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

Tbird analysis: What constitutes a "good" 3 point shot?

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

  • Tbird analysis: What constitutes a "good" 3 point shot?

    With the hiring of Jim O'Brien, the Pacers have committed their franchise to a coach who is among the biggest fans of the three point shot. In his press conference to announce his hiring, when asked by the media he confirmed this, saying "as long as they are GOOD three point shots". But what does that mean, in the eyes of the Pacers new staff?

    With that in mind, I wanted to put out here what I think the criteria will be for the new staff to grade out our players on what makes a "quality" 3 point attempt. Here are the situations where he will emphasize taking the 3:

    1. Off of ball reversal after double teams in the post. Coach O"Brian is likely to play 4 perimeter guys around 1 post player,which will help create space to take these type shots. What he will emphasize more than most coaches is to take this 3 attempt, rather than shot faking it and driving it hard to the rim. You can expect the Pacers "4" men, like Shawne Williams, Troy Murphy, and perhaps Lamar Odom to be encouraged to take that shot.

    2. Out of transition. You can expect to see the Pacers pull up short on the wings on 3 on 2 and 2 on 1 situations and fire the perimeter 3 pointer. This will annoy us at times, because many of you will be expecting players like Granger to fill the lanes hard for a dunk, drive, or mid range game. Instead, O'Brian will have guys like Granger, Williams, and others stay back behind the line. You can also expect Troy Murphy being used as a trailer, coming down the floor down the middle, to be allowed and encouraged to stop at the top, recieve a pass, and fire it up from there, taking shots some of us won't like.

    3. After offensive rebounds. This is the one I expect to see the most complaints about next fall and winter. Coach O'Brien is one of the new age thinkers on this subject, that have done studies and now believe three attempts after offensive rebounds is the single best time to take shots from deep. The defense is at its most disorganized at this point, and some coaches believe and have stats to back it up that this is your highest percentage time to shoot a three. Expect to see plenty of times offensive boards from our bigs near the goal, and see them immediately turn outward to hit spot up shooters, instead of trying to gather themselves and go back up with the ball strong.

    4. Threes taken on specially designed inbounds plays.

    5. Threes taken after ballscreens...instead of pick and rolls, youll see alot of pick and pop backs, and some set plays designed to "screen the ballscreener" which are effective to get three attempts at times. Youll also see our ballhandlers encouraged to fire threes if the defense goes underneath the ballscreens from the top. Likely, youll see teams guard our current guards this way, so you'll see lots of 3 pointers from the top taken by Tinsley or whomever else is handling the ball.

    Now, what he won't teach to be good attempts, I believe, are the following:

    1. Threes taken after 1 pass in a half court set, without a ball reversal or penetrating move or pass toward the rim. This is different from a transition 3 which may happen after 1 pass, because they come before the defense is prepared and set.

    2. Threes taken off the dribble. These are the ones he allowed Walker to take in Boston, but I suspect he will be a bit more restrictive here.

    In total, I suspect the Pacers will shoot around 1600 three point attempts next season playing this style of offense. It remains to be seen how effective it will be, but clearly we need to add 3 point shooters to our roster to play the way Coach O'Brien's preferred style.

    Just my opinions, of course.

    tbird

  • #2
    Re: Tbird analysis: What constitues a "good" 3 point shot?

    A lot depends on the improvement of Tinsley, Dunleavy, and Granger at hitting that shot. All three have at at least one time in their careers had a good % from out there; can they regain their form if they've lost it?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird analysis: What constitues a "good" 3 point shot?

      Mike Miller for Lamar Odom!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird analysis: What constitues a "good" 3 point shot?

        I think our perimeter shooting will be helped by an offense created to get those shots in the flow of the offense. Not a last second 'hot patato, I got nothing' pass from JO, or JT dominating the ball rather than initiating the offense and getting the ball (and defense) moving.

        I wonder how things would be if we had Peja back? That is assuming his playing career isn't about over and he will be healed...

        But in any case, I will argue that our previous OVER-emphassis on JO led to our perimeter game looking worse that it really could be. JO ended up being a net loss to our perimeter game, not opening things up for it.

        -Bball
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird analysis: What constitues a "good" 3 point shot?

          While I love the analysis tbird I hate the conclusion. Well, at least whoever is playing underneath should get plenty of face time with everyone out on the perimeter.
          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird analysis: What constitutes a "good" 3 point shot?

            The only good three point shot is one taken by Reggie Miller, Dell Curry, Chris Jackson (or whatever his new name is), Dan Marjerle, Chuck Person, Dale Ellis or Tim Hardaway.

            Everyone else should either attack (draw a foul, get to the line) the basket or step in and shoot the 18'-19' shot.

            We don't have the roster to shoot many three's. I trust that Jim O'Brien is smart enough to figure that out. What I don't get is why everybody wants to pigeon-hole coaches on things like this. The coach's job is to study his team and figure out which strategy will work best for his personnel. Not vice versa.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird analysis: What constitutes a "good" 3 point shot?

              I'm a big fan of the transition three. If it's 1-on-3, pull up and take it if you got a decent look. You'll have the necessary momentum to get your shot where you want it and if you miss, you don't have to worry about long rebounds allowing the opposing team to start a fast break of their own, because your guys will be further down the court and able to get into defensive position quickly.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird analysis: What constitutes a "good" 3 point shot?

                Originally posted by Jay View Post
                We don't have the roster to shoot many three's. I trust that Jim O'Brien is smart enough to figure that out. What I don't get is why everybody wants to pigeon-hole coaches on things like this. The coach's job is to study his team and figure out which strategy will work best for his personnel. Not vice versa.
                +1
                Yeah, we'll need someone won't we?
                Tinman 37%, 23%, 32% = 31% career
                Dun 29%, 35%, 28% = 34% career
                Danny 32%, 38% = 37% career
                Mr. Miller .395 career 10 yrs > .400
                Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird analysis: What constitutes a "good" 3 point shot?

                  Originally posted by Jay View Post
                  The only good three point shot is one taken by Reggie Miller, Dell Curry, Chris Jackson (or whatever his new name is), Dan Marjerle, Chuck Person, Dale Ellis or Tim Hardaway.

                  Everyone else should either attack (draw a foul, get to the line) the basket or step in and shoot the 18'-19' shot.

                  We don't have the roster to shoot many three's. I trust that Jim O'Brien is smart enough to figure that out. What I don't get is why everybody wants to pigeon-hole coaches on things like this. The coach's job is to study his team and figure out which strategy will work best for his personnel. Not vice versa.

                  This is a great post Jay, and it's why you are one of my favorite posters to read on here.

                  Now, the question on whether O'Brien will still emphasize the three point shot as much as he has in the past is still up for debate, we will just to have to wait and see. By experience I usually figure that a coach does have tendencies and beliefs, and generally will try to play close to the same type of game plan, although some coaches are more open to change than others. This is what makes this hire so fascinating on some levels, because we are hiring a coach with a set of established records and beliefs, to go with a roster that doesnt totally fit his philosophy offensively, no matter what good feelings are being expressed now.

                  To Jay's point that he likes players to attack the rim and get to the line, I wholeheartedly agree. Teams who consistently play good offense shoot and make more foul shots than their opponents by large margins.

                  However, there is a tipping point in there about the mid range long 2 point shot which I dont agree with completely. I would personally rather take an open 3 than an open long 2 pointer, all things being equal. Of course it depends on the range of the shooter, etc etc.

                  Dunleavy has a long history of NOT being a high percentage 3 point shooter. He seems like he has good form and would be better, but consistently he isnt that good. It will be interesting to see how much of a free hand O'Brien gives him. I suspect that one of our complaints we have all season is that we have poorer shooters taking too many "bad threes" as I defined them in the beginning of the thread.

                  Hopefully, our improved defense will coverup some of our inconsistent offense.
                  Last edited by thunderbird1245; 06-02-2007, 05:13 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird analysis: What constitutes a "good" 3 point shot?

                    Id say we already saw a lot of situations 2 and 3 (from the 'good' situations) last season. And everytime we did I was infuriated. Id say we even saw some of situation 1, mainly when Murph was in the game.

                    I agree with Jay, Id much rather see them attacking the rim.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird analysis: What constitutes a "good" 3 point shot?

                      A good 3 point shot is not a wide open shot. It's not about the drive and dishout... with the wrong player. It is having the right player take the shot. Who are the right players on the Pacers? Danny, SWilliams and Troy I guess. Who else do we really want taking a lot of 3s?

                      After all this talk of shooting 3's these guys better be shooting 1000 3pters a day in practice all summer.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird analysis: What constitutes a "good" 3 point shot?

                        The thing about falling in love with the three-point shot is that it's either going to help you or kill you. You can blow a lot of teams out by taking it and making it. You can get blown out by a lot of teams by taking it and missing it. Three-point misses are often long rebounds that can lead to a fast break by the opposition. If OB is really as big a fan of the three-point shot as he's said to be, I hope our transition defense is top notch.

                        Like Jay and I agree on a lot, I prefer to see us be aggressive and get to the basket and draw fouls - earning the three points the old fashioned way. I think the three-point shot is overrated. I don't mind us mixing in 20 footers with drives to the basket. But I'd prefer to keep going for two points and stay in the game vs. taking the bigger gamble with three-pointers to make or break us.

                        As far as a "good" 3 point shot, I think it's a shot that happens in rhythm. It can be in the rhythm of the offense, or in the rhythm of the players movement [which is kind of hard to explain]. Stephen Jackson used to just kill me when he'd take those standing still, wide open, no rhythm shots, and they'd just go "CLANK". Yet when somebody caught him in rhythm and he took the shot, he'd almost always make it. Rhythm is everything. I think what made Reggie Miller such a great shooter was the fact that the offense was built around his game and allowed him to get the ball and shoot in rhythm, something he is probably the best ever at doing.

                        So my answer is that any three-point shot taken within the rhythm of the offense is a good three-point shot.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird analysis: What constitutes a "good" 3 point shot?

                          The Good = Reggie Miller
                          The Bad = Stephen Jackson
                          The Ugly = Shawn Marion

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird analysis: What constitutes a "good" 3 point shot?

                            Originally posted by #31 View Post
                            The Good = Reggie Miller
                            The Bad = Stephen Jackson
                            The Ugly = Shawn Marion

                            Nah.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird analysis: What constitutes a "good" 3 point shot?

                              Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                              Nah.

                              Perfect example of what I said about Jack. He was shooting in rhythm in every one of those plays.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X