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

Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

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

    Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

    Isiah and DW were widely criticized for putting a Pacers team together that was an athletic team where players were capable of playing several positions. Many Pacers fans argued that it was the wrong approach, that players need to only play one position to only fit into a certain role.

    Maybe DW was ahead of his time, maybe he tried to build the perfect team for todays NBA.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...e.31b6cc1.html
    Offense not a thing of the past
    Still plenty of defense, but NBA's adjustments have given league life

    By DAVID MOORE / The Dallas Morning News


    My timing can be a bit off at times.

    A glance at my stock portfolio would confirm that.

    So why choose today, less than 48 hours removed from an NBA Finals game in which neither team cracked 100 points, to talk about how the league is undergoing an offensive renaissance?

    Because watching that 90-80 Mavericks victory was a reminder that we are seeing fewer and fewer of these games in the playoffs.

    Scoring averages and shooting percentages are up across the board. Teams are averaging 10.2 points more in these playoffs than they did only two years ago.

    Miami didn't show it Thursday, but the Heat averaged 97.5 points and shot 48.9 percent from the field to work its way through the more methodical Eastern Conference.

    "Our coaches are like chameleons," said Stu Jackson, the NBA's senior vice president of basketball operations. "They will adapt to whatever rules we have.

    "But we've gotten positive feedback in terms of the direction of the game and the way it's being played. I think the game's in a good place right now."

    It's in a lot better place than it was a few years ago.

    The pedestrian, often numbing pace of the game was a major concern five years ago when commissioner David Stern began to have discussions with Jackson on the subject. With input from Phoenix chairman Jerry Colangelo and others, the league put together a committee to explore solutions.

    "My major concern had to do with the sort of roughness of the game, but more than that, my abiding sense that isolation seemed designed to hide the talents of a good percentage of our players," Stern said Friday at his annual Finals news conference. "We had to try to do something that was better than that.

    "You put one guy in the corner and four guys in the parking lot and that was our NBA basketball."

    The problem wasn't defense. No one wanted to legislate against solid defensive principles. But Stern and others expressed dissatisfaction with how the rules on the books were warped, how a perception developed that the game would become whatever the coaches wanted.

    The committee cleaned up the rules to give players more freedom on the perimeter and to open up the lane. This put a premium on speed and gave the stars more space to be stars.

    "Scoring was not our original intent," Jackson said. "It was to help the aesthetics of the game, to get a more free-flowing game and to eliminate one-on-one and two-on-two basketball.

    "Also back then, the art of fast-break basketball had started to disappear. That was really our focus. The byproduct of the rules changes, luckily, was that scoring actually increased."

    Miami coach Pat Riley said what you have now are rules "that allow you to attack, attack, attack with perimeter guys."

    Former NBA player and coach Billy Cunningham called Stern earlier this week to tell him he thoroughly enjoyed watching the playoffs and thought that for the first time, coaches were putting their five best players on the court regardless of position.

    Small ball is the popular phrase. But what the game is about today is versatility. It's about having a player who can excel at more than one position and opening up the floor by creating mismatches.

    It's what the Mavericks do. Coach Avery Johnson loves the team's perimeter quickness and length and talks about the Jason Terry-Devin Harris backcourt in terms of being cornerbacks on defense and wide receivers on offense.

    "I think you need that in basketball right now," Johnson said. "You need guys that can cover around the perimeter. You need guys that have legs and stay pretty fresh throughout the game.

    "That was critical with the way we constructed this team."

    And that's why I'm thinking you won't see another 90-80 affair Sunday night.

    E-mail dmoore@dallasnews.com


    ON THE RISE
    Postseason scoring averages and shooting percentages over the last three years.

    Season Avg. Pct.
    2004 88.0 .421
    2005 97.1 .448
    2006 98.2 .460
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

    Am I the only person who remembers the 90's Bulls?

    Why do we feel as though this is some new unseen offense that has never occured before? Since when did slashing guards & small forwards not rule the NBA?

    Even teams that did not have superstar slashers still had way above average players who could create their own shots.

    Both Parker & Ginobli for the Spurs. Billups & Hamilton for the Pistons. Kobe for Gods sake before them & of course we then are back in the M.J. years.

    If anything there may be more of a focus now on shooting which has been missing from the NBA since the early 90's.

    To me, the NBA always goes in cycles. It's this way now but in 4-7 years from now we might be reading about how Bynum, Oden & Harrison are revolutionizing the game.


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

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

      I think the writer might overemphasize the multipositional aspect.

      What is really important is QUICKNESS for the position that you do play. When you are too quick for guys your own height and you have some offensive moves, he can thrive if your coach implements a system to take advantage of that.

      It doesn't matter that much IMO if you can play 3 positions or not. Diaw can, and Josh Howard can. Nowitsky is 85% a PF, Nash 100% a PG, Wade 95% a SG, Shaq 100% a center, MArion is 60-40 PF/SF, Kobe 95% a SG, Iverson 100% a SG in a PG's body, etc.

      They all cannot be guarded well by people their own height because they are too quick for that.

      I doubt there is a much different percentage of true multipositional players now vs. in the past. That's always been a benefit. With the new rules enforcement on (Not) guarding the perimeter, SPEED kills.
      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

      • #4
        Re: Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

        It doesn't hurt that Dallas has "The Jet". He is my pick as the NBA's best shooter.
        I know Peja might beat him in a game of horse, but during an actual 4th quarter of an NBA Finals game? The speed and physical nature of the NBA game makes Terry my favorite shooter right now. I love his mental toughness. He reminds me of Rip two years ago when the Pistons won the NBA title, but w/ more range. I know Dirk opens alot of things up for Terry, but honestly that kid has been a bad mofo ever since Arizona beat UK in the NCAA title game. They had Terry w/ the high socks, Bibby, and Miles Simon as their big three. I think they had Arenas too, but I was drunk during the game so hell, they could've of had Eazy-E.
        1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
        3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
        5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
        7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.


        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

          Peck, weren't you one that was really critical of Donnie for trying to put together a team of interchangable players, players that could play multiple positons and weren't yopu very critical of the whole idea of just putting your 5 best players on the floor regardless of positions.

          I realize there are probably 5 or 6 different issues that could be discussed related to this general topic, but didn't you hate the idea players who didn't have defined roles

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            Peck, weren't you one that was really critical of Donnie for trying to put together a team of interchangable players, players that could play multiple positons and weren't yopu very critical of the whole idea of just putting your 5 best players on the floor regardless of positions.

            I realize there are probably 5 or 6 different issues that could be discussed related to this general topic, but didn't you hate the idea players who didn't have defined roles
            I'm not Peck, but I like the idea of Pistons or Spurs team wise. I liked the Finals Pacer team the best since I've been alive.
            Reggie - Outside threat
            Smits - Inside threat
            Jackson - Ball handler/Passer
            Davis - Rebounding/Trash Cleanup/Enforcer
            Rose - All around/3 Scorer

            I know Rose actually lead the team in scoring by like a 10th of a point, but that was his real role.

            I never worried about the Mavs, but Cuban puts alot of $ into the team & tries a differant combo every year. He just got one that is working well this time. The Jet & the new head coach are a giant reason. A guy like Stack as a 6th man helps. He has the skills of... oh I don't know maybe an Al Harrington would you say?

            My answer in short would be w/ our budget and knowing we have over-paid alot lately, I like a more defined role. Not guys playing differant positions.
            1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
            3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
            5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
            7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.


            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

              Originally posted by Unclebuck
              Peck, weren't you one that was really critical of Donnie for trying to put together a team of interchangable players, players that could play multiple positons and weren't yopu very critical of the whole idea of just putting your 5 best players on the floor regardless of positions.

              I realize there are probably 5 or 6 different issues that could be discussed related to this general topic, but didn't you hate the idea players who didn't have defined roles
              Yes, I was & still am very critical of putting together a team of combo players.

              Did you forget that the Mavericks have not won the title yet & that the team they are facing has very definate role players on thier team?

              Did you confuse Shaq with a point guard? Or maybe you had Udonis Haslem mixed up with a shooting guard? Or was it Jayson Williams as the power forward that boggled your mind?

              Actually is Dallas really that far away from having roles? Are Dampier & Diop anything other than centers?

              Terry may not be a point guard ala Jamaal Tinsley but is he really that differant than Billups or Parker or any of the other point guards who shoot first?

              I think your problem is that you have watched Rick Carlisle basketball for so long that you have forgotten that there is an entire world of offensive schemes that work out there.

              Here is a shocker for you, throwing into the post with a big dominate center still works as well.

              The game of basketball has a lot of options you can choose to use when playing on the offensive side.

              Your just so used to our defense begining with our offense that watching other teams has bamboozled you.

              I am seeing nothing new now that I didn't see in the 70's, 80's & 90's. Dr. J tore the league up with his ability to slash, Michael Jordan did the same thing & I guess you have missed seeing Allen Iverson over the past few years as well (although I certainly can understand why you would put that out of your mind).


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

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

                Sure, the rules have changed in a way that benefits the slashers...but the supposedly "new NBA" is a bit over-hyped. For example, the Mavs are only in the finals because:

                1) They finally have an interior presence with 2 legit NBA centers. This is probably the most important reason. Without 2 decent NBA centers, the Mavs would be in trouble against Shaq...and would not have got by San Antonio or Detroit. Also, at a couple key points in the series, Diop was crucial to slowing down Phoenix's slashing game. Also, if Shaq were in his prime, this series would be over even if the rules did favor the slashers.

                2) They are now capable of playing some defense (e.g. held Miami to 80). Sure, this is related to better quickness, but I think length, interior presence, a defensive mindset and Avery Johnson's experience with the Spurs have more to do with this change.

                3) Dirk's approach to the game has changed. He has taken his game up 2 levels an no longer settles for the outide shot. Sure, he is going to the rim now, but he is certainly no slasher.

                4) Dirk has a better supporting cast. Admittedly, this is partially due to better athletes/slashers like Howard, Terry and Stack...but this factor is not nearly enough to lift Dallas up to where it is today.

                Let's not confuse athleticism with talent. MJ won far more games on talent than his ability to slash to the bucket. Jamison Brewer is a freak athlete, but is virtually worthless in the NBA. Adam Morrison who supposedly would not be able to get his shot off due to being slow, just ripped Rodney Carney (a freak athlete) 1 on 1 and may be drafted #1 into this "new NBA". Things have changed less than you think.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold
                  ...Let's not confuse athleticism with talent...
                  I believe youhave hit upon the most important characteristics of the so-called "versatile" or "multi-positional" player.

                  I think we've had a few threads about this. Unclebuck's thread regarding "quickness" was one.

                  But what it boils down to, from my perspective anyway, is that I would want a few players that are capable of playing a single position. For example, it would make no sense to play David Harrison at PF; he's a center and that's all he will ever be.

                  Jermaine, on the other hand, plays best at PF, but does a fine job at center as well. Obviously, he is a more versatile player than Harrison. Likewise, Peja and Danny are natural SFs, but both can give us minutes at SG and PF. And the list goes on.

                  What I believe every coach wants is versatility among his players. That's what gives him the ability to get players like Peja and Danny on the floor at the same time. And in today's game versatility is absolutely essential.

                  So, what lends itself to the versatility that all the coaches want? Certainly knowledge and well-rounded skills (or talent) is high on the list.

                  But all the knowledge and skills in the world won't enable a player like Danny to defend not only SFs, but also most PFs and quite a few SGs as well. That takes athleticism, specifically a decent degree of quickness. The quickness to help overcome the superior strength of opposing PFs and the quickness to even have a chance of keeping up with opposing SGs.

                  Although it is true that we've always had Kobes, Michaels and AIs in the league, I believe that most coaches want a greater number of versatile players on their rosters in today's game... and I think that the average roster today indeed contains a greater number of versatile players.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

                    I think two things have changed.

                    1) The rules favoring the quicker player and making going small more advantages than it was.

                    2) The improved athleticism translating into greater versitility of role players. Sure Magic and Jordan and other greats were great where ever they played. But we haven't seen so much versitility among the role players.
                    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

                      What Donnie Walsh advocated long before Isiah became coach was putting 5 players on the floor that were all about 6'9, could shoot, pass, and handle the ball. I believe a team of 5 Magic Johnson's would be his ultimate team.

                      Which team would be the best, 5 Shaqs, 5 Steve Nashs, or 5 Magic Johnsons? Who would win a seven game series? I think it would be no contest, the 5 Magic Johnsons would prevail.

                      And how would a team of Magic Johnsons do against a traditional team of all stars? Again I believe the Magic Johnson team would prevail.

                      I believe a multi dimensional team would always beat a traditional team.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

                        The problem with the Pacers teams those years is they had a coach who absolutely sucked.

                        The following year, when they had a competent coach and the same players for the most part, they won 61 games.

                        The only thing wrong with that team is a major foundation of it - and one of its most versatile pieces (probably the only truly versatile player) - was built on quicksand known as Ron Artest.

                        Or maybe it was built with a deadly virus which, after an initial acute infection would remain in the system for a long time afterward causing chronic illness.

                        On another note, while it's nice to point at building a team with versatile players who can do a lot of things, that isn't how it usually works. Usually what happens is you find out a player is capable of doing more than one thing well - then you utilize him. Nobody would argue against having a Bird, Michael or Magic. The question is finding him - and in each of those cases we're talking a top 5 draft pick. It's hard enough excelling at doing one thing in the NBA. There aren't many players who can do everything.

                        I'm not disagreeing with the article because the NBA has always been about utilizing advantageous matchups. I just don't see where it's a huge change from what's always been going on.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Maybe Donnie Walsh and Isiah were correct

                          Originally posted by Will Galen
                          What Donnie Walsh advocated long before Isiah became coach was putting 5 players on the floor that were all about 6'9, could shoot, pass, and handle the ball. I believe a team of 5 Magic Johnson's would be his ultimate team.

                          Which team would be the best, 5 Shaqs, 5 Steve Nashs, or 5 Magic Johnsons? Who would win a seven game series? I think it would be no contest, the 5 Magic Johnsons would prevail.

                          And how would a team of Magic Johnsons do against a traditional team of all stars? Again I believe the Magic Johnson team would prevail.

                          I believe a multi dimensional team would always beat a traditional team.
                          So far there has only been one Magic Johnson, and he's retired. Therefore, IMHO it would be quite a feat to find 5 players of that caliber.

                          It is absolutely a pipe dream to build a multi dimensional team. It's made even harder if you are a sit and wait type of GM. You'd have to go ahead a risk trading some fine players, albeit 'fine' in a 'traditional' sense, for some less talented but more multi dimensional types.

                          "Jack of all trades, master of none" is a good saying that comes to mind. You might stumble across a player or two that fits the multi dimensional agenda but to go out and try to build a team that way, especially to do it and not be uber-aggressive... is folly.

                          -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

                          Previous template Next
                          Working...
                          X