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

Red Auerbach talks with ESPN.com

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

  • Red Auerbach talks with ESPN.com

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2088260

    Auerbach: Jackson is 'a great coach'

    By Ken Shouler
    Special to ESPN.com

    Red Auerbach was a brash 29-year-old fresh out of the Navy. Without a cigar, he walked into the office of Mike Uline to tell him he was the man to coach his new Washington Capitols in the Basketball Association of America for the 1946-47 season.

    "I don't know why, but Mike bought my brag," Red recalls.


    Red Auerbach had many victory cigars thanks to Bill Russell.


    Uline chose a coach who turned into a legend. In 20 years as a coach with Washington, Tri-Cities and then Boston, Red made the playoffs every year, suffering just one losing season. With the Boston Celtics, he won eight championships in a row from 1959 to 1966.

    Auerbach retired with nine titles, a record tied by Phil Jackson in 2002, which puts these two coaches at the forefront of any debate about the NBA's greatest all-time coach.

    After the Lakers rehired Phil Jackson this week, ESPN.com spoke to Auerbach for his reaction.

    ESPN.com: Why do you think Phil Jackson would take the Lakers' job after the team won 34 and lost 48 last year?

    Auerbach: As far as why he would take it, you have to ask him. But it's very obvious; he did it because of the money. I don't blame him for taking the job.

    ESPN.com: Do you think part of the motivation was to surpass your record of nine championships?

    Auerbach: No, I think that's an incidental factor. Take away the money and he wouldn't be coaching.

    ESPN.com: Is a definition of a good coach someone who can win even when his team didn't have the best regular-season record or is not expected to win? For instance, you won the title in 1966 (Auerbach's last year coaching Boston) even though Philadelphia owned the better regular-season record. And Jackson did not win a title without Jordan, but came close, winning 55 games with Chicago in 1994.

    Auerbach: Remember Doug Collins had that team and he won with it.

    ESPN.com: He didn't win a championship with it.

    Auerbach: No, but he was a winning coach and it was just a matter of time.

    ESPN.com: What are the similarities and differences between you and Jackson as coaches?

    Auerbach: We both had the respect of the players. And that's the key thing. In other words, you say something and they listen. If somebody else does it, they don't listen.

    ESPN.com: Besides the ability to communicate, is there anything else that makes him a great coach?

    Auerbach: There's no question in my mind that he is a great coach. Because I've seen guys who get great teams on paper and they butcher it up, you see?

    If you have some great potential players, there are two things: One, you help make them great. Two, you devise a method of play that is suitable to their talent. He did that.

    For example, suppose I had a center like Bill Russell and a point guard like Bob Cousy and I played a half-court game. You know, like Philadelphia did. Chamberlain would get the rebound, make a lot of motions, and they'd wait for him to get upcourt. Now suppose I played that kind of slow-down game with Russell and Cousy. I don't think we would have won.

    Phil Jackson has that knowledge of what is best for his players and has the ability to communicate. He's in control. That's the whole thing. He's in control, they listen to him and that's more than half the battle right there. You see a lot of ballplayers – you watch during timeout in college and the pro – the coach is talking, talking, talking and their minds are way the hell someplace else.


    ESPN.com: They're looking around, or looking at their feet.

    Auerbach: They're not listening. They don't hear a damned thing he says.


    Phil may need to meditate more with this Lakers team.


    ESPN.com: But they're listening to Phil?

    Auerbach: I think so.

    ESPN.com: Some people didn't want the job. Like Roy Williams at North Carolina.

    Auerbach: Well, they didn't offer Roy Williams $10 million a year. You take a guy like Roy Williams and they may offer him $2 ½ million, or even $3 million, but he can live the life of a king in Carolina, playing half the games or a third of the games, and have time for this and time for that and still be a big guy, and walk away with close to $2 million, why would he want to coach Los Angeles?

    ESPN.com: What can be done to make this team win?

    Auerbach: I think the biggest mistake that they made – and I don't even discuss other teams, because it's stupid; I don't want to tell you what they can do or what they should do – but I will tell you this: They made one big mistake in letting Jerry West get away.

    As far as what they can do and who they should get, hey, that's their problem. I've got my own.

    ESPN.com: So you think they could bring in better talent if they had West?

    Auerbach: West is a hard, hard worker. West had his own – I can't say following – but he had his own respect. A lot of people respected him and he has credentials to back it up. I would venture to say that if he was still there, Shaq would not have left.

    ESPN.com: So you thought Shaq was the key, not Kobe?

    Auerbach: Sure, you can't win without the ball.

    ESPN.com: Which is what you said when you coached Boston in the early '50s before you got Russell.

    Auerbach: Yeah. Plus the fact that Shaq makes players around him better. They double-team Shaq and triple-team Shaq. All he has to do is hand it off and let the other guys shoot.

    It's like this kid [Bruce] Bowen. He's done a great job. We had him in Boston [in 1998-99], but we didn't have any Tim Duncan in the middle to make this kid better. So therefore we couldn't see how good he really was.

    ESPN.com: Can Kobe make people better? If not, what can they do to get better? It's a tough team to fix.

    Auerbach: He's a great player. But you're asking me the same question as before, and I'm still not going to answer it. I don't care if Jackson gets the best players in the country to go to L.A. You still don't win it on paper. You have to go out there and win over 82 games.

    ESPN.com: In this debate about who's the greatest all-time coach, you can bring up your record as a coach, general manager, vice president and president. You had a larger role in acquiring talent – and the prudent moves you made to acquire Bill Russell, Dave Cowens, Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish – and building teams.

    Auerbach: You could bring that up if you wanted to. I think it's important. If I'm going to coach the players, I want some say on who they're going to be. I used to go out and do as much scouting as I could in those days for that reason. You get players because you work.


    ESPN.com: The eight consecutive titles you won from 1959 through 1966 – that seems like an unapproachable record.

    Auerbach: All records are made to be broken.

    ESPN.com: But that's a pretty tall order.

    Auerbach: It is.

    ESPN.com: Is there a different way to win in the postseason than in the regular season?

    Auerbach: People will say when you get to the playoffs, 'try to play the same way,' but the media won't let you play the same way.

    ESPN.com: What do you mean by that?

    Auerbach: I mean because of all the hoopla. Look at the games now; the games are going on in the East at 9 p.m. And they can't get an audience because of that. And No. 2, all this crap before the game and all this show. I think – and I don't care what David Stern and what anyone else thinks – I think it takes away from the game.

    ESPN.com: You mean the blaring music, long commercials and general delays in getting games started?

    Auerbach: It takes away from the game. If you want to have that stuff, give them a show, but give it at some other time. Basketball people get disgusted. The loud music, the extensive interviews – they thrash it to death.

    The media writes all this stuff, like [a recent story] about Bowen's family and his mother. During the year they don't write this stuff. Many members of the media have become private investigators. They're looking for stuff no one else has found.

    ESPN.com: So the purists who love the game are put off?

    Auerbach: I think so.

    ESPN.com: What other factors affect a team's ability to win at playoff time?

    Auerbach: Like I always said, everything can happen in the playoffs.

    I'll give you an example. Suppose you're coming down to the wire and you got a chance the last two weeks – you're fighting for the best record. Then all of a sudden you have your best player, or your two best players are questionable with injuries.

    You gotta make a decision. Should I bench these two guys and finish second, or should I go all out to get a one-game home-court advantage?

    That situation could very easily arise. Bill Russell could have some problems with his knees and I could have played him 10 minutes a game over the last two weeks or I could rest him for four or five games, and so on.

    But we played him his regular 45 minutes. The thing we used to go by was every game is important and don't try to be cute and play the angles. Play every game, win every game, let the chips fall where they may.

    I remember people used to tell me years ago, when Bird was here, wouldn't it be better if you lost some of these games and then you would play so and so instead of so and so. I never bought that. I never bought that theory. Bird was like I was – win every game and let the chips fall where they may.

    ESPN.com: Back to this issue of greatest coach of all-time, what standard should people use to decide it?

    Auerbach: Most of the people that are talking about it never saw the people in contention coach. It's like a lot of these guys – today you get these new writers – and they think Shaq is way ahead of Wilt Chamberlain. They never saw Chamberlain. Maybe Shaq is better. But on what grounds are they picking him?

    ESPN.com: Not to mention that Shaq has won just two scoring titles and no rebounding titles and Chamberlain won seven scoring titles and 11 rebounding titles.

    Auerbach: Different types of players. But Chamberlain – he was bigger than Shaq, just as strong as Shaq, ran just as good as Shaq, rebounded better. ... Everybody thinks the new players are bigger, stronger, faster and smarter. But they are not. Back in my time we had as big a team as you have today. Only [difference] is you didn't have as many.

    Back in those days [counting players starting before 1975, the approximate midway point in the NBA's history], you had Russell, Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Take the backcourt. Oscar Robertson is a big backcourt man.

    ESPN.com: 6-foot-5.

    Auerbach: Jerry West was big, too. [West is listed as 6-2 by the NBA.]

    ESPN.com: But your forwards would be a bit small.

    Auerbach: Bob Pettit wasn't small.

    ESPN.com: Yeah, he was 6-9 but Elgin Baylor was only 6-5.

    Auerbach: I don't care if he was 6-1. I'd like to see these kids today stop Baylor.

    ESPN.com: So you think it would be a pretty competitive game between an old squad and a new one?

    Auerbach: Sure. You also had Dolph Schayes at forward. We were bigger – the whole team.

    ESPN.com: What about quickness?

    Auerbach: There was only guy running a fast break who could do it better than Bob Cousy and that was Magic Johnson. You think that Cousy couldn't play today? As good as [John] Stockton was, I'd rather have Cousy.

    ESPN.com: How would you stop Jordan?

    Auerbach: Either West or John Havlicek. You just wear him down.

    ESPN.com: This takes some working out. It's a great topic for another day.

    Auerbach: OK.

    ESPN.com: Any last comparisons on you and Phil?

    Auerbach: Any coach needs talent. You start with talent. Without talent, we're all in the soup. You know what I mean? If you get the talent you gotta use it and you better not lose it.

    Kenneth Shouler is the editor and a writer for "Total Basketball: The Ultimate Basketball Encyclopedia."

  • #2
    Re: Red Auerbach talks with ESPN.com

    Originally posted by Hicks

    Auerbach: Any coach needs talent. You start with talent. Without talent, we're all in the soup. You know what I mean? If you get the talent you gotta use it and you better not lose it.

    Kenneth Shouler is the editor and a writer for "Total Basketball: The Ultimate Basketball Encyclopedia."
    The soup's not bad, Red...
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Red Auerbach talks with ESPN.com

      That was a very good article. You can tell Larry Bird is a Red disciple by some of the things he says.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Red Auerbach talks with ESPN.com

        "Auerbach: I mean because of all the hoopla. Look at the games now; the games are going on in the East at 9 p.m. And they can't get an audience because of that. And No. 2, all this crap before the game and all this show. I think – and I don't care what David Stern and what anyone else thinks – I think it takes away from the game.

        ESPN.com: You mean the blaring music, long commercials and general delays in getting games started?

        Auerbach: It takes away from the game. If you want to have that stuff, give them a show, but give it at some other time. Basketball people get disgusted. The loud music, the extensive interviews – they thrash it to death.

        The media writes all this stuff, like [a recent story] about Bowen's family and his mother. During the year they don't write this stuff. Many members of the media have become private investigators. They're looking for stuff no one else has found."

        Amen. I don't think anybody likes that pre-game stuff, even the non-purists.

        And with no disrespect to Horace Jenkins and his story to get to the NBA, it wasn't tragic or rough in any sense outside of basketball or at least what they said anyway. ABC was previewing it as this amazing story, and it turned out to be:

        Played college ball, had a child, quit, came back to college, wasn't drafted, Detroit signs him now, isn't playing in the Finals. I was waiting for the 38 foreign clubs he joined or something of that nature, but nothing. By the end, my summary was he sucked enough to not get drafted, was good enough to be the John Edwards of Detroit, and he'll probably never play in the NBA again.
        "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

        ----------------- Reggie Miller

        Comment

        Working...
        X