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

Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

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

  • #16
    Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

    I voted "no," but it doesn't fully state my position.

    1. I believe Thomas could have become a good coach. He was obviously learning, and would have been a much better coach if he had spent any time as an assistant.
    2. In many ways, Thomas was doomed to fail, because he had a ridiculously redundant roster. He tried (and I believe this was his direction from Donnie) to get everyone playing time, but when your 13th man is as deserving of PT as your 7th man, establishing a consistent rotation just ain't going to happen.
    3. Thomas faced unrealistic expectations. Jalen, Austin, and Travis weren't as good as we wanted to believe they were. Thomas gets accused of doing less with more, but how much more did he really have? All of those players have done worse with their more recent coaches than they did with him.

    No, Zeke wasn't a good coach. But he wasn't an absolutely terrible one, either.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

      The record Isiah was able to amass in three years was pretty good.

      Pacers played well in the playoffs in 2002.

      Pacers did play hard all three years, Isiah was able to get the team to play hard and that cannot be underestimated.

      I don't think expectations have anything to do with my thoughts on Isiah not being a good coach.

      I go back to the word wacky.

      He experimented for three straight years, new offensive system, new defensive system every year, no make that every month.

      Remember in his first year when he decided February was a good time of the year for a training camp like two a days.

      Remember in his second year he decided to start working on defense December 14th. I'll never forget that and if I were DW I would have fired him right then right there.

      Remember in his third year, he in mad scientist fashion came up with the "Quick".

      What about Bender playing point guard in training camp

      What about Mercer playing point guard.

      I could go on and on, but I won't.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

        What about Bender playing point guard in training camp

        What about Mercer playing point guard.
        Sorry UB, had to respond.

        Bender started at PG when Jalen and Travis were both out. I don't remember who our third-string pg was at that point. Anyway, he tried Bender at the point and it worked out ok, as I recall.

        Mercer played point guard because he couldn't play shooting guard, because he was a better point guard than strickland, and because Thomas was trying to find him some time on the court.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

          I am simply testing your assertion:

          "Don't go thinking that I and I alone have this opinion about Isiah. Many feel this way. You just choose to pretend they don't exist."

          Polling the people here is not a scientific way to attempt to validate your assertion, but it is the best I can do.

          The vote so far is stunning to me, in that you are apparently not alone.
          Of course I'm not alone, and some that voted "no" further explained their vote by saying they didn't think he was bad, just not good.

          More than anyone else on either forum, you have a tendancy to be a little thick headed. Many people feel that Thomas was good, or a least better than most NBA coaches. I have no idea why anyone would just assume that one guy (ie, me) would think he was good.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

            I have no idea why anyone would just assume that one guy (ie, me) would think he was good.
            It seemed obvious to me that he was not a good coach. Was he average, or OK? Maybe. But that's not "good".

            I thought even among Pacer fans, who are probably more likely to believe the best of anyone associated with the organization, few (way less than 5%) would agree with you. I was wrong- it seems more like 15 or even 20%. Is that "many"? It's stunning to me.

            I thought that few questions I could ask would gether more no votes-- maybe right up there with "Do you believe UFOs are alien invaders?" and "Do you support for Dennis Kucinich for president?"

            Again, I was wrong.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

              I have no idea why anyone would just assume that one guy (ie, me) would think he was good.
              It seemed obvious to me that he was not a good coach. Was he average, or OK? Maybe. But that's not "good".

              I thought even among Pacer fans, who are probably more likely to believe the best of anyone associated with the organization, few (way less than 5%) would agree with you. I was wrong- it seems more like 15 or even 20%. Is that "many"? It's stunning to me.

              I thought that few questions I could ask would gether more no votes-- maybe right up there with "Do you believe UFOs are alien invaders?" and "Do you support for Dennis Kucinich for president?"

              Again, I was wrong.
              Yes, and when issues or questions are polled, most of the time the majority is right. I mean, look at the Iraq War. ed:

              I won't bring politics into this any further. I'll merely stait the obvious: equating my opinions on Isiah Thomas's coaching ability to belief in aliens is both misinformed and petty.

              Grow up. At least 8 people disagree with you on this forum alone. I gave you two more in the other forum. Thatm akes 10.

              Get over yourself.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                Can you read, NewYawk?

                TWICE I said I was wrong in thinking you were alone in your opinion. What more do you want?



                Geesh. We badly need an "ignore" feature on this forum.
                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                  Can you read, NewYawk?

                  TWICE I said I was wrong in thinking you were alone in your opinion. What more do you want?



                  Geesh. We badly need an "ignore" feature on this forum.
                  I can read, Tom. The lines equating my opinions to UFO conspiracies was immature. And the fact that you thought I was alone in that opinion is a bit disturbing.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                    Can you read, NewYawk?

                    TWICE I said I was wrong in thinking you were alone in your opinion. What more do you want?



                    Geesh. We badly need an "ignore" feature on this forum.
                    I can read, Tom. The lines equating my opinions to UFO conspiracies was immature. And the fact that you thought I was alone in that opinion is a bit disturbing.
                    Ever hear the saying, "If 10 people tell you you have a tail, sooner or later you have to turn around and take a look." Do you understand what it means?

                    In other words, if you have 32 people here saying Isiah wasn't a good coach and only 8 who say he was, maybe it's time to reevaluate your opinion.

                    Wait. Someone PM'd me last night and said you were incapable of that. In fact, I think they called you "The Wall."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                      Well, the word "good" is pretty subjective. I think if the question was if he was an "okay" coach, it'd probably be closer to 40%.

                      That said, I'm surprised it is 20%. Isiah is the whipping boy on this forum. He's been gone for 7 months and people still can't go a day without talking about how much they hate him.

                      As for my answer, I was on the fence but decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. My reasoning:

                      -Yes, he gets slammed for his rotations, but, as has been mentioned, that was a product of his mismatched roster. It's much easier for Carlisle to stick to a rotation when the roster is more balanced and the team is winning. For example, was Isiah really supposed to sit Tinsley when all he had was Erick Strickland to replace him?

                      -Those players he did bench, like Austin and Mercer, are the ones he got the most flack about. However, this year has proven he was absolutely right in both cases.

                      -As much as the Quick is lampooned, it was a hell of a system when run properly. Don't ask me, ask Paul Silas (he's running the exact same thing up in Cleveland.)

                      -Lastly, I think he does deserve credit for player development. He knew how important it was, he stressed it every day, he brought in people to help with it (not only his assistants, but guys like Kareem and Walton as well.) Yeah, JO surprised us when he first came here, but did anyone really think he'd be All-NBA in two years? Jermaine credits Zeke for that, so I'll take his word for it.

                      Now, was he as good as Carlisle? Of course not. Now, that said, I completely believe if we'd hired Rick instead of Isiah, Rick wouldn't still be the coach either. Donnie was completely right. Rick didn't have the people skills to succeed in such a massive rebuilding effort coming off the Finals. He didn't have expectations to live up to in Detroit, and he still got canned. Because of that he's learned to be more mellow and more flexible, and it's made him a better coach.

                      As for Zeke, unlike NewYawk, I think he's got his perfect job now. Yeah, trading KVH for Tim was probably one move to many, but the way he's completely rebuilt that mess of a team in such a short amount of time is unbelievable. Plus, he's somewhere he's appreciated, which has got to be nice.
                      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                        Can you read, NewYawk?

                        TWICE I said I was wrong in thinking you were alone in your opinion. What more do you want?



                        Geesh. We badly need an "ignore" feature on this forum.
                        I can read, Tom. The lines equating my opinions to UFO conspiracies was immature. And the fact that you thought I was alone in that opinion is a bit disturbing.
                        Ever hear the saying, "If 10 people tell you you have a tail, sooner or later you have to turn around and take a look." Do you understand what it means?

                        In other words, if you have 32 people here saying Isiah wasn't a good coach and only 8 who say he was, maybe it's time to reevaluate your opinion.

                        Wait. Someone PM'd me last night and said you were incapable of that. In fact, I think they called you "The Wall."
                        If 32 people told me to jump off a bridge...

                        If 32 people told me to touch the third rail...

                        If 32 people told me Isiah Thomas was a bad coach...

                        And, let's say, half of those 32 voted Thomas "bad", but followed it up with: "In many ways, Thomas was doomed to fail, because he had a ridiculously redundant roster. He tried (and I believe this was his direction from Donnie) to get everyone playing time, but when your 13th man is as deserving of PT as your 7th man, establishing a consistent rotation just ain't going to happen." [Anthem]. Would that change your opinion?

                        No.

                        Clearly, you don't like dissenting opinion. I have yet to see anything form you that concretly refutes anything I've said. Thomas Ii] did [/i] have a winning record. The team did improve each year he was coach. Key players on the squad did improve each year he was coach.

                        If you were looking for championships from 2001-2003, then yes: Thomas was a bad HC. However, with the youngest team in the NBA, such an expectation was unrealistic, and perhaps you're being a little to harsh.

                        We disagree. This argument is highly subjective as both sides clearly have a point. Accept it. Deal with it. Move on.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                          I think the problem, Yawk, is most (correctly so in my eyes) don't equate team success with a good coach. There can be a BIG correlation between them, see this season for that, but I just don't feel we got a little better each year because of Isiah, I think that was our talent maturing.

                          Same with the idea that team wins = coach's quality. It's not that simple.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                            I think the problem, Yawk, is most (correctly so in my eyes) don't equate team success with a good coach. There can be a BIG correlation between them, see this season for that, but I just don't feel we got a little better each year because of Isiah, I think that was our talent maturing.

                            Same with the idea that team wins = coach's quality. It's not that simple.
                            Wouldn't you give Thomas credit for the talent maturing, and thus credit for the wins? JO, Harrington, and Artest have all credited Thomas with their maturation. Carlisle has credited Thomas many times for preparing the team and making them more mature.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                              I have about 12 firends here in Massachusetts who are NBA fans. Mostly Celtics fans, but one Knick guy and one Lakers guy.

                              To a man every one of them has a much LOWER opinion of Isiah as a coach than I do. They told me going into the Boston series last year that in their opinion the Pacers had given up on Isiah and that Boston would probably win. I said "no way". I wanted to believe otherwise. The series was an eye-opener for me. I found my friends to be totally accurate. Afterward, we all agreed, in fact, that had the Pacers been coached by O'Brien and the Celtics coached by Isiah, the Pacers would have won the series-- that they had superior talent with a coaching void.

                              New Yawk, I can't help it if it disturbs you that I thought you were alone in your high opinion of Isiah's coaching ability. I have absolutely never met (in person) any sports fan SINCE Isiah was fired that thinks he was a good coach. All of my friends regard me as crazy for thinking he was anything but a terrible coach, when I argue that perhaps he was merely average.

                              I had begun to believe that there were very few people out there with that opinion. I was wrong.
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                                I think the problem, Yawk, is most (correctly so in my eyes) don't equate team success with a good coach. There can be a BIG correlation between them, see this season for that, but I just don't feel we got a little better each year because of Isiah, I think that was our talent maturing.

                                Same with the idea that team wins = coach's quality. It's not that simple.
                                Wouldn't you give Thomas credit for the talent maturing, and thus credit for the wins? JO, Harrington, and Artest have all credited Thomas with their maturation. Carlisle has credited Thomas many times for preparing the team and making them more mature.

                                If Mickey Mouse were coaching a bunch of 23 Y/O's, and they became more mature, does that make him a great coach? I'm just saying there's more than one influence in their lives, maybe it wasn't really the coach. Maybe those guys were crediting Thomas because they wanted to keep a soft, players-friendly coach who wouldn't demand a lot out of them?
                                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

                                Working...
                                X