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

Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

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

  • #31
    Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    I don't think that's true, I think 2004 has the numbers. I think they are better at DEF FG% and Points/100. I was looking at this topic about 2 weeks ago and have checked from time to time in regards to all-time Pacers ranking because it certainly is a growing topic. So I'm going from memory of those checks at this point and could be wrong.


    BTW, I would like to "Yeah, what he said" to all of Trader Joe's comments. I'm going to look at some numbers and check back at lunch I think.
    Personally I think it is better to look at this kind of thing as a relative comparison more than an absolute by the numbers comparison. Rule changes, and changes of how exactly the refs call games can have an impact on the score and FG%. So while the 2004 team might technically have better numbers, it could simply be because the rules and refs at the time made it easier for defenses.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

      Originally posted by dohman View Post
      The little bit we got to watch the 05-06 team! Artest was then a man among boys. JO was still in his prime. Foster was doing dirty work. Jackson was a strong athletic wing. That was the best defensive team even thought it was only for a short stretch. The thing that separates that squad from the current one. We had 4 players willing to knock a player to the ground and stare at them if they were getting hot and drove the basket. Intimidation is what they had and if it was not for events we do not speak of they would of been one of the best defensive teams of all time.
      Had all the makings to be a team that competed for championships for the next 2-3 years. Could have completely changed the landscape of the NBA pacers..maddening to think about

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
        Personally I think it is better to look at this kind of thing as a relative comparison more than an absolute by the numbers comparison. Rule changes, and changes of how exactly the refs call games can have an impact on the score and FG%. So while the 2004 team might technically have better numbers, it could simply be because the rules and refs at the time made it easier for defenses.
        Well to clarify, I wasn't picking the 04 team at this point. I've been debating the issue to myself for weeks now. But UB said outright that by stats the 2012 team is the best, and I don't think that's technically accurate.

        I went and looked up the info at the always helpful Basketball-Reference.com..

        eFG% allowed
        .459 (6th in NBA) 2004
        .441 (1st in NBA) Current

        Points Allowed/100
        97.9 (3rd) 2004
        99.2 (2nd) Current

        TO%
        15.7 (tied 1st) 2004
        11.9 (last in NBA) Current

        Blocks
        411 (11th) 2004
        586 pace, 186 in 26 games (2nd) Current

        DeF Reb %
        73.9% (3rd) 2004
        74.8% (5th) Current


        So actually I'd say Buck is right to say statistically this squad is better defensively than the 2004 team. The one negative is the lack of TOs created, which is a change of possession. However, stopping more shots and collecting those missed shots at a higher rate offsets this to at least some degree because that is also a change of possession.

        One thing about TOs, it depends on how you get them. Offensive charges, shot clock violations or dribbles out of bounds are okay, but they don't give you any offensive advantage. A long rebound could actually do much better for the team. Of course a charge also counts as a foul which might end up being helpful (but doesn't go toward the bonus total so it doesn't affect FTAs really).

        But a good steal that gets your team on the move the other way can have a double-up impact by ending with easy points.

        I'm torn. I think Roy's basket intimidation impact, not just the blocks but the endless "punts" by players that go hunting to the rim and bail out or throw up wild scoops to avoid the block, is still underrated. Nearly every possession Roy is on the floor means the other team won't be getting a good look near the rim.

        On the other hand, 4 TOs is a big difference. It's one thing to have less, but the current group is flat out last in the NBA so it doesn't feel close enough to the 2004 group to be made up for with the slightly better numbers elsewhere.


        Still at this point I think my vote goes to the current group. I feel like Hill, Paul, Hibbert, Green and Young (edit: Mahinmi too) can all intimidate shots of nearly every guy on the court. Hill can't quite get to the frontline guys, but Green and Young both have enough hops to do that. With West showing improved rotational play and even nicely crafty work on the ball (lots of tip aways, disruptions, etc), it just feels like there is always at least 2 guys making a very aggressive challenge on the play.

        It's telling that teams are trying to go at Lance or Green so much. They know where the risk is and try to avoid it. And I think Green has actually been good. He has had a lot of guys just making tough contested jumpers over him.


        And the other crazy thing of all this is that I don't even know that Roy is the team's #1 defender because Sam Young is just killing it. His defensive efforts are ridiculous. Watch him get ball faked and then recover like a mad man to still disrupt the play.

        Or better yet watch Young recognize a pending risk and go cover it just as it's about to be exploited. He sees guys getting beat before they are actually beat. He sees what the other team is trying to do or where the next ball rotation is going to go and he goes to challenge it just as it's happening.

        Frankly when you have Paul, Young and Hibbert on the court you have an elite trio of defensive players right now. Add to this Hill's size/wing span advantage on a lot of guards and you've got teams searching for shot openings and clear views that just aren't there. Even when teams work to the open shot the Pacers make the process a major pain in the a**.



        And I agree that at this point Roy is playing like a max contract defender. He's going to make the all-defensive team, and Paul will be in people's minds too. Sadly Young doesn't have the fame to get noticed for his bulldog effort.


        As I often Tweet to Mike Wells, this Pacers slogan should be:
        ALWAYS BET THE UNDER
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-21-2012, 01:17 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

          no, the 2003-2004 team with Artest and JO were the best defensive team
          Smothered Chicken!

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

            Having two elite defenders in PG and Roy help to offset two below average defenders in Hill and West.
            You Got The Tony!!!!!!

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

              Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
              Having two elite defenders in PG and Roy help to offset two below average defenders in Hill and West.
              See I'm pretty tough on HIll, and even I think he is above average. Much better than Tinsley was. Tinsley got more steals for that '04 team whcih helped the TO% a lot, but how many points did he also give away? That's a stat I'd like to see.

              The block difference is pretty huge IMO, that is seriously a big change, a pace for 586 blocks on the season is really, really strong.


              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                See I'm pretty tough on HIll, and even I think he is above average. Much better than Tinsley was. Tinsley got more steals for that '04 team whcih helped the TO% a lot, but how many points did he also give away? That's a stat I'd like to see.
                I can't tell with Hill if he is purposely directing penetration into help defenders or if he is just allowing it. He has length and size at his position and if he's guarding in the paint or on the block, he's effective. But over the course of the game, he just doesn't put in the effort to keep guys in front of him. I'd rate him above average physically and below average on execution. I guess for the purpose of this thread comparing him to Tins is relevant, but that's really not the first point guard defender that comes to mind for me.
                You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

                  George Hill is maybe the best Pacers defensive Point Guard in the modern era
                  Surely Michael Williams qualifies as the modern era. His steals weren't gambles, he was a great dribble disrupter/harrasser. He wasn't super big, but he had far better quickness and hands than Woody did.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

                    Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                    I can't tell with Hill if he is purposely directing penetration into help defenders or if he is just allowing it. He has length and size at his position and if he's guarding in the paint or on the block, he's effective. But over the course of the game, he just doesn't put in the effort to keep guys in front of him. I'd rate him above average physically and below average on execution. I guess for the purpose of this thread comparing him to Tins is relevant, but that's really not the first point guard defender that comes to mind for me.
                    I think often he just doesn't have the lateral quickness for the faster and quicker PGs. Even so he isn't a below average defender, just not as good as he would be at defending SGs. The only below average defender in the starting lineup is West.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

                      Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
                      1994.

                      That team played some of the best playoff defense I have ever seen and they did it with a physicality & toughness. The ECF game at MSA where they held the Knicks to 68 was a clinic. They also just man handled and intimidated an under appreciated 57-win Hawks team for an entire series.

                      Very good bench defenders too with Scott, AD, Vern, Lasalle Thompson.
                      Agree that was a great defensive team, but:

                      1. That team would foul out in the first quarter under current rules. Of course, they're smart players so they'd adjust to the new rules, but it's very hard to compare teams across eras. The NBA's added several rules to make the game move faster.
                      1. Even with the rule changes (all favoring the offense), the current Pacers team has better defensive percentages.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        So actually I'd say Buck is right to say statistically this squad is better defensively than the 2004 team.
                        During the Detroit broadcast, Detroit's announcers were saying that this Indiana squad is on pace to be a top-5 defensive team since 1970.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

                          Also for those who follow on twitter you might have seen that I had a little game going for Utah, a race between Paul George to 30 vs Utah to 80. And while it was good for a laugh and spiced up the blowout, it ties to a more sincere attitude I find myself having in most games - disappointment when they let teams get over 80. That's a hellava bar for a team that's not dragging down the pace like the 2004 team did.

                          That's where Per 100 possessions tells more than just unaltered PPG.
                          85.6 PPG vs 97.2 PP100 (2004)
                          90.5 PPG vs 99.2 PP100 (Current)
                          5 PPG is only 2 PP100 due to the increased pace.

                          The 2004 team ran a 87.5 pace
                          The current team runs a pace of 90.1

                          It's not drastic, but it's noticeable. To me it makes it more impressive because this group doesn't go out of it's way to grind the game to a halt. First of all they run like the 2002 Nets at times, just track meets and leak outs all over the place. Second, for all the smash mouth and working through the post they don't spend a long time in iso typically, and as the season has worn on they've worked away from this even more. Early on some of the grind was accidental it appeared and just due to confusion. But this team tries to move the ball, often has higher TOs from this, and is very willing to go ahead and get a good shot with 10+ on the clock.

                          The 2004 team went out of their way to make it so they could always start from a set defense. Carlisle loathes putting his teams in tougher spots and would try to avoid having to start a defensive set against hard transitions. The current team has the horses to track that s*** down and turn it away, and due to some sloppy ball handling they often have to do just that. Paul, Green, Young and even Hill literally jump at the chance to contest a transition bucket. Think of Paul losing that ball to Kanter in the Utah game, and he just got right back after it and knocked it out of bounds off his leg.

                          And while I think the current NBA has made a turn this season, intentionally, to get back to more physical freedom on defense (thus some of what Roy can get away with), Artest worked in an era when he could really rough a guy up once he got below the FT line.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            I don't think that's true, I think 2004 has the numbers. I think they are better at DEF FG% and Points/100. I was looking at this topic about 2 weeks ago and have checked from time to time in regards to all-time Pacers ranking because it certainly is a growing topic. So I'm going from memory of those checks at this point and could be wrong.


                            BTW, I would like to "Yeah, what he said" to all of Trader Joe's comments. I'm going to look at some numbers and check back at lunch I think.

                            You are correct in raw numbers, but in league rankings this years team is better. And I think it is only far to look at it in context of the current other teams

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              Surely Michael Williams qualifies as the modern era. His steals weren't gambles, he was a great dribble disrupter/harrasser. He wasn't super big, but he had far better quickness and hands than Woody did.

                              I strongly disagree. He did gamble all the time, did get way out of position, could not keep his man in front of him. I thought he was a horrible defender. Woody was a much better defender. I think Williams is maybe the worst defensive point we've ever had.

                              are we talking about the same player?
                              Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-05-2013, 04:16 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Is this the Pacers best defensive team ever

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                I strongly disagree. He did gamble all the time, did get way out of position, could not keep his man in front of him. I thought he was a horrible defender. Woody was a much better defender. I think Williams is maybe the worst defensive point we've ever had.

                                are we talking about the see player?
                                Agree 100%. Williams was not a good defender. It only lasted a couple of years before the knee injury but Workman was the best.

                                I think Hill is a lot like Vern Fleming. He isn't elite defensively but he is long for the position, he is an above average athlete and he knows how to be effective in the team defensive concept.

                                Vern deserves to be in the conversation too but just spent too many years on some very bad defensive teams.
                                Last edited by Downtown Bang!; 12-22-2012, 08:35 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X