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

NBA winning model is changing?

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

    NBA winning model is changing?

    Good article, and it does make me wonder, because I was 100% in favor of the superstar model, but maybe things are changing

    I know this is Sam Smith but there are some interesting quotes in the middle of the article from an unnamed NBA executive.

    Skiles has done a great job with the Bulls. They are one of the very best defensive teams in the league which is remarkable considering how young they are.


    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/


    Banging Bulls irk Western teams



    March 14, 2005


    Baby Bulls? Forget it! How about the Brutal, Baleful Bulls, perhaps the NBA's dirtiest team?

    No, wait. This is a good thing. The Detroit Pistons have won three NBA championships while wearing that label, and have a good chance at a fourth this season. The New York Knicks, when they were the best they were in the last 30 years in the 1990s under Pat Riley, were that kind of team.

    It bothers opponents, like the Seattle SuperSonics' Ray Allen, who was complaining ceaselessly to the referees Friday during the Bulls' win that Kirk Hinrich was hitting his arm, bumping him and holding him up on cuts. Likewise, when the Bulls narrowly lost to the San Antonio Spurs last month, Tim Duncan congratulated his team on playing through the Bulls' rough tactics.

    "What they want to do is bang," Duncan said. "They want to hack and hold. I thought we did a great job of fighting through that. We didn't get on the refs too much."

    This is the true alchemy of general manager John Paxson and coach Scott Skiles. Paxson brought in the players willing and able to play that way, and Skiles instructed them how to do so. When Skiles played in the NBA, he couldn't stay in front of Kirstie Alley after a big meal. The rules then were somewhat different and allowed hand checking and more holding, which the NBA has been trying to limit. These young Bulls are more athletic, so they have become equally frustrating.

    Especially to Western Conference teams like Seattle, which is here Tuesday. Those teams like to run up and down and shoot threes, which is why few believe any team but the Spurs, Pistons and Miami Heat can win this year's Finals. Once the playoffs arrive, the games slow, in part because the players are allowed more contact. Cutters often are stopped and held for a split-second, throwing off the play. Shooters are chased and held going around screens. The referees get tired of calling everything.

    Interestingly, it's a tactic the real Baby Bulls of the late 1980s used to complain about with the Pistons. The Bulls finally stopped complaining and played the same way. The Lakers couldn't figure out how to last June.

    The guys out West don't like that, which is one reason the Bulls are 13-6 against the supposedly more powerful Western teams since the end of their November road trip. It all suggests the Bulls may be well prepared for the playoffs.



    Forget superstars

    There's another continuing change in philosophy, if not style, that goes something like this: You don't need a transcendent offensive star to be successful.

    In other words, the Pistons' 2003-04 season was no fluke.

    "If you look around, the teams in this league that are successful are the teams with depth, talent and good people," said one top team executive. "More and more, you're seeing that these teams that are still trying to win with that superstar model are falling further and further out of the mix. I think some teams are slow to recognize that the days of getting one or maybe two All-Stars and trying to win that way is flawed thinking and outdated."

    Consider: With Allen Iverson and Kobe Bryant the league's leading scorers, it appears likely the league's leading scorer will not be in the playoffs for the second consecutive season. It hadn't happened since 1985 and New York's Bernard King before Orlando's Tracy McGrady last season.

    Among the league's top 15 scorers, it appears five--with Michael Redd, Jason Richardson and Vince Carter joining Iverson and Bryant--likely will not be in the playoffs. And several more play for teams considered long shots to go two rounds in the playoffs, like LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki, Gilbert Arenas, Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce.

    As for that star pairing of Iverson and Chris Webber in Philadelphia, it is early, but Webber is being booed already, coach Jim O'Brien is getting the bulk of the blame from fans and media and Iverson was heard yelling at O'Brien to get him the ball more. Said Webber: "It's negativity and controversy. It's something that always follows me."

    Iverson didn't exactly tell Webber to stop whining but said, "I've been in Philadelphia nine years, and I've seen way worse [booing] than that. I've been booed. So why would it bother me if somebody else is getting booed? It didn't bother me when I was getting booed. That's just how it is. This is Philadelphia."



    Looking for love

    Webber's former teammate, Mike Bibby, hit two game-winning buzzer shots last week for Sacramento. Freed of Webber's dominance of the ball, Bibby is averaging 24.1 points, 7.9 assists, 4.4 rebounds and 2.1 steals since the trading deadline.

    Bibby now holds the Derek Harper Award for best player never to be an All-Star. You could make a good team of those players. First team would be Bibby, Richard Hamilton, Jalen Rose, Toni Kukoc and Pau Gasol. Second team would be Tony Parker, Chauncey Billups, Corey Maggette, Lamar Odom and Keith Van Horn. Honorable mentions and those coming into the category would include Kirk Hinrich, Jason Richardson, Andre Miller, Donyell Marshall, Joe Smith, Kurt Thomas and Matt Harpring.



    Goodbye, Strickland

    And then there's Rod Strickland. The long-ago DePaul product is seventh on the all-time NBA assists list and the only one among the top 10 never to have made an All-Star team. Strickland, with his 10th team, quietly was released at the trading deadline as Houston solidified its backcourt. He said he's finally done.

    "Each year the calls have been coming less and have been further and further along," Strickland said. "I'm done. I mean it this time."

    Strickland says he wants to remain around the NBA either coaching or scouting. Doesn't everyone? Also hanging them up from his familiar spot on the injured list is Cleveland's Scott Williams, the undrafted free agent who played on three Bulls title teams. "It's time," said Williams, who wants to get into NBA broadcasting. Doesn't everyone?


    Chicken dance

    The league didn't see it coming. The Suns, with six weeks left, have no more games with Dallas, Seattle or the Spurs. And perhaps some interesting gamesmanship was at work last week when Spurs coach Gregg Popovich chose a game with the Suns--tied with the Spurs for the league's best record--to begin resting Duncan and Manu Ginobili with nagging injuries.

    The Suns saw it as the Spurs not wanting to risk their psychological advantage for the playoffs, having swept Phoenix to that point.

    So new Suns owner Robert Sarver spent the game in his courtside seat flapping his arms like a chicken and yelling: "Varsity! Varsity! Varsity!" And then the Suns struggled to win against the Spurs' reserves. Said Popovich: "In life, a lot of questions don't get answered for us. I still don't know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. I don't know who `Deep Throat' was in Watergate. But now I know who was under the `San Diego Chicken' outfit all of those years."



    Spoiled brats?

    Not that anyone is surprised anymore, but Boston's Paul Pierce left another game cursing coach Doc Rivers last week. Asked how much he was concerned by another Pierce fit, Rivers formed a zero with his thumb and forefinger.

    Cleveland's James was said to have offered a similar appraisal of coach Paul Silas during a game last week, but no one thinks he'll be suspended like others have been for similar actions.

    It only gets worse in Portland, where Nick Van Exel refused to play and was put on the injured list in a protest over the team effectively giving up and playing its kids. Said Van Exel: "You can't deny we're throwing in the season." Ruben Patterson was said to have been sent home with pay so he wouldn't criticize the team, and Derek Anderson has been left on the injured list.


    Around the league

    It's Shaq and Kobe! What, again? Yup, Shaquille O'Neal and Bryant are back Thursday in Miami for the unanticipated second and final meeting of the season. "It's not a big deal to me at all," Bryant said, echoing America's sentiments this time. . . . Super Bowl Shuffle? A local retail chain in Miami is publishing a comic book series with O'Neal and Dwyane Wade (Superman and Flash, as O'Neal calls them) as comic book superheroes with other Heat players. . . . Interesting Duke issues in Clippersland as Corey Maggette and Elton Brand have been shooting more, it was said, because each was afraid of not getting the ball back when passing to the other. A blast from coach Mike Dunleavy last week seemed to ease the tension, but the belief is one, probably Maggette, will be traded this summer as the Clippers try to land a shooting guard, like Seattle's Allen or the Suns' Joe Johnson, and move Bobby Simmons to small forward. . . . Allen continued his free-agent recruitment tour Sunday in New York, where the rumors were the Knicks would try a postseason sign-and-trade of Jamal Crawford and Kurt Thomas for Allen. The Clippers supposedly would do Maggette and Chris Wilcox.


    Copyright © 2005, The Chicago Tribune
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: NBA winning model is changing?

    Are teams getting away from the superstar model or are they getting away from throwing the ball into JO...errrr their star player on offense every possession and becoming less predictable and harder to defend?

    or IOW... Becoming more balanced teams (key word: teams) on both sides of the court?

    -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

    • #3
      Re: NBA winning model is changing?

      Bibby now holds the Derek Harper Award for best player never to be an All-Star. You could make a good team of those players. First team would be Bibby, Richard Hamilton, Jalen Rose, Toni Kukoc and Pau Gasol. Second team would be Tony Parker, Chauncey Billups, Corey Maggette, Lamar Odom and Keith Van Horn. Honorable mentions and those coming into the category would include Kirk Hinrich, Jason Richardson, Andre Miller, Donyell Marshall, Joe Smith, Kurt Thomas and Matt Harpring.
      Once again people...Elton Brand?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: NBA winning model is changing?

        Originally posted by rcarey
        Once again people...Elton Brand?
        2002

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: NBA winning model is changing?

          Originally posted by Fool
          2002
          As an injury replacement...
          Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
          I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: NBA winning model is changing?

            Yeah, he was in the 2002 game. But only for an injured Shaq if I remember...kind of like by default. Doesn't count in my books

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: NBA winning model is changing?

              Yes the model is changing - and not just in the NBA either. Look at the Patriots - no one superstar, just very good role players who know their roles and don't try to do more than their roles allow.

              Pistons are built the same way. I think the Pacers are getting there - when they stay within their roles they are good but when they get away from it - they'll go 10 minutes without scoring a field goal.
              "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
              - Benjamin Franklin

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: NBA winning model is changing?

                Wait, the Spurs are complaining that teams are hacking them? Give me a break, the Spurs are one of the dirtiest teams in the league. They just hammer people all night, and then get every call on the opposite end.
                Sorry, I didn't know advertising was illegal here. Someone call the cops!

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: NBA winning model is changing?

                  Originally posted by TruWarier
                  Wait, the Spurs are complaining that teams are hacking them? Give me a break, the Spurs are one of the dirtiest teams in the league. They just hammer people all night, and then get every call on the opposite end.
                  *cough* Bruce Bowen *cough*

                  I love how Bowen's feet always just HAPPEN to move right under his man's ankles as he's coming down from a jumper.......oops, another sprain. Oh darn.

                  Between him and Danny Fortson I'm not sure who is worse.

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: NBA winning model is changing?

                    Originally posted by Kstat
                    *cough* Bruce Bowen *cough*

                    I love how Bowen's feet always just HAPPEN to move right under his man's ankles as he's coming down from a jumper.......oops, another sprain. Oh darn.

                    Between him and Danny Fortson I'm not sure who is worse.
                    I'm going to give that award to Bruce Bowen. I've just seen it way too many times. And when he decides to pull that smart-*** move, he has got to realize that it's pretty damn serious. We're not just talking about little cheap shots into the stomach, etc. (which is ALSO another one of his famous traits); but we're talking about SERIOUS injury to an ankle, knee, etc.

                    There is absolutely no point to what he does in those instances. The ball is in many cases, already up in the air...he's not going to change the outcome of the ball's path by just stepping underneath his man. All he is accomplishing in that instance is one stupid, smart-*** and dangerous play. I can't stand the guy...and from the sounds of countless NBA players, neither can they.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: NBA winning model is changing?

                      Originally posted by Kstat
                      *cough* Bruce Bowen *cough*

                      I love how Bowen's feet always just HAPPEN to move right under his man's ankles as he's coming down from a jumper.......oops, another sprain. Oh darn.

                      Between him and Danny Fortson I'm not sure who is worse.
                      Yeah, both of them are dirty players. I don't like Forston at all and Bowen doing his infamous "Stepping under the players foot" move is just stupid and it tells you the kind of dumbass he is.
                      Super Bowl XLI Champions
                      2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: NBA winning model is changing?

                        Hasn't Donnie been saying for years the league is moving away from the superstar model?

                        I still believe that the team with the best player wins 90% of the time. Of the three teams Smith said had a chance to win (in the dirty player section) two of them had Shaq and Duncan. Detriot's success hasn't changed anything. Maybe Detriot's success also means Ben Wallace is underrated rather than the model is changing.
                        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: NBA winning model is changing?

                          Originally posted by Arcadian
                          Maybe Detriot's success also means Ben Wallace is underrated rather than the model is changing.
                          I was thinking something along the same lines (some players are just underrated while others are overrated) when I made my cryptic comments.

                          I also was thinking that maybe some 'superstars' are more willing to play a team game and fade into the woodwork a bit in order to accomplish their goal of a championship.

                          -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

                          • #14
                            Re: NBA winning model is changing?

                            Sorry, but I don't buy for a second Ben is in Shaq or Duncan's league. JO's better than Ben, and JO's not up with those two. I think the truth is Detroit didn't prove that the winning model is changing, but rather there's more than one way it can be done. That's not the same thing a league-wide trend shift. I'm not saying there is no shift going on, just that I wouldn't point to the 2004 champs as total proof that now that's how people are always going to win.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: NBA winning model is changing?

                              I'm not saying that he is in the class of Duncan or Shaq. I just said underrated.
                              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                              Comment

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