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

Hibbert dealt to the Lakers for a future 2nd round pick

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

  • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

    Originally posted by Really? View Post
    Maybe he was talking about the vendors at bankers life, being selfish with how much food they give you compared to the outrageous cost, I am with him on that one.
    Or maybe it was Bird not giving him a chance to make a shot when they play around the world.
    Why so SERIOUS

    Comment


    • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

      Roy's selfish dudes comment is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. A frustrated player making a frustrated statement during a frustrating time.


      Comment


      • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

        Originally posted by Really? View Post
        Or maybe it was Bird not giving him a chance to make a shot when they play around the world.
        Possibly he is disappointed that Vogel, wants to do all the coaching and won't let Roy get any time as a players coach, selfish coach... smh.
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


        • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          I've made it a point to keep to factual reported situations, to keep away from the he-said-she-said.
          Hence the links to media reports that described several issues.

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          So after all the trash talk at the beginning of the year ppl were bound to talk.
          This times a million

          Comment


          • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            There were plenty of media reports that talked about Lance as a problem.

            http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...acers-problems

            http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...ce-stephenson/

            http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...rated-vs-spurs

            http://www.sbnation.com/2014/6/2/577...ee-agency-2014

            http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2014...ning-questions


            I'm sure I could find more if I wanted. But the reports were certainly there. Edit: I didn't even go look for articles that talked about issues before he actually received playing time (situation with Juwan Howard, legal issues, fights with Danny/Dhantay, etc)


            Then there were reports of him having issues last season as well. That would show that some of the things pointed out during his time on the Pacers, weren't completely unfounded.

            http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...ets-teammates/

            http://www.atthehive.com/2014/12/22/...-getting-worse

            http://www.si.com/nba/2015/03/06/lan...steve-clifford



            This isn't to completely absolve Roy of any wrongdoing. I just think that Lance was rightfully "scapegoated" at the time as his troubles with Charlotte the next season kind of provided additional proof.

            It'll be very interesting to see if Roy has any type of locker room or chemistry issues the way that Lance did during his first year on a new team.

            One of the article that Ace links is IMO the best at summarizing the problems. Here is the link again and copy and paste.

            Thanks Ace !!

            http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2014...ning-questions

            The Pacers' burning questions
            Originally Published: May 28, 2014
            By Mike Wells and Brian Windhorst | ESPN.com


            The Indiana Pacers had the Eastern Conference's best record during the regular season and are in the conference finals, which most had projected would happen. They're currently losing the series 3-1 to the Miami Heat, a team that generally everyone believes is more talented.

            So despite this reasonable achievement, why is Indiana regarded as a team in turmoil?

            Because the Pacers had one of the strangest, yet most compelling, seasons of any team in recent memory. They exploded to a 33-7 start, then finished 23-19 after a series of on- and off-court events that captivated NBA fans and raised many questions.
            Here are some answers about what happened to the Pacers:

            Q: Roy Hibbert's line about a lot of selfish people in that locker room brought the team's turmoil to the forefront. What's that about?

            A: Hibbert didn't come out and identify the player directly to NBA.com's David Aldridge, but he was talking about Lance Stephenson on March 28 after a loss in Washington, when he said "there's some selfish dudes" in the locker room.

            Stephenson was putting together a strong season for the Pacers, racking up triple-doubles and maturing into their second-best talent behind Paul George. But Stephenson felt jilted when the Eastern Conference coaches did not vote him onto the All-Star team in February. He doesn't always appreciate the ramifications of his actions; his recent attempt to "get inside LeBron James' head" with trash talk during the conference finals is a classic example.

            After Stephenson missed out on the All-Star team, he changed. He started a bit of a personal vendetta against East coaches, wanting to personally send a message in those games, which took him further out of the flow on some nights, sources said. Overall, the team noticed a shift in Stephenson from a more team-oriented approach to a more self-oriented focus, where he started obsessing about his statistics. People within the team believed his upcoming free agency was also a motivating factor for Stephenson, who wanted to enhance his value, something he believed suffered when he didn't get an All-Star nod.

            As a result, Stephenson started annoying his teammates at both ends. Not only did he start dominating the ball more -- his assist rate dropped dramatically in the second half of the season -- but he was robbing numbers from his teammates. He has always had a habit of so-called "stealing rebounds," jumping in front of or over a teammate who had an uncontested rebound to get it for himself. This phenomenon reached a new level in the back half of the regular season. Hibbert, who had his rebound totals heavily analyzed by the media and fans, was often a victim in these friendly-fire rebounds.

            Stephenson's act had long worn thin by late March. When the players had meetings to address issues with the sudden struggles, Stephenson sometimes wasn't involved. Occasionally he appeared to be unaware they were even happening. Most players on the team, now that they were losing, shared similar feelings about Stephenson, but did not vocalize their problems publicly.

            Q: Did Hibbert's selfish comment have an impact inside the locker room?

            A: Yes, and in a negative way. As one person with knowledge of the situation put it: "It divided the locker room big time." The Pacers didn't become one of the best teams in the league on talent alone. Their chemistry -- until about February -- was a strong bond that appeared unbreakable. But Hibbert, according to sources, defied a core belief of the team, which is to keep dirty laundry in-house.
            For several games leading up to the "selfish" comment, Hibbert teetered in interviews with the media after losses. Several times he came to the brink of saying something and then bit his tongue. He was struggling and not getting the ball -- seven times in a month, he scored six points or fewer and his touches had dropped. The loss that night was the fourth time in five games the Pacers failed to break 80 points. Hibbert was in his hometown and had just struggled again in his old college arena and he'd finally had enough.

            This "selfish dudes" comment, though, broke the trust of his teammates because he didn't come to them to address it first. Already upset with his play, Hibbert's teammates lost some trust in him after those comments, multiple sources said. "Teams that are tied together don't do those types of things," a source said.

            [IMG]file:///C:/Users/pwruble/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.jpg[/IMG]


            Q: There are rumors that the team has been so up and down because of salacious off-court stuff. Is there any truth to that?
            A: ESPN has spoken with numerous sources inside and outside of the Pacers organization, and the answer has consistently been that there is no evidence behind the innuendo about off-court interpersonal issues. It was clear the Pacers were dealing with chemistry issues, and their on-court cohesiveness showed a sharp decline after midseason. Some Internet sites and fans, looking for an explanation for this sudden change, searched for answers and some of the void was filled by lascivious rumors. Team and player sources insisted they were false, but they naturally spread as the Pacers continued to struggle.

            George had to publicly acknowledge two incidents during the season. He copped to a relationship with a Miami nightclub worker, and debunked another alleged relationship that was splashed across a few blogs. He handled both with grace and accepted this was part of his more visible life as a star player. However, those close to him told ESPN that he was not prepared to handle the distractions, and the noise sent him into a bit of a depression for a short time during the season.

            Rumors also had a negative impact on the psyches of other players, especially Hibbert. An active Twitter user, Hibbert became so upset about what fans were sending his way that he pushed to release a statement with a denial. After consulting with his agent, David Falk, and the team, the decision was reached not to do so, sources said.

            The rumors, however, did not stop, and by the second round of the playoffs, the players had grown sick of it. They collectively decided to confront them through social media. George posted a photo on his Instagram account of a fishing trip on his boat with Hibbert and George Hill. He wrote the caption: "These rumors have got to stop! Its getting old now and all you that believe them are ignorant! #Brothers" on May 6.
            Not all fans understood the reference to the rumors. George, Hill and Hibbert didn't elaborate much to the media. It was an old photo but Hibbert and George did go fishing during the series with the Washington Wizards to clear their minds. The post quelled the rumors to a certain extent, and the Pacers started to play better, winning that series 4-2 after falling behind 1-0.

            [IMG]file:///C:/Users/pwruble/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image004.jpg[/IMG]Steve Mitchell/USA TODAY SportsWhat should the Pacers do with Lance Stephenson?

            Q: Lance Stephenson has been both wonderful and evidently selfish -- is it correct he has been a destabilizing force?
            A: Stephenson has become one of the most polarizing players in the league and certainly on his own team. The Pacers have nurtured him for four years and constructed an entire support system aimed at nourishing him and controlling him, from hands-on daily encouragement and review from president Larry Bird all the way to the public relations staff trying their best to keep him from putting his foot in his mouth.

            In the past two seasons, Stephenson has blossomed as a player, but he's also more comfortable taking liberties and risks. This has pushed the bounds with the players and coaches.

            Putting it in Indianapolis terms, Stephenson is like a race car. The performance can be incredible and awe-inspiring. But he requires constant maintenance by the entire operation, and losing focus for one second can lead to various levels of disaster. This, naturally, can and has grown tiresome.

            In the past three years, all of the Pacers' core players -- Hill, Hibbert, West, George -- have been signed to long-term deals. Now it is Stephenson's turn. Bird has always supported him. He stuck his neck out to draft him despite Stephenson's checkered past and red flags. Despite Stephenson's tantalizing talents, sources said there are many in the organization who don't think it's a good decision to give him a rich, long-term contract, given the way he has acted during the season.


            Q: Hill was a big factor last postseason, but not this time around. What happened to him?

            A: From the outside, it looks like Hill has regressed, as his scoring average has dropped four points a game, and his assists are also down. He's had numerous games where he's seemed invisible. In the first round of the playoffs, he was outplayed by the Atlanta Hawks' Jeff Teague, which was not a good look because both players signed $8 million-per-year contracts.

            Privately, Hill has told people he's very upset with himself this season and takes the blame for not being more assertive, and he has vowed to change. But it is not all about his game. He also has been upset about the changing nature of his role and his willingness not to challenge that shift. Hill's shooting and rebounding numbers this season are steady, but as the Pacers have turned the keys of the offense to Stephenson, Hill has been marginalized. His role in the offense is often to get out of the way and stand in the corner as a floor spacer, the kind of role he was relegated to in San Antonio early in his career.

            Indeed, if you look at the stats, he is averaging 3.5 fewer shots per game this season. Where did those shots go? One possible answer with some symmetrical evidence: Stephenson is averaging about 3.5 more shots than last season.

            Like others, he has been frustrated with Stephenson. During a blowout home loss late in the regular season, he and Stephenson got into a verbal altercation on the bench. But his role reduction to allow Stephenson to grow was an organizational decision that also has had some positive benefits, even if it has the side effect of upsetting Hill.

            There's little doubt that Hill has not performed at the highest level, but there have been nights when he has been off defensively. However, his length and defensive skill set are a big part of why the Pacers have been an elite defensive team in the past several seasons.

            Q: Former assistant coach Brian Shaw's name still comes up around the team as someone the players respect. Do they miss the assistant who is now the head coach of the Nuggets?

            A: One person put it this way: "B. Shaw was always straightforward. If there were any problems, he'd speak up, whether it was yelling, cussing us out or just being there for us, and then we'd move on. This is no knock on Nate (McMillan) because this was his first season with us and the last thing he was going to do was ruffle any feathers."

            Players gravitated to Shaw because of his knowledge of playing and coaching on championship teams. George and Stephenson, the team's two most talented players, were Shaw's pupils. He was one of the few who could keep Stephenson in line, and Shaw often went fishing with George, when they would spend hours together just talking about basketball and life.

            The team has missed having that sounding board this season, especially when things got rough. Pacers coach Frank Vogel has developed a persona where he is often a voice of positivity and reinforcement. Though he is not afraid to get after players, especially during film sessions, Shaw often acted as the bad cop to Vogel's good cop. Facing issues this season the Pacers had not previously encountered -- especially with George and Stephenson -- not having Shaw there to pull them into a corner and re-focus them was missed during the season.

            Ironically, Shaw had issues during his first season with the Nuggets because of his personality, and veteran Andre Miller ended up being dealt, largely because of friction with Shaw.

            [IMG]file:///C:/Users/pwruble/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image005.jpg[/IMG]Ron Hoskins/NBAE/Getty ImagesHow much of Indiana's problems are Larry Bird's fault?

            Q: Larry Bird is widely celebrated as one of the best ever to play, coach or run a team. But is some of this turmoil on him?
            A: Even though he took a year's hiatus -- during which Hibbert and Vogel were given contract extensions that he didn't have a part of -- this is a team that Bird has built. He drafted Hibbert, George and Stephenson. He traded for Hill. He made the personal sales pitch to get West to sign as a free agent. He was the NBA Executive of the Year in 2012 for excellent reasons.

            When he returned to the franchise last year, though, he was concerned about the team's bench, and he aggressively tried to get his starters help so that Vogel wouldn't play them so many minutes together. His moves to get this done have not been so golden and he's continued to tinker with little concern for chemistry, something that was perhaps a fragile quality of the team he built.
            Bird pushed to sign Andrew Bynum in midseason despite not having doctors examine his knees and despite the Pacers' research (including the canvassing of acquaintances in Cleveland) producing numerous red flags, sources said. Bird followed the Bynum signing by trading longtime team member Danny Granger for Evan Turner at the deadline.

            Granger's prescience as a team leader was a little overblown on the outside, sources said, because he largely had grown apart from the team during his bouts of knee injuries during the past two seasons. Granger, sources said, also had grown wary of playing in the same rotation with Stephenson, which prevented him from getting as many touches as he preferred. However, with the team struggling with its first significant chemistry issues since coming together, the decisions backfired badly. Neither deal worked out, and in Bynum's case, he appears to have had a negative effect on Hibbert and his sometimes delicate outlook on games.

            In the two games Bynum played, he was a featured part of the offense, getting 22 shots in 36 total minutes. This season, Hibbert averaged just 11 shots per 36 minutes he played. Turner is a player who has had limited success in his career, but mostly when he has dominated the ball. With George, Hill and Stephenson, there was little room for that type of play from Turner. Vogel briefly tried Turner at backup point guard when C.J. Watson got hurt, but that didn't work either.

            No executive has a Midas touch and Bird's hot streak ran out this year, including his decision to sign Chris Copeland to a $6 million deal, only to watch him sit on the bench all season. That happens. But messing midseason with a team he knew to be fragile had far-reaching effects.
            Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-07-2015, 01:45 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

              So, a lot of things were said about me in this thread during my absence last night. I don't have the time to answer to each one of those individually so allow me to use BillS's post to answer to everyone.

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              And that's why I don't understand the details Nuntius is looking for. Does he want a diagnostic from a psychologist? Does he want 20 minutes of locker room film showing Roy sitting like a lump in the corner and refusing to say anything? Does he want individual interviews where each of the players says what Bruno said? Does he want a list of specific times Roy grunted an answer or didn't respond?

              A pattern of behavior that gradually grates on people simply doesn't have identifiable examples of specific incidents that add to the count. I really don't see what more evidence can be provided.

              Nuntius, I've been a defender of Roy when the facts have been skewed. I don't think there's a skew here. I think what Bruno says is as specific as anyone can get when trying to explain why someone's attitude doesn't provoke specific altercations but simply wears teammates out.
              BillS, I don't want a diagnosis, I don't want locker room films or any of that. I want someone to come out and say that Roy was a "cancer" and an "unprofessional jerk" (as people in this thread put it) because he that and that. For example, he was a jerk because he yelled at Solo Hill. He was a jerk because he attempted to hit Donald Sloan. He was a jerk because he shouted racial slurs at Damo. He was a jerk because he was sexist towards Candance. Simply put, I want to know if he ever actively created his problem.

              Now, I know that you believe that Roy was causing problems of the passive variety. You believe that the issue was simply that Roy was so sullen and dejected that it grated on people. This is something that I definitely agree that's possible. I can see why Bird would want to move him if that was the case. But if that was the case then I definitely cannot call Roy "an unprofessional jerk". Being unhappy about your performance doesn't make you unprofessional. Airing those frustrations and pointing fingers at your teammates is what makes you unprofessional and no one has said that this was the case here.

              I'll echo Eleazar's and able's statements here. David West defended Roy in his exit interview. He said that he has always been a professional. Do you really think that West would say that if Roy was actively causing problems in the locker room?

              Again, there is a huge difference between actively causing problems and passively grating on people.

              Edit: I want to take the time to answer to this as well:

              Originally posted by Tom White View Post
              I'm going to add to this. I think there may be some, who are hoping a particular incident will be pointed out, so they might blame anyone else involved in that incident.

              "Aha! See, such and such was involved with this, and is the cause of Roy reacting this way! It is all their fault, not Roy's!"

              Sorry, but to me some of this search for "evidence" is a witch hunt in disguise.
              I don't want to place the blame on anyone else. I don't have a negative opinion on any Pacer. I never had. Proof of this is that I never blamed Lance for the chemistry issues and I never called him a cancer. I never mocked him when his stint in Charlotte didn't work out either.

              This isn't a witch hunt. I simply want to know the truth.
              Last edited by Nuntius; 07-07-2015, 11:58 AM.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                I'm interested in how Roy Hibbert and Kobe Bryant works out. (That's not a joke)

                On the one hand, Kobe is notoriously tough on his teammates, and Roy seems to be his own biggest critic and probably needs positive encouragement.

                On the other hand, Kobe's close to retirement and he handled Pau with kid gloves, so maybe he'll do the same with Roy?

                Comment


                • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  But if that was the case then I definitely cannot call Roy "an unprofessional jerk". Being unhappy about your performance doesn't make you unprofessional. Airing those frustrations and pointing fingers at your teammates is what makes you unprofessional and no one has said that this was the case here.
                  As I understand it, the writer (not just PD) who used those terms DID see that the kind of passive energy sink Roy became WAS acting like an "unprofessional jerk".

                  I think you are disagreeing with the term used and asking for a deeper description to justify something the writer considered perfectly justifiable based on the given circumstances.

                  Therefore, I would say no, there is nothing deeper for which YOU would use those terms, but the problem you acknowledge as well-described and possible was enough for others to use those terms. So, not a dispute of fact, but a dispute of what those facts mean to someone.
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                    Q: Did Hibbert's selfish comment have an impact inside the locker room?

                    A: Yes, and in a negative way. As one person with knowledge of the situation put it: "It divided the locker room big time." The Pacers didn't become one of the best teams in the league on talent alone. Their chemistry -- until about February -- was a strong bond that appeared unbreakable. But Hibbert, according to sources, defied a core belief of the team, which is to keep dirty laundry in-house.
                    For several games leading up to the "selfish" comment, Hibbert teetered in interviews with the media after losses. Several times he came to the brink of saying something and then bit his tongue. He was struggling and not getting the ball -- seven times in a month, he scored six points or fewer and his touches had dropped. The loss that night was the fourth time in five games the Pacers failed to break 80 points. Hibbert was in his hometown and had just struggled again in his old college arena and he'd finally had enough.

                    This "selfish dudes" comment, though, broke the trust of his teammates because he didn't come to them to address it first. Already upset with his play, Hibbert's teammates lost some trust in him after those comments, multiple sources said. "Teams that are tied together don't do those types of things," a source said.
                    Thank you Uncle Buck for finding this for us. I have not seen this before or if I did I forgot about it, the entire article was enlightening to say the least however obviously this part stuck out to me as I think this just goes along to further verify my feelings that Roy's statement was not nothing, in fact it was a big something and while the locker room was already fractured before he made his statement I believe this is what finally broke it.

                    To be fair Roy was not the sole cause of our demise, IMO there is no one thing that happened it was a series of events, but to be sure he was a part of it.

                    Okay here is where I will lose some objectivity and just feely admit to being a Danny Granger fan, but if I'm being honest my thought is that Danny's knee taking him down was the single worst thing that could have happened to our club. There was one locker room leader to begin with because it was his undisputed team. I say that not in the sense that Danny was a vocal leader who would get in your face like Garnett, I say that because Danny was the casual leader who got along with everybody and was the mediator between whatever factions were there. He was a mentor to Paul George and he had some brashness and cockiness in him that allowed him to understand Lance to a degree. Him going down forced bot Paul & Lance to ascend to positions prematurely and ultimately there was no buffer between the two. Paul was made a star but I think there was a painful learning curb emotionally for him and Lance was thrust into a starter role which he for awhile excelled at but ultimately blew up in all of our faces.

                    Again I say the above fully and freely admitting that I think Danny Granger was a great player, Paul is better I don't deny it, however here is the kicker. Danny wouldn't deny it either, he was more than willing to slide over and just be Paul's sidekick and friend. It sickens me to the bone to think how good those two could have been together if Danny's knee hadn't gone under.


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Thank you Uncle Buck for finding this for us. I have not seen this before or if I did I forgot about it, the entire article was enlightening to say the least however obviously this part stuck out to me as I think this just goes along to further verify my feelings that Roy's statement was not nothing, in fact it was a big something and while the locker room was already fractured before he made his statement I believe this is what finally broke it.
                      One thing that has always stuck out for me, is the contradiction saying the Pacers were upset Roy didn't come to them to address his problems first. Uh....

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

                      Stephenson's act had long worn thin by late March. When the players had meetings to address issues with the sudden struggles, Stephenson sometimes wasn't involved. Occasionally he appeared to be unaware they were even happening. Most players on the team, now that they were losing, shared similar feelings about Stephenson, but did not vocalize their problems publicly.
                      How do you privately work out the problems when half of the problem is clueless?
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        Thank you Uncle Buck for finding this for us.
                        Lol it was a part of the links that I added originally.

                        But since UB is an OG, we can give him all the credit

                        Comment


                        • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          One thing that has always stuck out for me, is the contradiction saying the Pacers were upset Roy didn't come to them to address his problems first. Uh....



                          How do you privately work out the problems when half of the problem is clueless?
                          Not mutually exclusive. Possible scenario is that Lance was seen as A problem but Roy didn't address HIS problems with Lance in those meetings, either, and said nothing until it came out in the press. The issues addressed with Lance might have had nothing to do with Roy, and teammates could be unhappy that he didn't even pop up with a "me, too" before airing his statement.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                            Possible, but I doubt it.

                            Roy's problems about Lance, if we go back to the "selfish dudes" comment, was about Lance trying to carve out a bigger role for himself than what he should have. Roy talked about how PG and DWest had free reign, while others didn't but played like they did. That's how we all knew it was Lance he was talking about.

                            How do you voice problems privately to someone, that isn't interested in hearing them? You can't. I think part of the Lance problem was his play, and also in uncaring that he was ruffling feathers. Eventually it all came to a head, and Roy went public.

                            EDIT: And if need be, I can find the original article where Roy gave his "selfish dudes" quote. In that article, which was after a NYK game, it talks about how Lance kept going one-on-one. Several players, not just Roy, made comments about how they needed to start working together and get the ball moving more. Lance, being Lance, came back with something like "The defense forced me to play one-on-one, so I did it"

                            I'll just post it.
                            We're getting better but tonight for whatever reason, we slipped on our screening and our setup and were unable to create separation," Pacers coach Frank Vogel said. "In the first half, we tried to do it all ourselves."
                            "(The Knicks) switch almost everything on the floor," George said. "They just take you out of stuff and we haven't grown our I.Q. as a team into improvising when teams try to throw in little wrenches into our offense and that's where we got to grow offensively.
                            "I say that because at this point of the season everybody knows what we're running, so this is the point where we've got to be able to play at a higher pace and higher I.Q. as a team to where we can beat teams to whatever style that they're playing."
                            "We just didn't move (the ball)," West said. "We didn't play team ball at all."
                            "This is sad, you know," Hibbert said. "We dig ourselves a hole in the first, two assists.
                            "We got to figure it out."
                            "They were taking away the pass, so you had to make something happen. Either to pass back or go to the hole and create on a big man," Stephenson said. "Today, like I said, they forced us to play one-on-one."
                            "Sometimes when we have success with a certain style, things change. People's roles change," Hibbert said. "And some nights we have nights like this where you get going in the game but we've been more a perimeter-oriented team.
                            "We've fallen in love with the jump shot for a while," Hibbert said. "People feel like they have it going and they want to do it themselves sometimes. That's just how it works. I feel like two guys that I have 100 percent trust in doing that is Paul and David. I feel like they should have carte blanche on whatever they want to do in terms of attacking the paint and (put) the ball's in their hands because they've earned my respect."
                            Hibbert continued.
                            "They're able to do it at a high level, even if they start off a little slow but I know they're going to bring it. Those guys have the green light whenever they have it, but other than that I think we should move the ball and get people involved."
                            "We're just not playing well," West said. "This time of year it's a bit concerning, ya know, we're not good enough to just flip a switch.
                            "Just not playing team ball. There's no other way slice it."
                            http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...nicks/6637785/

                            EDIT2: Sorry, the selfish dudes comment came the next night, but we can see it was building.
                            Last edited by Since86; 07-07-2015, 12:52 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              Not mutually exclusive. Possible scenario is that Lance was seen as A problem but Roy didn't address HIS problems with Lance in those meetings, either, and said nothing until it came out in the press. The issues addressed with Lance might have had nothing to do with Roy, and teammates could be unhappy that he didn't even pop up with a "me, too" before airing his statement.

                              And this was part of Roy's comments too, which it was in the selfish dudes article.


                              "Some selfish dudes in here," Roy Hibbert muttered Friday night, after getting eight shots in the Pacers' loss to the Wizards. "Some selfish dudes. I'm tired of talking about it. We've been talking about it for a month."

                              "We play hard, but we've got to move the ball," Hibbert said. "Is it obvious, or what? I don't know whatever our assist ratio, or whatever it is, is in the league, but it probably isn't up there. I'm really trying hard not to spaz out right now, but I don't know. We've been talking about it for a month. I'm not handling the rock. I don't know. I've made suggestions before and we do it for, like, one game, and then we revert back to what we are. I don't know. I'm not the one to answer that question. It directly affects me and the bigs. We're just out there and it makes us look bad."
                              http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...-dudes-in-here
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Hibbert deal in the works with Lakers

                                So for the record since86 you think that Roy's statement was the right or wrong thing to do. No nuances please, just right or wrong and yes sometimes in this world there is black and white and this is one of them.


                                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X