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

George Hill's Defense

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

  • #31
    Re: George Hill's Defense

    Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
    Pacer's defense was a lot more than just switching Paul George to Deron Williams. They also doubled him hard, trying to force him to get rid of the ball. Pacers made the decision at halftime not to let Deron Williams beat them. Gave up some open shots as a consequence.
    Well giving up some open shots got them back into the game. Once they started to double and trap Williams he started to turn it over, and the Pacers got a few easy buckets and hard nose transition drives.

    The reality of the situation is that Vogel does not recognize the the strength we have in being able to send West or George out to Double or trap the Point before they have a chance to set up any sort of offense. With Hill's injury it should have been automatic from the beginning of the game. Instead Vogel waits until the 2nd half and uses it as a desperation adjustment. Pacers D is best when they are aggressive on the perimeter, thats why you have ROy in the middle protecting the paint against drives.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: George Hill's Defense

      This is a lot of truth in this. in fact IMO gthis is the predominant reason. this is a portion from Kravitz latest. Vogel's comments explains what is going on and unless you want Roy out by the three point line trapping the point guard it is going to continue to happen

      http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...ffs-can-answer

      • Can George Hill guard electric point guards?

      Vogel pointed to Hill’s abdominal/groin injury Friday, but the fact remains, four straight guards have gone for more than 30 points against Hill and the Pacers.

      Vogel defended Hill’s play by pointing out that his team’s big men, specifically Roy Hibbert, rarely blitz the pick-and-roll, and leave Hill exposed. That’s elementally true. But maybe you noticed when George took Brooklyn’s Deron Williams in the second half, Williams went quiet — with some help from a double-teaming, trapping style that took the ball out of Williams’ hands.

      More times than not, when a point guard goes off it has more to do with our bigs and our team’s scheme than it is what we’re doing on the ball,” Vogel said. “It’s never felt to me like, ‘Wow, George is being exposed.’ I’d take George over most any guard out there.”
      Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-14-2013, 09:12 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: George Hill's Defense

        Yeah. If Hill were healthy, I'd prefer to keep him on Deron, but still switch the team defense to trapping him hard, and this way you still get the ball out of his hands but there's a chance Paul George can swoop in and steal the pass as well.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: George Hill's Defense

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          He is injured
          At least I know I was on to something legit.

          An injury explains this much better than blaming Hill's recent counterparts for being too unguardable, or blaming Roy Hibbert's great defense for (suddenly) exposing GH, or blah blah.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: George Hill's Defense

            Originally posted by Randolph_HorseLips View Post
            At least I know I was on to something legit.

            An injury explains this much better than blaming Hill's recent counterparts for being too unguardable, or blaming Roy Hibbert's great defense for (suddenly) exposing GH, or blah blah.
            Hibbert has been bad at PnR all year. I'm not knocking the rest of his stellar D. But the man lives in the paint where he is amazing.
            "There is a time to play and a time to win. It is what you do during winning time that differentiates the average players from stars."

            ~Ahmad Rashad~

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: George Hill's Defense

              Originally posted by Randolph_HorseLips View Post
              At least I know I was on to something legit.

              An injury explains this much better than blaming Hill's recent counterparts for being too unguardable, or blaming Roy Hibbert's great defense for (suddenly) exposing GH, or blah blah.
              It is relieving to see that he's carrying a nagging injury. Especially a groin injury that would effect his ability to shift laterally. However, the gauntlet he faced during that spread was still brutal, and those guys are the future(some even present) superstars of the league. I mean, Mike Conley is one of the best defensive PGs in the league and John Wall hung 47 on him.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: George Hill's Defense

                Originally posted by Randolph_HorseLips View Post
                PG does often get matched up against those types of guys. He guarded LeBron and held him to 13 last time they played.
                That's because Lebron only attempted 10 shots while making 50%. I'm sure he would have scored more if Bosh didn't make 11 of 15 and Wade didn't make 9 of 16. Maybe West and Stephenson's defense sucks. Point is, he didn't need to to score more than 13. The Heat blew out the Pacers and every starter lit us up. And yes, Chalmers was 7 of 9 too. The only other starter was Haslem and he was 0/1. All of the other starters scored at will. Probably why Miami shot 56% from the field. The starters appear to have shot a far higher percentage than that. Looks closer to 70%.
                Last edited by TOP; 04-14-2013, 02:54 PM.
                "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: George Hill's Defense

                  Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
                  Hill is an average defender... You can't expect him to shut down the best point guards in the league.
                  He's probably a bit above average thanks to his size, but the problem hasn't been Hill it's been high PnR and how tough Roy has it trying to come out that far and play lateral defense. Teams attack that because they know it's a weakness. So you saw West (and Tyler/Pendy) moved into the 2nd defender in those spots and they blitzed the hell out of it to come back on CLE and BRK.

                  If fact learning how to attack it vs CLE is why they started their comeback sooner against BRK. The comeback vs BRK was far less about Paul being moved to DWill and far more about David West making EVERY SINGLE DEFENSIVE PLAY from about the mid-3rd on. That's not even hyperbole. West tipped, stole, blocked or DReb on every defensive stand in that BRK comeback, and that's because he's a better lateral defender than Roy. This blew up the DWill high PnR, yet DWill insisted on forcing his own action well past the point when it was working (see Lance and Paul on offense themselves).

                  Chris Paul had more trouble because he didn't have a great mid-range PF to work with. Griffin is all about coming to the rim, not about PnPop.


                  Wall did NOT own Hill in terms of halfcourt. The Wizards used what Wall does best - hard sprint-out transition on every favorable possession change, ie any possession taken 8-10 feet up court from the rim, with your guys moving toward the other end at the time. Wall wasn't driving to the rim over and over in HC, he was pushing the ball like Lance does on TOs and long rebounds. On top of that, I'd suggest that the Pacers learned a lesson from that and used it themselves for their comeback offense against CLE and BRK.


                  Paul did NOT shut down Durant. Durant scored with ease and often just pulled up for jump shots over him. He went 13-21 (62%) for 34 freaking points. Wow, Paul, take it easy on the kid. Meanwhile Westbrook got his 24 points on 10-24 shooting (42%) and 0-3 from 3. So Hill "blew it" compared to PG24.

                  CP didn't kill them, Wall used TOs and long boards for many of his scores, W'brook really didn't crush it.

                  Irving had a solid game (10-20) but it was ZELLER hitting all those PnPops (9-17, 53% for 18 points) that had CLE killing the Pacers. Wayne Ellington outshot Paul George (4-11 vs 4-12), and that was a major problem (PGs offense). Hill ended up with 9-15 for 27 points with 0 TOs vs Irvings 29 points and EIGHT (8) TOs. Hill had 4 steals himself in that game, so it doesn't suggest a big Hill issue. Irving scoring stands out in his game log far less than Zeller's scoring does....in 74 games Tyler Z has been at 20 once, 16 three times and 15 once. So his 18 is definitely an outlier than says the Pacers had no shot at defending his PnPop. IT WAS THE MOST SHOTS TYLER ZELLER HAS TAKEN ALL YEAR.



                  Brooklyn attacked Hill with SIZE. Even as they adjusted the Nets just put Hill into the post or out on the baseline trying to stop Stackhouse and Joe Johnson from shooting over him, and since they aren't PGs and are bigger than him it was tough.



                  So the narrative is NOT George Hill's defense. This is a major scheme problem and one that I hate to say comes with Roy Hibbert. Roy is a nightmare in the paint and teams know it. So they are pulling him out to the arc where he is weak. This is why Roy played so little down the stretch vs the Nets.

                  The good news is that when the Pacers have committed to blitzing the PnRoll they have destroyed it and made massive comebacks. It's similar to breaking down a zone. When you are flustered by the strategy it seems hopeless, but the instant you answer it and start pounding that answer into the ground it costs the opponents dearly and forces them to abandon it.

                  This could bode well for the playoffs because the Pacers have found ways to defend PnRoll/Pop and force teams away from it. Then you can go back to feeding them to Roy. Given the amount of TOs the PnR blitz creates I think teams will end up choosing to risk attacking Roy or running standard HC stuff rather than having West come out and deflect a PnR pass for a Lance or Hill layup.

                  The Pacers have taken a punch, but they have shown they also have a counter-punch.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: George Hill's Defense

                    Originally posted by Mr.Hinds View Post
                    Hibbert has been bad at PnR all year. I'm not knocking the rest of his stellar D. But the man lives in the paint where he is amazing.
                    Exactly. If Hill has been slowed and is to "blame" for PnR issues far from the rim it's only because he's not covering Roy's butt enough out there. In the paint Roy is a god, just a real monster, but pulled out where his height is neutralized he has trouble. It's never a good plan to have Roy defending Irving one on one at the corner 3 spot, and that happened in the CLE game. That's scheme based more than anything Hill wasn't doing.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: George Hill's Defense

                      He has length with his 6'2 frame. I think he gives all he can every play, but once he gets beat, he kind of stops and doesn't try to foul. I think he is a solid player overall, just not totally there with discipline. He and Lance are almost there as PG has figured it out. West and Roy are there
                      Smothered Chicken!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X