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

This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

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

  • This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

    We all know and complain about Tinsley's inability to consistently knock down the outside shot. We also complain about his turnovers. Well consider this:

    This year Jason Kidd is nearly averaging a triple double with 11.5ppg, 10.5 assists, and 8.9 rebounds in 36.8 minutes per contest. However he's also averaging 4.27 turnovers per game and shooting 36% from the field and 30% from beyond the arc. We all know Jason Kidd isn't and has never been the worlds greatest shooter, hardly even average because he's only a career 40% shooter from the field and 33% for his career from beyond the arc (something he improved on, then fell back away from). Nobody questions Kidd though. They know he know's how to run a team, and his assist numbers show it and have shown it his whole career.

    This year Jamaal Tinsley is averaging 13.4ppg, 8.5 assists (this number has climbed by .2 after just about every game this season-- he's now 5th in the league btw), 1.9 steals (10th in the league), and averaging 4.4 rebounds in 34.6 minutes per game. Now the rebounds don't match up to Kidd's 8.9, but Tinsley is still probably in the top 5 in rebounds for a point guard, maybe even top 3 [edit: Just checked, looks like he's 3rd behind Kidd (8.9) and Baron Davis (5.1). However Tinsley averages 3.59 turnovers per game and shoots 37% from the field and 26% from three. People have been questioning Jamaal's ability to run this team for nearly his entire career here.

    I don't know about anybody else, but I'd take Jason Kidd and his bad shooting on this team because I know how good he is at doing other things that help the team. I'm not a Jamaal hater and I have never been, but even I've been critical of his flaws. But this year I'm seeing what he can truly do with some freedom, and I'm realizing that even though his weaknesses are showing plain as day, his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses. Seeing the number comparison between him and Kidd put me at ease a bit. I mean, I know he's not Jason Kidd, but it appears that he's a late bloomer (not all due to his own fault either). I just hope that he works on his shot selection & accuracy, and work on cutting down his turnovers a bit.
    Last edited by Evan_The_Dude; 12-02-2007, 12:07 AM.

  • #2
    Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

    A PG who needs to "work on his decision making" is a very big problem, especially if he's in his what - 75th year in the league?

    The real difference between the elite PGs and the rest of the bunch is in basketball-IQ. Kidd, Nash, Baron, Deron, Paul - they're all extremely smart players who seem to see everything all the time.

    Tinsley OTOH, is not the brightest lamp in the room, if you get my drift...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

      Sorry...But I can't take a thread seriously when it leads by comparing Jamaal Tinsley with Jason Kidd.
      Read my Pacers blog:
      8points9seconds.com

      Follow my twitter:

      @8pts9secs

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

        One of JT's biggest problems is that teams sag off of him in crunch time. He usually shoots and misses.

        But the last two games he has come up big in the clutch. And JOB said in an interview that JT is constantly working on his shooting.

        If he can turn around this one part of his game, it could make the difference for me being a fan instead of a trade JT guy.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

          Originally posted by NPFII View Post
          A PG who needs to "work on his decision making" is a very big problem, especially if he's in his what - 75th year in the league?

          The real difference between the elite PGs and the rest of the bunch is in basketball-IQ. Kidd, Nash, Baron, Deron, Paul - they're all extremely smart players who seem to see everything all the time.

          Tinsley OTOH, is not the brightest lamp in the room, if you get my drift...
          Please backup your last comment with something of substance...


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

            Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
            Sorry...But I can't take a thread seriously when it leads by comparing Jamaal Tinsley with Jason Kidd.
            Why? That is exactly what illustrates his point. Here is a point gaurd generally considered one of the greats, and he shows that Tinsley's numbers are not all that dissimiler.
            "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

            - ilive4sports

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

              Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
              Why? That is exactly what illustrates his point. Here is a point gaurd generally considered one of the greats, and he shows that Tinsley's numbers are not all that dissimiler.
              There are no numbers, letters, symbols, shapes, colors or textures that make Jason Kidd and Jamaal Tinsley at all similar.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

                Originally posted by Indy View Post
                Please backup your last comment with something of substance...
                How about the three consecutive trips down the floor against Den. where AI was trying to guard Shawne and Tinsley didn't even rotate the ball around to the weakside where another player could feed the ball into him in the post, or call Shawne over to his side?

                JOB called a time out the next time down the floor, and when they came out he looked to get it inside but never did.

                I was gonna post about it in the post-game thread, but decided against it because it was a win and I didn't want to turn it into another Tinsley debate, but he just doesn't have a high basketball IQ. He treats the game as read and react as opposed to dissecting the situation and evaluating it, and then making a play happening.

                To be fair about the Den. game, he did have Klezia trying to guard him as well. He scored once out of the initial three trips, atleast, and I'm positive someone else scored out of the timeout, which is the biggest reason I wasn't really all that upset about it and didn't post, but it still goes back to recognizing the easiest play on the court.

                Tinsley has a scoring mentality no matter what he says he'd rather do. His assists comes a lot from looking to attack and then passing to where the help came from. There's not anything wrong with it, there are a lot of score first PGS, that are really good. It's just a preference as to which you like better.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

                  Tinsley is not a score first PG and he does not have a scorer's mentality IMO. Also there is nothing wrong with being a read and react player as a PG. Nash is a read and react player so is Kidd, just because you don't break down every single play doesn't mean you don't have a high bball IQ. Dunleavy loves to evaluate a situation and he still does some really dumb things particularly on the defensive end. Dumb plays are a part of basketball.
                  Watch a Suns or Nets game Kidd and Nash will both make stupid mistakes, but A.) they either get lucky and a teammate helps them out when they make a mistake (this is especially true for Nash, he'll have 4-5 plays a game that just make you go WTF?, but his talented cast and crew make up for it) or B.) they still produce solid numbers and their teams win games so people forget about their mistakes.
                  When you play an offense like we currently have in place where Tins spends so much time with the ball in his hands you have to live with the 4-5 plays a game that make you say WTF? because he is probably going to make up for those 4-5 plays.

                  I feel like I'm babbling, and I am not trying to say that Tins=Nash or Kidd, but I am trying to say that those two guys aren't that much different from Tins in the way they play the game. They have just been far more consistent throughout their careers. Plus they have both always played in systems that suit their skills.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

                    Originally posted by Indy View Post
                    Please backup your last comment with something of substance...
                    The first Denver game where he had 3 shots blocked by Camby in the last 3 minutes of the game comes to mind also.

                    Tinsley is having a great year, and perhaps nothing demonstrates this better than the following statement: The main difference between Kidd and Tinsley is on-ball defense. That he's approaching Kidd in other categories is fairly remarkable.
                    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                    - Salman Rushdie

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

                      Originally posted by Indy View Post
                      I feel like I'm babbling, and I am not trying to say that Tins=Nash or Kidd, but I am trying to say that those two guys aren't that much different from Tins in the way they play the game. They have just been far more consistent throughout their careers. Plus they have both always played in systems that suit their skills.

                      That's so true. Tinsley's defense is better than Nash's who is terrible defensively but the good that Nash does throughout the game makes up for whatever he gives up on the defensive end. Tinsley is doing the same thing but unlike early in the season, he is actually doing a better job of staying in front of the guy he's guarding and not committing silly fouls.

                      I'm trully shocked at the transformation but I'm happy about it. This is one thing I don't mind being wrong about. In fact I want Tinsley to prove me wrong because that would mean that the Pacers are going to win a good number of games.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

                        Originally posted by Indy View Post
                        Tinsley is not a score first PG and he does not have a scorer's mentality IMO. Also there is nothing wrong with being a read and react player as a PG. Nash is a read and react player so is Kidd, just because you don't break down every single play doesn't mean you don't have a high bball IQ.
                        I could only get as far as this before I just HAD to stop.

                        1.) Mel-Mel the Abuser didn't get his nickname by looking for the open player every time down the floor. He is a scoring PG. He looks to drive first, always has. I can dig up thread after thread after thread talking about how he gets into his one-on-one match ups and likes to out shine his opponent. Yes, he doesn't do this as often, but he is most definately a scoring Pg without an outside shot.

                        2.) I said there was nothing wrong with being a read and react player, hell that's how I play, but I don't like my PG to be that way. The very last line of my post talks about your preference on which you like.

                        3.)I didn't say being a read and react player was a sign of low basketball IQ, please show me where I did. I used an example of not recognizing the biggest mismatch of the entire game as an example. He got to focused on trying to take Klezia to the basket, which he didn't and settled for a mid-range jumper BTW, instead of seeing a 6fter (on a good day) trying to guard someone almost a full foot taller camped out on the opposite block. Which again goes back to him being a score first PG.


                        I couldn't continue if you misconstrued my post in your first three sentences to the point it was going in the opposite direction.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I could only get as far as this before I just HAD to stop.

                          1.) Mel-Mel the Abuser didn't get his nickname by looking for the open player every time down the floor. He is a scoring PG. He looks to drive first, always has. I can dig up thread after thread after thread talking about how he gets into his one-on-one match ups and likes to out shine his opponent. Yes, he doesn't do this as often, but he is most definately a scoring Pg without an outside shot.

                          2.) I said there was nothing wrong with being a read and react player, hell that's how I play, but I don't like my PG to be that way. The very last line of my post talks about your preference on which you like.

                          3.)I didn't say being a read and react player was a sign of low basketball IQ, please show me where I did. I used an example of not recognizing the biggest mismatch of the entire game as an example. He got to focused on trying to take Klezia to the basket, which he didn't and settled for a mid-range jumper BTW, instead of seeing a 6fter (on a good day) trying to guard someone almost a full foot taller camped out on the opposite block. Which again goes back to him being a score first PG.


                          I couldn't continue if you misconstrued my post in your first three sentences to the point it was going in the opposite direction.
                          Go back and read you're original post. I think you'll find that it would be pretty easy for someone to discern read and react player=low basketball IQ from the way that part of your post is formed. I don't know why I'm even responding though if you didn't even finish reading my original post...

                          Also I think you'll notice that after my very first sentence I use three magic letters, IMO. My post wasn't even necessarily directed towards you. Your post just sparked my thoughts on the subject. I wasn't saying you were wrong or even trying to debate with you. I was simply stating my opinion on the matter.
                          Last edited by Trader Joe; 12-03-2007, 06:04 PM.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

                            Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                            There are no numbers, letters, symbols, shapes, colors or textures that make Jason Kidd and Jamaal Tinsley at all similar.
                            I'm not comparing Jamaal Tinsley to Jason Kidd, I mean seriously I'm not that stupid. My point is that there have been people here that have said they wouldn't mind giving up Tinsley and bringing in Kidd [this was mostly last season when word spread that the Nets might look to trade Kidd in the midst of his divorce drama]. If you look at numbers -- strictly numbers, it doesn't appear that Kidd would have a much different effect on this team than Tinsley. Also I was saying that if people don't complain much about Kidd's poor shooting and turnovers, then why do we complain so much about Jamaal's when he's putting up similar numbers? Why is it ok for Kidd, but not Tinsley?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: This might make you feel better about #11's flaws

                              Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
                              I'm not comparing Jamaal Tinsley to Jason Kidd, I mean seriously I'm not that stupid. My point is that there have been people here that have said they wouldn't mind giving up Tinsley and bringing in Kidd [this was mostly last season when word spread that the Nets might look to trade Kidd in the midst of his divorce drama].
                              I wasn't trying to imply you're stupid.

                              But here you go comparing them still.

                              if people don't complain much about Kidd's poor shooting and turnovers, then why do we complain so much about Jamaal's when he's putting up similar numbers? Why is it ok for Kidd, but not Tinsley?
                              Because he's Jason Kidd.

                              He's one of the 10 best PGs ever.

                              He had 11 triple doubles last year. He has 4 so far this year.

                              For him, high TO totals and a lack of range are minor flaws in an otherwise near-perfect PG. For guys like him and Nash, TOs are often from trying to do something that would have been amazing -- threading the needle in the lane, a cross-court 50-foot bounce pass, a dribble-drive kick out to a spot-up shooter in the opposite corner.

                              For guys like Jamaal (and other non-Hall of Fame PGs), TOs are usually mistakes.

                              JKidd doesn't make many mistakes. Especially, in late or important situations. So those that he does make are overshadowed by the fact that his decision-making, floor generalship (it's a word) and overall understanding of what his team needs to do offensively on any and every important possession are off the charts. That more than makes up for an errant bouncepass that hit someone in the knee 7:13 into the 2nd Quarter.

                              Tinsley historically makes many mistakes. His decision making in late or important situations has historically been questionable. His mistakes aren't overshadowed by rock-steady and generally great play in the waning minutes of a close game. His errant pass 7:13 into the 2nd Quarter might happen again with 0:13 left in the 4th Quarter.

                              If you look at numbers -- strictly numbers, it doesn't appear that Kidd would have a much different effect on this team than Tinsley.
                              You just can't compare Jason Kidd and Jamaal Tinsley via numbers.

                              It's like comparing apples and kangaroos.
                              Last edited by JayRedd; 12-04-2007, 01:04 PM.
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X