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

Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

    HavenÄt seen it posted yet!? If I am mistaken, please delete the post.

    I think he is pretty accurate and his statistics just prove my subjective impressions.


    SOURCE: ESPN (http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...-danny-granger)




    ATLANTA -- It looked like the type of win that can turn around a season. The Pacers were up by 14 points on the road in Atlanta, with just six minutes left, and had shown few signs of the offensive struggles that plagued them in their first four games.

    And then, befuddled by a Hawks' zone, here's how the next 10 possessions went:

    Missed 23-footer.
    Missed 20-footer.
    Blocked shot at rim.
    Turnover.
    Missed 26-footer.
    Missed 22-footer.
    Turnover.
    Missed 7-footer.
    Missed 23-footer.
    Turnover.
    Seven straight misses and three turnovers later, the Pacers were down four points with 32 seconds left and essentially toast. When Paul George's final fling didn't hit anything, Indiana had dropped to 2-3.

    On a micro level, it's hard to pinpoint one single cause. The Pacers had a couple of open looks that missed, had a couple of forced shots in late-clock situations, and had a couple of bad passes. Hey, it happens. They might also have been out of gas: The four key Pacers (George, Roy Hibbert, David West and George Hill) all played 21 second-half minutes after the bench was destroyed by Atlanta's in the first half, and one will note only one of those 10 possessions produced a shot inside 20 feet.

    FOLLOW THE NBA ON ESPN
    Stay up to date with the latest NBA news, stories and analysis. Follow the NBA on ESPN on Twitter, Facebook and Google+:

    Twitter » Facebook » Google+ »

    Nonetheless, with no Danny Granger for three more months, Indy is in danger of drifting into mediocrity, and Wednesday's crunch-time offensive meltdown underscored the main reason. Indy is 27th in offensive efficiency, despite an opening-week slate that isn't exactly a murderers' row of great defenses: Toronto, Atlanta, Charlotte, Sacramento and San Antonio all rank outside the top 10 at the moment. In fact, the Bobcats are dead last and have been absolutely skewered in every game except the one that Indiana inexplicably lost to them.

    How did this happen? The Pacers were supposed to be deep and talented enough to withstand the loss of a key player, especially since most would argue Granger isn't even the best player on the team (that'd be Hibbert). With Gerald Green waiting in the wings and Paul George seeming primed for a breakout, Granger seemed the one player whose loss Indy could absorb most easily.

    When we break down the numbers, here's where we get to the weird part. Indiana was one of the most bizarre offenses in NBA annals a year ago, finishing just 28th in both 2-point shooting percentage and percentage of assisted baskets, but ranking eighth in offensive efficiency because they drew fouls, shot 3s, got offensive boards, and avoided turnovers.

    In retrospect, this was an amazing accomplishment. Normally teams that post up as much as the Pacers do commit a lot of turnovers, because making the entry passes can be difficult and double-teamed big guys are more prone to mistakes.

    Last year's Pacers managed to avoid that fate, but not this year's crew. Indy is 29th in the NBA in turnover rate; on cue, the most important turnover in Wednesday's collapse came on a botched post entry from George to Hibbert. Indy also had miscues that had nothing to do with post-ups, including a comical eight-second violation in the first minute, but the entries seem to be the biggest problem.

    Nonetheless, any decline this sharp is rarely so simple. Instead, it's a confluence of factors coming together to knock the Pacers' offense sideways. (And make no mistake, it's just the offense: Indy remains a robust seventh in defense):

    • George isn't breaking out. The thought was that Granger's absence would allow George to shine. The reality has been less encouraging, as George looks like the same fourth option he was before the injury. According to Synergy, George has only had nine plays as a pick-and-roll ball handler, and he hasn't earned more: Indy scored on only one of them.

    Similarly, he's had only nine plays in isolation, and regardless of the play type he's not making shots and virtually never drawing fouls. (He has eight free throws in 199 minutes this season). Somehow, he's managing to threaten the league lead in turnovers anyway.

    The Pacers' go-to guy instead has been West, who has had a whopping 41 post-up tries in five games and leads the club in usage rate. While he hasn't been terrible, this role stretches his abilities to their absolute limit. It would be very helpful if one of the Pacers' perimeter players could establish himself as a legitimate creator, and George is the obvious guy to do it. But so far, it hasn't happened.

    • The Collison trade hurt. Darren Collison is doing things in Dallas that he never did in Indiana, so it's perhaps a bit much to pin that on the Pacers. Nonetheless, the decision to replace him with D.J. Augustin has been a massive downgrade. Were Collison still here Indiana might respond to Granger's injury with a Hill-Collison backcourt, producing more ball handling and spacing.

    Instead, the Pacers are stuck with Hill and whatever -- a flotsam including Sam Young, Lance Stephenson and Gerald Green. Shockingly, Stephenson has been the best of the three, but that's full of faint praise.

    Ideally, they would play Augustin at the one and move Hill to the two, but there are two problems with this. First, Augustin, despite being by far the best passer on the team, just hasn't provided enough scoring and shooting to compel this move. And second, Augustin is a huge liability at the defensive end; unless there's a good place to hide him it's difficult to justify the offensive gain compared with the defensive cost.

    • Hibbert needs to play better. Roy Hibbert has a max contract. He also has the lowest usage rate on the team, including the Orlando Johnsons and Ben Hansbroughs, is shooting 42.6 percent, isn't drawing fouls, and is struggling to make catches in the post -- like on the key turnover Wednesday night. No matter what else happens with Indiana, it won't matter if Hibbert doesn't play better. Yes, perhaps the guards could get him some easier looks, but this offense was just as ugly a year ago and Hibbert still got shots and points.

    • The bench still stinks. A lot of people think Indiana had a good bench last season and that's what helped them in the lockout year, but that point of view is 100 percent wrong; the Pacers' bench was routinely outscored and only the strength of the starting five kept the team in the East's upper crust. According to NBA.com, last year's team was plus-+261 with either Hill or Collison at the point and the other four starters, and minus-43 the rest of the time.

    You're seeing that more now that Granger is out. Indy's starters were very healthy last year aside from an injury to Hill, who was their most replaceable starter because they had Collison behind him, but the Granger injury opens up a new weakness.

    Again, the proof is in the numbers. Indiana's "Core 4" of Hill-West-George-Hibbert is plus-14 for the season, which is pretty solid despite their offensive struggles.

    Other units? Not so good, a ghastly minus-30 in just 110 minutes. You can't win with that. The Pacers' starters are basically trying to offset a 2011-12 Bobcats performance from the bench. While the cost has been entirely at the defensive end -- the offense with the Core 4 has been just as inefficient as the bench units -- one can see Frank Vogel's dilemma. He doesn't have any offensive solutions hiding on his bench, at least until Gerald Green starts scoring, but has exponentially greater defensive liabilities.

    Sum it up and the Pacers can point to a few areas where they might reasonably expect to do better. Hibbert will probably do better, the 3s will probably start falling more often (they've made only 28.6 percent, after being one of the league's better 3-point shooting teams in 2011-12), and Green will probably start scoring. Also, one can still imagine George turning the corner. Those with long memories will also note that Indy's offense had a lot of problems early last season before steadily improving over the course of the year.

    With all that said, this team needed to do everything else right to overcome a woeful 2-point shooting percentage a season ago. Even at its best, this was an offense where the ball stuck a lot and many of the shots are contested. The plague of turnovers doesn't offer an easy solution, nor do the shortcomings on the bench and the absence of Collison.

    In other words, Indy's problems appear to go a lot deeper than just Danny Granger. But his absence is exacerbating them, and as a result the Pacers' tenure in the East's upper crust is threatening to be short-lived.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

    Ugh. The thought that we could have replaced Granger with DC in the starting lineup is downright depressing.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

      I hadn't even thought about a DC-Hill backcourt til just now. THANKS A LOT HOLLINGER.


      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

        Lance deserves more than faint praise. He's made some bonehead plays, but he's playing so much better than I would have thought to start the year. I think he'll only get better as the season moves along.

        I think it comes down to coaching. I don't know if Wells was trying to hint at that, but he never seems to address Vogel's coaching ability for possible reasons this team is playing so badly.

        Other than the fallout, yesterday's game was the best the Pacers have played so far. It's a move in the right direction. Even if the offense doesn't get better, if they can reduce those turnovers and get to the line more, then we should start to be as good as last year. Just have to stop shooting long jump shots.
        First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

          Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
          Lance deserves more than faint praise. He's made some bonehead plays, but he's playing so much better than I would have thought to start the year. I think he'll only get better as the season moves along.
          I would agree.

          Originally posted by Hollinger View Post
          one can see Frank Vogel's dilemma. He doesn't have any offensive solutions hiding on his bench
          I think Hollinger shouldn't count Lance out here either.
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            I hadn't even thought about a DC-Hill backcourt til just now. THANKS A LOT HOLLINGER.
            Yeah, the DC-Mahinmi trade just looks awful.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

              I'm a little surprised cause I thought that was a really good article. Do you ever watch the Pacers and long for a day where there is ball movement and penetration?
              Danger Zone

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

                Hollinger really hit the nail on the head imo
                //

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

                  So far, the Walsh/Pritchard combo gets an F- for their moves this summer. We traded a promising young point guard for an extremely mediocre/bad big man. We replaced that promising young point guard with a point guard in Augistin who isn't even Collison's league right now. Awful trade. Yeah there are those who say that that Collison is doing stuff in Dallas that he never did here, but how do we know he wouldn't have had similar results here this year? He is only in his fourth season and should logically be better than he was in previous years. Regardless, even if he was the exact same player he was last year, he'd still be better than Augistin.

                  Bird wouldn't have traded Collison for such a bad package. Collison was one of "his guys" and represented one of the best trades he made as GM here. Collison had two years worth of experience with our core of players and would have only developed more chemistry this year had he stayed.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

                    Hate to drudge it up, but our handling of our now max FAs and the moves to "improve" the bench are looking more and more like Simon being unwilling to ante up for the type of moves/talent required for us to make a legit jump.

                    New bench guys are making our approach look like el - cheapo. That's only going away if they do something.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

                      I don't see how this year's moves indicate cheapness. I don't question how much money they spent as much as I question how they spent it.
                      SportsTwo.com

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

                        Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                        Hate to drudge it up, but our handling of our now max FAs and the moves to "improve" the bench are looking more and more like Simon being unwilling to ante up for the type of moves/talent required for us to make a legit jump.

                        New bench guys are making our approach look like el - cheapo. That's only going away if they do something.


                        Maybe Bird knew something, and frustration was too much for him to stay.

                        I've been critical of Bird the GM over the years, but I don't see Bird giving Hibbert a max contract.

                        When Walsh took over the helm, you can best bet both Hibbert and Hill's agents smiled from ear to ear, got $ signs in their eyes, and could hear the cash register go ching ching.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

                          Originally posted by MikeDC View Post

                          I don't question how much money they spent as much as I question how they spent it.

                          Bingo, we have a winner!

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

                            Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                            Hate to drudge it up, but our handling of our now max FAs and the moves to "improve" the bench are looking more and more like Simon being unwilling to ante up for the type of moves/talent required for us to make a legit jump.

                            New bench guys are making our approach look like el - cheapo. That's only going away if they do something.
                            OJ Mayo is off to an outstanding start in Dallas. Would sure look great in a Pacer uniform this season
                            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Hollinger: What's wrong with Indiana Pacers?

                              The people talking about how great DC and Mayo would be on the Pacers are missing the vast difference between having Rick Carlisle as your head coach versus Frank Vogel.
                              You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X