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

POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

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

  • BillS
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
    I SERIOUSLY think that basketball should get rid of 3-point shot. The basic concept of the game is to put the ball in basket - one method should not be more effective than another. Without a 3-point shot we would get a "purer" version of basketball...
    No, we'd be back to the pre-ABA "tallest guy wins" basketball, where everything takes place within 10' of the basket and the rest of the floor is unused.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    G2Zone and Scola won us that game. I loved Hill's aggression in the third quarter, and his D was better. I want more shots from him next game. That was one of those superstar games from PG where he easily looks like one of the best players in the NBA. He only needed 16 shot attempts, and I liked how he was looking to pass. There weren't too many ugly forced shots. That's the Scola we traded for. Huge buckets, aggressive on rebounds and going for putbacks, and good scrappy defense.

    We really ramped the defense up in the third quarter and carried it through the rest of the game. I thought the crowd was great.

    Great win. Obviously our season would have likely been over if we lost last night. I just don't see any way in which we lose this series. I'm still optimistic.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-23-2014, 05:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nuntius
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    Originally posted by PG-24 View Post
    i think we got roy pretty good looks today and he only made the 1st one. stumbled and traveled (non-call) on one, although he got lucky and passed it out for a 3. then he missed a dunk, missed a layup off the glass. hook shots not falling. its only so much catering you can do for a player. im fine with getting him touches, but stalling the offense 12-14 seconds while he tries to get position? thats where our stagnant offense comes from alot.
    Yeah, we did a pretty good job tonight at involving him offensively. I had no problem with it at all. He missed his shots but those shots will eventually fall if we keep doing that just like it happened with Scola. The fact that our PFs shot 13/19 (15/21 if we want to include Cope) tonight helped us a lot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nuntius
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    Originally posted by VideoVandal View Post
    Didn't mean for it to come off as me calling Horford a conventional C was merely stating that the C position won't be a problem for them next year. When I said they would be better off with a conventional C I meant a guy like Zaza I'd 100 percent take him over Antic. Now against us that may not be true we may be one of the only teams where Antic has more value than a guy like Zaza, but this team was 28th in rebounding. Hard to win when you get destroyed on the boards unless you have a guy named LeBron.
    Zaza is not a much better rebounder than Pero. He averages 0.9 RPG more per 36 minutes (I mention per 36 minutes mainly because Zaza 7.5 MPG more).

    In fact, the situation is reversed when it comes to the play with their NT in the last two EuroBasket tournaments. Pero grabbed 8.5 RPG to Zaza's 7.6 RPG in 2013 (although, Pero also played 35.2 MPG while Zaza played 29.6) and he also grabbed 8.0 RPG to Zaza's 4.4 RPG in 2011 (Pero played 35.2 MPG to Zaza's 25.8 MPG again, though).

    In general, Antic is a player that can give you 8 rebounds when given enough minutes. He isn't a liability in rebounding although I obviously expect him to lose the battles against the DeAndre Jordans and Andre Drummonds of the league.

    Now, you would certainly have a point if you wanted to talk about rim protection. Antic is not a rim protector. He has never been a rim protector in his life. He can defend in the post and he will not be a liability but he isn't athletic enough to contest shots at the rim. Not that Zaza is a great rim protector but he can do a better job than Pero.

    I know that I will probably become tedious with this but I really feel that some people think that Antic is simply a guy that appeared on the Hawks roster out of nowhere this season. He is kind of a late bloomer that broke into the European scene in 2011 after an amazing EuropeBasket tournament.

    Here is Pero Antic going up against Spain (with the Gasol brothers and Ibaka). He had 17 points, 9 rebounds, 3 assists and 2 steals:



    Here is Pero Antic going up against Russia (with Mozgov, Kirilenko and Shved). He had 15 points, 10 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 steals and 1 block. Mozgov had 8 points, 4 rebounds, 2 blocks and 3 turnovers:



    PS: If you want to be entertained then I beg you to watch the first video at the 5:20 mark. This is last highlight of the video and it's absolutely awesome. Gjorgji Čekovski's eurostep is one of the hilariously clumsy attempts that you will ever see but it worked. I almost cried when I saw it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Millertime3131
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
    I honestly don't see a reason for him to play
    He is 8 of his last 44 shots ... He is a center that is 19%.. He should not be an option

    Leave a comment:


  • Nuntius
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    Originally posted by PG-24 View Post
    Remember when he used to flip the pass to PG or Lance on that backdoor cut? fun times. kept the defense honest. alot of stuff that worked for us, we went away from. Cant remember the last time he took a 18 footer in rhythm either.
    Yep, I remember. That said I think that teams have caught up to this play and learned to counter it. If you run PG's defender into Hibbert's right side and Hibbert's defender bodies him up on his left side at the same time then Hibbert loses his balance and cannot make the pass to PG. That's why we've had a lot more success lately when PG fakes the cut and then steps back close to the 3 point line. This is an easier pass to make because Hibbert can retain eye contact even when he's knocked off balance.

    Leave a comment:


  • VideoVandal
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    Horford is not a conventional C. He is an All-Star level PF/C tweener. There isn't a single team in the NBA that wouldn't be better with Horford. Zaza Pachulia is a conventional C. Who would you take out of the two? It's a close call, imo. Their NBA seasons were pretty similar this year.

    Personally, I don't have a problem with Centers that have the capability to shoot the 3. It infuriates the heck out of me when the opponent hits 3 after 3 but I have nothing against it. It's a valid strategy. I only consider this problematic when this is the only thing that this player can do. That's why Steve Novak is not seeing the court right now. The only thing that he can do is shoot the 3 and he doesn't have a counter when the opposition runs him off the 3 point line. Pero Antic, Ryan Anderson, Channing Frye and Chris Copeland can do several other things when the opposition attempts to take away the 3 and run them off the 3 point line. I have absolutely nothing against that.
    Didn't mean for it to come off as me calling Horford a conventional C was merely stating that the C position won't be a problem for them next year. When I said they would be better off with a conventional C I meant a guy like Zaza I'd 100 percent take him over Antic. Now against us that may not be true we may be one of the only teams where Antic has more value than a guy like Zaza, but this team was 28th in rebounding. Hard to win when you get destroyed on the boards unless you have a guy named LeBron.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nuntius
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    Originally posted by VideoVandal View Post
    Fair enough.....obviously any player in the NBA is a great basketball player it is arguably the most competitive sport to become professional in, when I call him scrub I am obviously comparing him to his peers and I personally hate the role stretch 5s play as I think it is ultimately a losing strategy trying to build your team around 5 shooters. So to me he is a weak link to the team and with a conventional C aka Horford coming back for them I think they will be a much better team. As far as the PS goes I know you never said he was a game breaker more referring to other analysts and people on this forum that say Roy has no value to us in this series because of Antic. To me Antic doesn't bring enough to the table even when he is jacking up 8 3 point attempts to overreact to him making a few and changing our entire philosophy because of him. To me the more we make them live and die by the 3 especially if Antic (32 percent shooter) is the one taking them. Now obviously a guy like Korver you do change your D around to not let get open looks but Antic I am not sweating sacrificing open looks to him to ensure that Teague stays out of the paint.
    Horford is not a conventional C. He is an All-Star level PF/C tweener. There isn't a single team in the NBA that wouldn't be better with Horford. Zaza Pachulia is a conventional C. Who would you take out of the two? It's a close call, imo. Their NBA seasons were pretty similar this year.

    Personally, I don't have a problem with Centers that have the capability to shoot the 3. It infuriates the heck out of me when the opponent hits 3 after 3 but I have nothing against it. It's a valid strategy. I only consider this problematic when this is the only thing that this player can do. That's why Steve Novak is not seeing the court right now. The only thing that he can do is shoot the 3 and he doesn't have a counter when the opposition runs him off the 3 point line. Pero Antic, Ryan Anderson, Channing Frye and Chris Copeland can do several other things when the opposition attempts to take away the 3 and run them off the 3 point line. I have absolutely nothing against that.

    Leave a comment:


  • AesopRockOn
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    So, apparently replays of the playoff games can be watched on LPBB. Didn't realize this until kind of late tonight.

    Having only watched the second half at this point, I can't say much about the game as a whole (or about Mahinmi's missed free throw), but it sure feels better than Sunday. Ian was indeed beastly protecting the rim, though I do think he about split the rebounding battle with Elton. I'm really torn on whether I should watch the next game on replay or just follow the game thread in an exhausted, shivering state from my cubicle. Again, very glad we won in the fashion we did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nuntius
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    One thing that I have noticed is that the Hawks have completely packed in the paint when the Pacers either drive or the ball goes inside. This ( obviously ) makes it harder for Hibbert to score cuz the guy is like a frickin pinball with his high center of gravity and lack of any real strength to really battle inside the paint. But I also recall several drives to the hoop where there are 3 to 4 Hawks inside or very close to the paint where GH and/or Lance tried to dump it off to Hibbert while they drew the defense. But because the defense instantly collapsed and it was so packed into the paint......any pass inside the paint ended up as a turnover ( cuz of all the traffic and clutter in the paint...which led to Hibbert fumbling the ball ).

    I'm not saying that Hibbert isn't "butterfingers" as of late and that he should have caught the ball....it's a combination of Hibbert's lack of offense/confidence and IMHO the wrong type of pass when there are too many defenders in the paint.

    One thing that I hope someone on the Coaching Staff takes from this is that when someone is attacking / driving to the paint.....they look both inside and outside for the open pass when they draw the defense.
    They certainly do that. Look, the Hawks know that their only player that can successfully cover Roy 1-on-1 in the post is Elton Brand, imo. Elton Brand has that combination of very low Center of gravity, length and strength that can give Roy a lot of problems since he will always beat him in a battle of leverage. Pero Antic is a strong guy that can defend the post but he cannot win this battle of leverage as often as Brand goes. You could see it tonight when Pero guarded Roy in the post. Roy would back him down with one or two dribbles but then the Hawks would collapse on him and attempt to cause a turnover. Pero even attempted to pull the chair on him in one case which made Hibbert lose his balance and miss the shot (smart move by Pero, by the way).

    The Hawks want to take Hibbert out the game. Every team that plays against us wants to take Hibbert out the game because they know that this will open up our inside defense which in turn opens up our perimeter defense. That said, Ian is a very good defender in his own right and was amazing tonight. He really played a big part in today's win. It's just that Ian and Roy offer different things on the offensive end. Ian can be covered by one defender. Opposing teams are not going to double team him and they are not going to cheat off of someone else in order to trap him.

    Leave a comment:


  • VideoVandal
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    Don't worry, I'm not taking this the wrong way. This isn't the first time that someone has asked me this question.

    I believe that it's very hard for an NBA player to be a complete and utter scrub. Do you know why? Because there are tons of players playing in other leagues that have a lot of skill and would immediatedly take the place of someone who is a complete and utter scrub.

    However, I will certainly admit that there are several NBA players that can be considered "scrubs" when compared to their NBA competition. Pero Antic is not one of them. Chris Copeland is not one of them either. Both of them can help a team offensively while not giving up a lot defensively. Both of them are role-players that can help a team win.

    That said, I do have a soft spot for role players. I'm much less likely to consider a player a "scrub" than the average NBA fan.

    PS: I never said that Antic is a series breaker, by the way. We don't have to adjust our entire defense around him. We just have to make sure that we will stick to our plan even when/if he hits a couple of 3s in a row.
    Fair enough.....obviously any player in the NBA is a great basketball player it is arguably the most competitive sport to become professional in, when I call him scrub I am obviously comparing him to his peers and I personally hate the role stretch 5s play as I think it is ultimately a losing strategy trying to build your team around 5 shooters. So to me he is a weak link to the team and with a conventional C aka Horford coming back for them I think they will be a much better team. As far as the PS goes I know you never said he was a game breaker more referring to other analysts and people on this forum that say Roy has no value to us in this series because of Antic. To me Antic doesn't bring enough to the table even when he is jacking up 8 3 point attempts to overreact to him making a few and changing our entire philosophy because of him. To me the more we make them live and die by the 3 especially if Antic (32 percent shooter) is the one taking them. Now obviously a guy like Korver you do change your D around to not let get open looks but Antic I am not sweating sacrificing open looks to him to ensure that Teague stays out of the paint.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nuntius
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    Originally posted by VideoVandal View Post
    Don't take this the wrong way because you are one of the posters I most enjoy interacting with on here, and I respect your basketball insight......but do you think anyone in the NBA is a scrub? You seem to like every players game or always point out a players strengths and find even the smallest things he does well for a team. Is it possible for an NBA player to not be good in your book? Sure he may be an OK role player and do a few things well, but I just am sick of hearing people talk about him like we have to adjust our entire defense around him. OK maybe scrub was a harsh word but he isn't the series breaker like a lot are making him out to be and a guy I personally don't think we should adjust our defense around.
    Don't worry, I'm not taking this the wrong way. This isn't the first time that someone has asked me this question.

    I believe that it's very hard for an NBA player to be a complete and utter scrub. Do you know why? Because there are tons of players playing in other leagues that have a lot of skill and would immediatedly take the place of someone who is a complete and utter scrub.

    However, I will certainly admit that there are several NBA players that can be considered "scrubs" when compared to their NBA competition. Pero Antic is not one of them. Chris Copeland is not one of them either. Both of them can help a team offensively while not giving up a lot defensively. Both of them are role-players that can help a team win.

    That said, I do have a soft spot for role players. I'm much less likely to consider a player a "scrub" than the average NBA fan.

    PS: I never said that Antic is a series breaker, by the way. We don't have to adjust our entire defense around him. We just have to make sure that we will stick to our plan even when/if he hits a couple of 3s in a row.

    Leave a comment:


  • PG-24
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
    With current 3-point percentages, a long shot would be a legitimate option even without an extra point. Best players are shooting them around what - 45%.

    If 3-point lane would no longer be defended with same intensity (as there is no lane) and if guys didn't need to concentrate in setting their toes right, some players would probably be hitting 50% from around 3-point mark... It would be a very valid offensive option with top shooters WITHOUT extra value.

    And basketball (incl. NBA) should always be SPORT 1st, 2nd and foremost. Entertainment is a side product.

    3-point shot was an acceptable and even useful gimmick when no one was actually hitting them (look the numbers and percentages from 80's). Nowadays, it has taken too big a role and has become a detriment for balanced game.
    its a business. entertainment is THE product.

    Leave a comment:


  • PetPaima
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    With current 3-point percentages, a long shot would be a legitimate option even without an extra point. Best players are shooting them around what - 45%.

    If 3-point lane would no longer be defended with same intensity (as there is no lane) and if guys didn't need to concentrate in setting their toes right, some players would probably be hitting 50% from around 3-point mark... It would be a very valid offensive option with top shooters WITHOUT extra value.

    And basketball (incl. NBA) should always be SPORT 1st, 2nd and foremost. Entertainment is a side product.

    3-point shot was an acceptable and even useful gimmick when no one was actually hitting them (look the numbers and percentages from 80's). Nowadays, it has taken too big a role and has become a detriment for balanced game.

    Leave a comment:


  • PG-24
    replied
    Re: POST GAME THREAD: 4/22/2014 NBA Playoffs, First Round Game #2: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    i think we got roy pretty good looks today and he only made the 1st one. stumbled and traveled (non-call) on one, although he got lucky and passed it out for a 3. then he missed a dunk, missed a layup off the glass. hook shots not falling. its only so much catering you can do for a player. im fine with getting him touches, but stalling the offense 12-14 seconds while he tries to get position? thats where our stagnant offense comes from alot.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X