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

Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

    No really this is an interesting article. He more or less says that the Pistons would have won the championship with or without Larry Brown. I tend to agree. If Carlisle would have stayed a third season and if the same trade had taken place acquiring Sheed, I think the Pistons still would have won it that season.


    http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/pfriendly_new.php


    PISTONS PRIMED WITHOUT LARRY
    By PETER VECSEY

    HOOP DU JOUR REGGIE Miller caught me by surprise Thanksgiving. Out of nowhere he reminded TNT's viewers how the Pacers failed to make the playoffs under Larry Brown his last season and that Indiana won 59 games (58-24, actually) the next marking period under rookie Larry Bird.

    Cheryl's baby brother then brazenly noted how Larry became "overbearing" at the end, much appreciated by the audience in my home theater. It would've been even better, of course, had sidekick Dick Stockton bothered to solicit an example of Brown's bossiness. But when tuned in to TV's Style Section, you learn to scoop up whatever scraps you can get and be satisfied.

    Switching to the pristine Pistons, Miller offered us his before-and-after appraisal of Brown. It was nothing we haven't heard before from mere commoners. Instead of taking his opinion to an intuitive level and going up strong with it, Miller pulled up at the 3-point line. Instead of coming out from behind his freshly transplanted Happy Face, he poured softener on his fabric.

    "Under Flip Saunders they're playing more relaxed and with more freedom," Miller said in essence, and then was quick to qualify. "They were a good team before he got there, but Larry taught them how to win a championship."

    Yipes, I realize that's the consensus perspective of those on remote outside the Pistons organization, but with all due disrespect, your thrice weekly citadel of neutrality sturdily suggests it may very well have been the other way around, or, at the very least, a 50-50 proposition.

    As I recall, the Pistons won back-to-back Central Division crowns prior to Brown's arrival and their gratification didn't stop there. I looked it up in fact; they lost to the Nets in the '02-03 Eastern Conference finals under Rick Carlisle who, by the way, didn't have Rasheed Wallace's cosmic components to help even up the odds.

    Now hear this:

    Except for Lindsey Hunter (part of the '01-02 Lakers when they took success to the limit), the majority of Brown's Pistons played eight years or less before capturing a title.

    Brown was in his 25th year of professional coaching before finally reaching his Finals reward.

    So, who really taught whom to win what? Yes, Brown won an NCAA championship in '88 as Kansas coach. Yes, he guided UCLA to a second-place finish in '80. Yes, his Nuggets took the Nets to six games in the ABA's swansong sumo series. Yes, his Sixers went to the '01 Finals and upset the Lakers on the road in Game I before dropping four straight. Yes, he won a gold medal on the '64 Olympic team. Yes, he was an assistant coach on the '80 and '00 Olympic teams.

    I fully recognize and suitably offer a sitting ovation for all of the Hall of Famer's above achievements.

    Still, the reality remains, Brown never prevailed in the pros until he worked the sidelines at the Palace, and the team he inherited already was pleasingly primed. Truth be told, the Pistons were much better than their record.

    Let's try not to forget Carlisle's resistance to an explicit midseason directive by owner Bill Davidson to give Tayshaun Prince more of Michael Curry's minutes and to find quality time for Mehmet Okur cost him his job.

    Taking nothing away from Brown's cerebral participation as it pertains to practice, teaching, preparation and out-thinking pretenders and contenders alike between the lines, Rip Hamilton, Chauncey Billups and Ben Wallace already had proved their legitimacy by the time he showed up, whereas Prince and Okur were overdue to contribute content.

    There's no getting around it; the Pistons indeed were peaking. Once Dumars pilfered Rasheed from the Hawks Feb. 19, 2004 at the trade deadline in a three-way deal involving the Celtics, it couldn't help but be a mountainous peak.

    So, it's not as if Brown were forced to coach from weakness. All the wonderfully carved pieces, including the brains of the outfit, were in their proper places. If you look at what he had to work with in Detroit's "five-game sweep" of the spellbinding Lakers, it shouldn't have come as all that much of a surprise. The biggest shock was that Phil Jackson didn't try to switch benches when LA trailed 1-3.

    Still, the question lingers, who meant more to whom? I say Brown was sitting on a win, that Detroit would've won the title with or without him. Before Brown's two years in the privileged playoff company of Pistons (31-17) his all-time tournament record was below the equator, 89-94, including 20-22 in the ABA.

    Furthermore, a number of Brown's teams also got better after he bolted. Like the '83-84 Nets that eliminated the defending champion 76ers in the first round. Like the '97-98 Pacers who extended the Bulls to seven games in the Eastern Conference finals. Like the '78-79 Nuggets.

    Whenever someone in Brown's flock tries to cinch their case about his celestial coaching know-how, they aim the floodlights at the Clippers. With Larry at the helm for half a semester (23-12 in '91-92) and all of the following season (41-41) they crashed the playoff party twice in a row but couldn't buy a round.

    How can Reggie Miller and I not praise Brown for piloting my bent and battered Paper Clips to star-stained heights? Of course, four years later they qualified again for the after-party, escorted this time by Bill Fitch, who, incidentally, guided the '81 Celtics to crowning glory in only his 11th pro season.

    peter.vecsey@nypost.com
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

    Originally posted by Unclebuck
    No really this is an interesting article. He more or less says that the Pistons would have won the championship with or without Larry Brown. I tend to agree. If Carlisle would have stayed a third season and if the same trade had taken place acquiring Sheed, I think the Pistons still would have won it that season.
    I don't because I don't think anyone would have played Shaq straight up without doubling him in the finals except LB. Carlisle would have doubled him regularly which would have opened the floor for Kobe and provided open shots for their shooters.
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

      Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
      I don't because I don't think anyone would have played Shaq straight up without doubling him in the finals except LB. Carlisle would have doubled him regularly which would have opened the floor for Kobe and provided open shots for their shooters.
      IIRC, we have never (or rarely) doubled Shaq in Miami that I can recall. We stuck Pollard, Dale, or David on him and that was that.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

        Rick Carlisle double teams less than Larry Brown does, so I don';t buy that argument, Rimfire. But the Pistons did not beat the Lakers because they decided not to double Shaq, they won because the Lakers were injured and mentally exhausted and were ready to be beaten. But more than anything the Pistons were playing great at the time

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

          Originally posted by Hicks
          IIRC, we have never (or rarely) doubled Shaq in Miami that I can recall. We stuck Pollard, Dale, or David on him and that was that.
          Yes - but before the 2004 finals everyone doubled Shaq when he got the ball in the post. It was close to automatic. That included Carlisle.

          It took Larry Brown in the finals to show everyone that you could beat Shaq-teams by playing him straight-up.
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            Rick Carlisle double teams less than Larry Brown does, so I don';t buy that argument, Rimfire. But the Pistons did not beat the Lakers because they decided not to double Shaq, they won because the Lakers were injured and mentally exhausted and were ready to be beaten. But more than anything the Pistons were playing great at the time
            They beat them because they could shut Kobe down (and everyone else) and Shaq couldn't expend enough energy to beat them by himself every game.

            Yes, the Pistons were playing great and Robert Horry didn't hit a shot those entire playoffs. But never doubling Shaq, even when he was dominating the game, just wasn't done up to then.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

              This has been a very strange week. Bender on the verge of retirement and now I'm actually agreeing with Peter Vecsey. Just plain odd.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

                It wasn't just not doubling him. It was the combination of not double-teaming him, not fouling him, and letting him get his points. I agree that this was not likely the strategy any other coach would have used.

                As for whether the Pistons would have won with Carlisle, I doubt they would have gotten Sheed had he been coach, as Brown was pushing Dumars hard to trade for him from the start of the season. And the fact that Carlisle's Pistons' teams always underachieved in the playoffs (losing to lower seeds) also makes me doubt they would have won it all.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

                  Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                  Yes, the Pistons were playing great and Robert Horry didn't hit a shot those entire playoffs. But never doubling Shaq, even when he was dominating the game, just wasn't done up to then.
                  Horry was a Spur that year.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

                    Still, the reality remains, Brown never prevailed in the pros until he worked the sidelines at the Palace
                    While this is a true statement, it is not evidence that LB didn't make a difference.

                    LB has a habit of taking on teams that need a mental lift and a defensive makeover. His MO is that he turns around a mediocre program and makes it competitive by teaching them to "play the right way." He makes overachievers out of underachievers.

                    There was some eyebrow raising when he took the detroit job because the pisstons were already a successful team. There was speculation that he wasn't going to make a difference because there was so little he could improve on that team. It just wasn't his usual job.

                    I'm not suggesting he was THE difference. Obviously adding rasheed was a plus as well. But suggesting he made no difference is just

                    EDIT: But vecsey has people talking about what he had to say, so mission accomplished.
                    Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

                      Originally posted by Hicks
                      Horry was a Spur that year.
                      That may have been a contributing factor.
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

                        This is the closest I've ever seen UB come to discrediting the Pistons' championship (I don't think he did, as his view of the Pistons is clear from numerous posts over the years, but its as close as I've seen him come).


                        Originally posted by unstandable
                        not fouling him
                        This should get mentioned more then it does. In foul trouble, even Devean George becomes a threat. Even Kobe shooting 27% becomes a threat.


                        Would the Pistons have won w/ Carlisle and not Brown.

                        The question hinges (IMO) on whether Carlisle would have changed his playoff coaching style in a 3rd year in Detroit. If Carlisle coached the same way he coached the 2002 and 2003 playoffs, then no. Do I think the Pistons should have gotten farther in the playoffs under Carlisle, I don't know maybe not (definately not in '03 because with Billups injured the Nets were simply better, but that chucking Celtics team wasn't better then the '02 Pistons). Do I think Carlisle's coaching was a detriment in those two playoffs, yes. If Carlisle changed how he ran things in the Playoffs, then they probably have a chance in '04 with him at the helm.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

                          Originally posted by Hicks
                          Horry was a Spur that year.
                          Which simply proves DK's point that Horry never hit a shot in that series.



                          -Bball
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

                            I swear we've discussed this before. Bird single'd Shaq in 2000, and he killed us. Absolutely killed us. Now, Detroit is obviously a much better defensive team then we were. So, I wonder if Rick would have tried the same thing with Ben, or been afraid to after watching Dale get skinned alive.

                            Rick would have gotten Detroit to the finals, without question. So, IMO, the question is two-fold. How would he have coached that series, and, more importantly, how would the team have responded. Personally, I just don't see Detroit playing as well for Rick in that series as they did for Larry. They may still have won, but it wouldn't have been a 5-game sweep.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Interesting article from Vescey about Reggie, Pistons, Larry Brown....

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck
                              Rick Carlisle double teams less than Larry Brown does, so I don';t buy that argument, Rimfire. But the Pistons did not beat the Lakers because they decided not to double Shaq, they won because the Lakers were injured and mentally exhausted and were ready to be beaten. But more than anything the Pistons were playing great at the time
                              They won because they scored more points in 4 of 5 games.




                              And they were better.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X