Tweet
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
It is interesting to me how much differently people can see the exact same thing.
It is interesting to me how much differently people can see the exact same thing.
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.
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
-
-
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
Lets not forget that Schrempf was a leader on a team that went to the NBA finals in 1996, they lost to Jordan but Schrempf averaged 16 PPG and 5 RPG we could have used that.Comment
-
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
You bet. Ten of use could watch a basketball game. All ten would see something different. All ten would be sure the way they seen it was right.Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
"Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
"Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15Comment
-
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
I liked Detlef but I liked our team better with Derrick.Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
Your statement would be more relevant if you said:
"Wow! As a Pacer Detlef Schrempf is a 1 time all star and a 2 time winner of the sixth man award."
In 3 of his 4 years for us he wasn't a starter. But coming off the bench he was a heck of a sub, a two time 6th man award winner!
I'm sure I'd value him more if he'd stuck around longer. But he didn't.Comment
-
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
He also had 2 years averaging over 19 ppg with 9.5 and 9.6 rbpg and missed only 7 games in a 6 year span. At his best Detlef was the best sf in the league, you had Pippen, Detlef and the next tier down after that.Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
I can't believe it's this close but honestly they both have to go before the end anyway IMO.Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.Comment
-
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
Allow me.Originally posted by imawhat View Post
My very first day on the old indy star message board I was greeted to a high brown argument between Ben Nadler and Doug Adams over whether or not Derrick McKey was the devil. Doug was adamant that Derrick had a forked tongue and had cloven hooves. Ben most assuredly did not hold that opinion. This was in 1994 a few months after the trade was made. Now believe it or not at the time I loved McKey. I thought he was a great player and absolutely dug he defense he laid down. I always sort of liked Schrempf but honestly felt that he was often times just empty stats. Not exactly like Troy Murphy, he was a million times better than Troy, but I felt like a lot of it was the same. He got rebounding numbers but I never felt like he was a great rebounder. He always got points but I never felt like he was a great scorer. His defense wasn't saloon door like but it was not a wall either. I could never put my finger on it because if you looked at his stats they always looked good but for whatever reason I just never found him to be what I would consider to be a winner. McKey on the other hand came in and started playing lock down defense and this will blow you away if you never actually saw it. He laid down the single most impressive alley oop dunk I had ever seen a Pacer do live before, until Kenny Williams came in and did it better a year later. Yes, that Derrick McKey rose up and laid down a powerful dunk on Tree Rollins.
Then came in the nagging injury's that always seemed to coincide with him showing up to camp out of shape in. Then in Browns last season here we started out with several injury's and player changes. Smits was going to be down for a significant time with an injury and Brown asked for both McKey and Dale Davis to up their shooting and scoring. Dale, God love him, tried. But it was like that episode of the Simpsons when Mrs. Krabapple asks questions and Bart always raises his hands over and over until she finally yells and tells him to stop raising his hands because he hadn't gotten one question right. Well that was Dale's foray into the world of jump shooting.
Derrick on the other hand not only did not attempt to help with the scoring load he instead gave what I began referring to as the "Popeye" speech. When the reporters asked him why he wasn't attempting to help with the offense he chimed in saying that he was who he was and that was all he could do. Hence the Popeye name because of his saying "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam". The team fell apart and Brown who had already started to get happy feet threw in the towel. A lot of that is on Brown, but a lot of that was on McKey as well. McKey easily could have gotten up to 14 ppg without really changing his game all that much but he refused to.
Thus I began calling him Satan.
However he was sanctified and made whole again a few years back because, well I actually got to see Lucifer himself walk the sidelines of our building. No one else could be called Satan after I saw that abomination coaching our team.
This pick is really hard for me because in all honesty it should be either McKey or Schrempf and for the life of me I can't choose just one. Also as I type this out they are tied and I don't want to be the deciding vote so I am going to throw this rounds vote to Chuck Person just to see J's head explode.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
I thought I'd throw this in before everyone starts hating Derrick. Gary Payton made it sound like losing McKey was like the Pacers losing Granger. The Sonics chemistry went out the window. I wonder if McKey's defensive tenacity and unselfish play were only a small part of his contribution to the Pacers. Perhaps he brought more to the table than we realized.
Gary Payton from a year after the trade:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...5&slug=1910707...
"We had Derrick (McKey) last year. He made a big difference in that he could guard big people, forwards and guards. And Derrick was basically controlling the defense. When Kloppy (Bob Kloppenburg, defensive coordinator) would tell him to put on a press, Derrick would say, `(Bleep) that, stay the way we are, we're going to be all right.'
"We didn't have that this year. Me and Nate were into pressuring up and getting all the steals, and we weren't really thinking about that."
Payton stressed he wasn't stating a preference for McKey over Detlef Schrempf, for whom McKey was traded just before the opening of the regular season. He, in fact, praised Schrempf as the only Sonic "who played (well) on a consistent basis in the playoffs." But, echoing the sentiments of many Sonics, Payton said McKey provided valuable intangibles, the most valuable of which may have been his ability to bond his teammates.
McKey used to have barbecues and other gatherings at his house, according to Payton, and the whole team would show up. Payton said he tried to do the same this season, but only four or five players came. And, "they were always the same four or five guys," he added.
...Comment
-
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
It's 11 apiece for McKey and Schrempf as of this moment.
Sorry Det, I'm only voting to break the tie.Comment
-
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
The fact Detlef is likely to be picked prior to AD is ridiculous. Det was a far more refined player.
Nice article on McKey. His defensive intangible were very valuable. He was a glue guy while also defending the best players in the league. I recall him giving MJ some trouble...one of the few players in the league able to do that.Comment
-
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
Do you people really mean to tell me that A.D. is going to survive this round over either Det or Derrick?
Oh, PD, you really crack me up.Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you
Comment
-
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
Maybe I am too young to understand, but why is that a problem?Originally posted by ChicagoJ View PostComment
-
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
I don't get this "the team was better". This is a player vote, not team vote. Detlef was a better player that most anyone on this list."Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"Comment
-
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
Derrick was maddening because he had a tendency to save his offense for bailing out the team when they needed it most. Had he played more aggressively at the offensive end they wouldn't need him to bail them out at the end. Remember, as Reggie was disappearing in the fourth quarter of Game #7 at MSG in 1994, and Slick was in the halls of MSG smoking a cigarette because he was too nervous to watch, it was Derrick's back-to-back three pointers (Mark Boyle, almost totally hoarse, yelling "HE HITS! HE HITS" was for Derrick's signature plays, not Reggie's.) However, Derrick did so many of the little things that he just doesn't get credit for. Derrick has to be one of the smartest players I've ever watched over an extended period of time. There wasn't a play that he couldn't make - at either end of the court. It was his tendency to play in the background that drove fans (and sometimes his coaches) bonkers but he was a critical component of the symphony.Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
It's actually an interesting comparison, because Lance and Derrick had similar skill levels (albeit different positions, Derrick wasn't a primary ball handler but the absolute best I've ever seen at passing into the post) but Derrick made the mistake of over-sacrificing for the team just as Lance made the polar opposite mistake of over-sacrificing the team for his own stats. Both were wrong. But if either of them are your fifth option AND playing in that context then you've got a good team.
Detlef could do it all except for defend the post (okay, or defend the wing either). But that was Larry Brown's singular criteria for being one of his five post players. Brown didn't have a spot in his system for a player like Detlef so he was traded. Larry Bird once tried to diss Chuck Person by saying that Detlef was actually the guy that scared the Celtics, not the Rifleman. And there might have been some truth to that but it was about the intensity of two famous trash-talkers. But in the early 1990s, Detlef went from being the second option to the first option after Rifleman was traded for Spare Change and a pile of Pooh Richardson. Reggie was the leading scorer but not the #1 option (those are not synonyms) with those guys around. It wasn't really Reggie's team until Detlef left because Detlef was that good offensively.
Det had almost as many double-doubles (40) in one season (92-93) than Tony had in six years (51 total). In four and a half seasons, Det had 137 double-doubles*. The main reason? Tony was a 24 mpg player. Det, even as sixth man, was always one of the team leaders in MPG. The Detlef Schrempf of 1992-93 - the season forgotten between the end of the Chuck Person era and the start of the Larry Brown era - had one of the better all-star seasons of any Pacers player ever. But that season is largely ignored by Pacers fans because Donnie Walsh allowed George Irvine to trade two of Bo Hill's starters for a pile of Pooh and Spare Change, and in spite of that Bo, Detlef, and Reggie still got that depleted roster to 41 wins which was enough to get Reggie headbutted in the playoffs and plant the seeds for a great rivalry.
* For a better comparison, it took Dale Davis 8 seasons (almost twice as long) to accumulate 137 double-doubles. Dale added 24 more in his last full season with the Pacers (1999-2000) and 3 more as JO's injury replacement in 04-05 to get to 164 total.
+ +
What's wrong with this list is that Rifleman and Detlef should have been on Peck's other list (probably instead of Mark Jackson and Dale.)Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you
Comment
-
Re: Pacers Knock Out Game, Tier 2 Players: Round 5
Thanks Peck...I remember you starting that story at the digest party.
The crazy thing is that he could've scored more. He was around 16ppg with the Sonics.
He's one of my favorite Pacers. He was a true glue guy, though I had no idea he had that role off the court too. I still think he had the best defensive instincts of any player we've had.
He's also one of the most maddening players, because I always thought he could do more than he did. I've had that same feeling about George Hill most of the time.Comment
Comment