quote I found most interesting was this:



                    I can only conclude that either they mean something different by "running plays" than WE mean by it (because it is a huge majority opinion here that they need to run more), or perhaps - just perhaps - that the players buy into the system and really want to play that way but just can't get good at it.

                    I really have to think about this one, and wish I was in a position to ask some follow-up questions.
                    The article kind of explains itself.
                    Running their passing game, which the Pacers refer to as their "quick" offense, O'Brien said the team scores on 50 percent of its possessions. It was successful earlier in the year, leading to road wins over LeBron James and Miami and Kobe Bryant and the defending champion Lakers.
                    I don't think it means they need to run more or that they want to call more set plays. I think it means they want to go back to their passing offense they had in November.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

                      The phrasing "running plays rather than running our quick stuff" suggests to me that "running" is a verb form, not an adjective. That's why I don't think he's talking about "plays characterized by running" - especially since we do very, very little of that. I think he is saying that, from the player perspective, they spend too much time trying to execute pre-determined plays.

                      I find no insinuation that he means they are trying to execute the WRONG plays, either. I'd have expected a wording closer too "we spend too much time running the plays we have".

                      Again, though, I'd really love to have had someone interested in clarity asking follow-up questions rather than articles that get sound bites and leave them open to interpretation.
                      BillS

                      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

                        To me it doesn't matter. Even if Brandon pines for the freedom of running the "quick" offense more, it isn't working. By every single one of their own complaints it isn't working. For the exact same reason that it hasn't worked in the past.

                        Moderation is the key to almost anything. In other words if your only play is to run down the court and throw the ball to Shaq, who was almost unstopable back in the day, defenses would adjust. If your play was to give the ball to Jordan and let him go, defenses would adjust.

                        Teams are basically doing our own defense against us. They are packing the lanes and then extending the defense to up past the free throw line. This in effect cuts off the passing lanes and makes it easy to rotate and double. It is worse when Posey is in IMO because he does not move and thus his player just leaves him to free lance. Now when he hits 5 three's like he did vs. the Hornets then he burns them but at his % this season teams are not fearing him very often.

                        I wish they would just mix it up.


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          To me it doesn't matter. Even if Brandon pines for the freedom of running the "quick" offense more, it isn't working. By every single one of their own complaints it isn't working. For the exact same reason that it hasn't worked in the past.
                          I agree with this in terms of the effectiveness of the offense.

                          However, the thing that makes it interesting to me is essentially the attitude Brandon has. Many people expect that the players hate the offense because they can't run it and that they want something different. This implies (not proves, implies) that they actually like the offense when they can get it working, and are motivated to try to get it working rather than to give up on it.

                          Some well-placed follow-up questions would make this much clearer.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            I agree with this in terms of the effectiveness of the offense.

                            However, the thing that makes it interesting to me is essentially the attitude Brandon has. Many people expect that the players hate the offense because they can't run it and that they want something different. This implies (not proves, implies) that they actually like the offense when they can get it working, and are motivated to try to get it working rather than to give up on it.

                            Some well-placed follow-up questions would make this much clearer.
                            I think overall most players would prefer to play the offense the way Jim plays the offense. I can't go back in my life and think of many players who would prefer a more deliberate offensive scheme.

                            His offense I'm sure is fun to play, also when it works it can be fun to watch.

                            But I see your point and where you are going with this (O'Brien is not nearly as unpopular with his players as is percieved by the fans and some in the media) and your right, followup questions are the only way to answer that.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              I agree with this in terms of the effectiveness of the offense.

                              However, the thing that makes it interesting to me is essentially the attitude Brandon has. Many people expect that the players hate the offense because they can't run it and that they want something different. This implies (not proves, implies) that they actually like the offense when they can get it working, and are motivated to try to get it working rather than to give up on it.

                              Some well-placed follow-up questions would make this much clearer.
                              Brandon might answer on Twitter. He seems good about interacting with fans.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X