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

Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

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

  • #16
    Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post

    Not to keep arguing semantics here, but in the first example, I'd say he didnt necessarily have confidence that he'd become the best player ever by practicing, Id say he just had a great deal of determination to not fail again at something he desperately wanted. By practicing and seeing his own improvement, I think he DEVELOPED confidence that continued to carry him through.
    Um, you don't succeed by playing not to lose. That's also an old adage.

    I don't recall anyone training under the presumption of, "well i'm not that good, but I'm going to work hard anyway even though I don't believe I'll get any better!"

    The fact whether greatness is borne thru the confident actions of the supremely gifted just to achieve winning, or if greatness is borne thru an extreme maniacal hatred of losing and/or fear of failure is one argument we can have on another day. Im not sure I really know the answer to that question.
    See above.

    You don't make last-second shots by being afraid to miss.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

      Ok. getting away from this hornet's nest of "confidence".....

      Earlier in the thread "pantsfish" disagreed with my "revenge" is a poor motivator statement. Let me explain what I meant there, because Im not totally sure I was clear.

      Yes, I think that an INDIVIDUAL player, on a limited basis, can carry a "revenge" factor chip on his shoulder against a certain team or even another individual player. However, as a TEAM AS A WHOLE, I think revenge is a negative emotion and motivator, and doesnt work as well as its thought to.

      For instance, I dont think the Pacers hating the Pistons after the brawl game, is a strong enough motivational factor to get you thru the entire next season. And I definitely don't think it can be the primary reason you have for wanting to beat them in a series....thats a little weakminded and too "small" of a goal for my taste for a team to have its hopes pinned on.

      Another example might be the Colts vs New England in a playoff game....I don't think if our primary focus is to beat them just because they've beaten us so many times, that that is the correct mental approach you'd want your team to have....it brings up negative connotations in my view. id rather us be motivated to achieve something positive for ourselves, and not to squash the hopes and dreams of others. Of course, some of you might say the Colts could never win this game because they lacked the "confidence" to do so, but I don't really want to go there lol.

      I first heard this from Rick Pitino, by the way, in a speech.....and Im pretty sure he's writen his views on the subject as well in print.

      Again, JMO

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

        Revenge can be a motivating factor if both teams are evenly-mached. It's not a sibstitute for talent, but it can most definately be a tie-breaker.

        It can also be a detriment if you overlook one team thinking about another.

        Still, l've seen revenge play a big part in a lot of series, most notibly Pacers-Knicks and Celtics-Lakers.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Revenge can be a motivating factor if both teams are evenly-mached. It's not a sibstitute for talent, but it can most definately be a tie-breaker.

          It can also be a detriment if you overlook one team thinking about another.

          Still, l've seen revenge play a big part in a lot of series, most notibly Pacers-Knicks and Celtics-Lakers.

          Ok, so you are saying that the Pacers wanted to win a series against the Knicks not so they could advance to next round, not so they could pursue a championship, but instead just so they could beat their rival? I dont think that makes any sense......"revenge" can be the cherry on top of the sundae, but I still don't think it can be the primary motivating factor for successful people or organizations.

          In a real life example, if you are competing with a coworker you don't like for a promotion, are you saying your PRIMARY reason to work as hard as you can to get this promotion is to just prevent the guy you don't like from getting it? That might be a small perk, but you'd be more likely to be successful, and a happier person in general I think if you go after the promotion because you sincerely want the challenge of the better job, and they increase in pay and perks that go with it.

          Maybe its just a different way to think, I don't know, but when I heard Coach Pitino explain it it made perfect sense to me.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

            Ok, so you are saying that the Pacers wanted to win a series against the Knicks not so they could advance to next round, not so they could pursue a championship, but instead just so they could beat their rival? I dont think that makes any sense......"revenge" can be the cherry on top of the sundae, but I still don't think it can be the primary motivating factor for successful people or organizations.
            I'm saying revenge made the pacers want to beat the knicks in 1995 a little more than the knicks wanted to beat the pacers.

            This year's 2006 ECF is another prime example. Miami simply wanted it more. Look at Reggie in near-tears on the madison square garden floor if you don't believe me.

            Same goes for the 1991 ECF.

            In a real life example, if you are competing with a coworker you don't like for a promotion, are you saying your PRIMARY reason to work as hard as you can to get this promotion is to just prevent the guy you don't like from getting it? That might be a small perk, but you'd be more likely to be successful, and a happier person in general I think if you go after the promotion because you sincerely want the challenge of the better job, and they increase in pay and perks that go with it.
            Comparing pro sports to real-life everyday job scenarios never works.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              Comparing pro sports to real-life everyday scenarios never works.
              Why not? Sports are life intensified. Or at least certain aspects of life. That's one of the reasons we watch, right?

              But, even in that real-life example, revenge would be a major motivation. Perhaps you're typing from the only computer in Amish country, tbird, but where I'm from coworkers go after each other all the time for revenge.
              2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                This is the kind of thread that brought me to PD 2 years ago. Keep it up, gentlemen.

                Back on topic, if I never again hear the words "defense wins championships" I will die a happy man.
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                  Originally posted by bulldog View Post
                  Why not? Sports are life intensified. Or at least certain aspects of life. That's one of the reasons we watch, right?

                  But, even in that real-life example, revenge would be a major motivation. Perhaps you're typing from the only computer in Amish country, tbird, but where I'm from coworkers go after each other all the time for revenge.

                  Im not saying "revenge" can't play a small role you guys, Im just saying it can't be the PRIMARY, MAIN, ONLY motivating factor in what you are trying to achieve.

                  Back to "confidence" again. Let's spin this argument forward to a Pacers real life situation. The prevailing opinion on Sarunas last season was that he played fairly well early, and then seemed to either hit the wall physically or the league figured him out a little during the middle of the season. Either way, it was said by many fans that RC playing him in unfamiliar roles, and giving him irregular minutes, caused Sarunas to "lose his confidence", and therefore he began to play an even worse floor game and really struggle with his shot.

                  Now, using what I believe about Sarunas and his level of "confidence", id tell him to simply work harder, get quicker and better, and if he is the best player for his role this year he will play, and if someone else is better, then he won't. I personally wouldnt as a coach spend one second worrying about whether Sarunas had his "confidence" back. I'd give him a chance to compete, and if he is good enough to play Id play him, and if he isnt then id sit his butt down. In my view, if a player is good enough and mentally tough enough, especially at 30 yrs old playing in the NBA, then I shouldnt have to spend time trying to boost his ego and soothe his feelings.

                  Now, I assume that the way some of you are thinking, that you believe its important for RC to make some kind of statement backing him or praising him, and possibly to allow him to play over someone else who is playing better at that specific time, in order to regain his "confidence". If something like this doesnt happen, and if Sarunas struggles again, do we criticize the player for not being good enough, or RC for not getting his "confidence" back up somehow? In my view, its the players job to be good enough to have his own mental "confidence" issues handled, and I wouldnt criticize the coaches at all personally.

                  Now, I do have to say that I realize all people are different, and some players need a softer touch while others need a kick in the pants....no one is disputing that. I do have a problem personally though with having to sugarcoat things for my "lead guard", the player I think that has to lead your team on the floor. If this is a guy you constantly have to handle and stroke and massage thru the season, I think it hurts your team as a whole. it's easier I think on a teams structure to try and boost the "confidence" of a player who isnt your lead guard.....that may not be fair but thats how it is in my opinion. Your point guard needs to be the mentally toughest guy on the floor.....which has to be a big concern for us going into the season, that is if you share my opinion on that.

                  JMO

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                    First, I'll deal with your ten.

                    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                    These are in no particular order, but are some of the things you hear in the media, or on message boards, that people SAY or THINK are really important to winning, but in my view aren't nearly as important as most fans think:

                    1. "Off floor chemistry". -snip- Chemistry problems and solutions arent always as apparent as they seem....
                    Very true. And what the Pacers just went through with Ron Artest was a very out-of-the-ordinary situation. Rarely do you have a player so blatantly put the team at risk and put himself above the team as Ron did. It was no wonder this guys were slugging each other and we end up with a bunch of guys "tainted" by the me-first cancer that ran through the team.

                    There's a big difference between "team cancer" and "team with chemistry problem." The early-1990's Pacers, with a load of offensive firepower and 0.500 records, had a chemistry problem. They couldn't figure out how to work together on the court to get better than 0.500. But they got along well off the court. Chuck, Dale, Reggie, Tank, etc. - these guys are all still good friends. Over the past couple of seasons, we haven't seen a chemistry problem. We've seen a cancer, perhaps two cancers, and we've seen it spread.

                    2. " We don't have enough experience."
                    I dunno, most championship teams are veteran teams. I think there is something to this one.

                    3. Coaches off season favorite quote: "We want to play more uptempo." -snip- and few of them will follow thru.
                    Yep. I'll believe it when I see it. Ricky C. seems like the classic control-freak coach.

                    4. Timeouts. In generally, these are overrated.
                    Generally agree with you. Except if Isiah is calling the timeouts in Game #1 against Boston in 2003. Never have I seen a worse in-game job of clock management. Imagine coaching a team with Reggie Miller, sitting him down during the last minute for defensive purposes while forgetting you're out of timeouts, controlling the rebound, and having no way to stop the clock to get him back into the game unless you commit a turnover. Brilliant. So timeouts can be mis-used, and that's bad. But there's not much upside.

                    5. Halftime pep talks.
                    Yes. These are pros. Rah-rah speaches must be saved for very special occasions. Even a great motivator like Pat Riley doesn't rely on this gimmick that only works for HS/ college players.

                    6. "Revenge" as a motivator.
                    Ditto.

                    7. "Confidence" for a player.
                    Disagree with you here, for reasons others have laid out.

                    8. Blocked Shots....now, Im not saying they aren't nice to have, -snip- Or if while hunting for a block he leaves his man open to get a rebound putback, or if he blocks it violently out of bounds and gives the offense the ball back....does any of that really help you?
                    Excellent observation. Russell is the ultimate example of this, if he blocked a shot out of bounds or if the offense still controlled the ball, he was mad at himself. Many times a blocked shot can result in an even easier scoring opportunity for the offense if they stick with the play.

                    9. 3 point shots early in the game, especially if all by one guy. This can become "fool's gold" for a team,
                    Bingo. Live by the three, die by the three. That is usually not a good NBA strategy.

                    10. The starting lineup is way way way overrated. I know its fun to talk about, but just think about it: is who plays the very first 6 minutes of the game more important than who plays the last 6 minutes?
                    Disagree, because I think the "starters" and "finishers" should be the same. You want to start the game putting your best foot forward, and you want to end it with your best overall combination. In fact, coaches like Carlisle that use egg-timer one-person substitutions will go for almost 12 minutes (or more) of each half without the entire starting lineup on the court together. And that seems like a bad idea if that is, indeed, your best lineup.

                    Now, here are some important ones you left off...

                    1. Depth. A team with a lot of "depth" usually has starters that aren't good enough to be clearly better than its bench players. That's a losing proposition in the playoffs when short rotations rule the day.

                    2. Individual defense. Usually a player is a great individual defender by accumulating defensive stats (steals and blocks) that prompt them to gamble far too often, jeopardizing the rest of the team's defense. The best example I've ever seen was Micheal Williams, who averaged two steals and at least four unconstested-drives-resulting-in-a-Rik-Smits-foul per game.

                    3. Individual rebounds.

                    4. Offensive rebounds. You show me a team with a lot of offensive rebounds and I'll show you a team that's missed a lot of shots.

                    5. Situational substitutions. These are a loser's strategy. Assemble a team in which your best five-man combination on offense is the same as your best five-man combination on defense.

                    6. Slam dunks. Too many players try for the dramatic dunk only to end up with a contested shot that misses. They may or may not get to the FT line for a chance at two points the hard way. Many times, a layup would get the two points and a foul, with a conventional 3-point opportunity.
                    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


                    • #25
                      Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                      Thanks for the reply Jay...well thought out as usual, although I want to discuss some of yours before I go to bed.

                      1. Depth is overrated.....I'd say sometimes it is, and sometimes it isnt. Your example is a valid one though.....for instance, I could say that my Cubs have a bullpen with a lot of "depth".....in fact, what they have is a 7 guys who all suck about equally. Lots of quantity, not much quality.

                      2. Individual defense is overrated.....Id amend that to say that INDIVIDUAL DEFENSIVE STATISTICS are overrated. A great individual lockdown defender, especially on the perimeter, actually made my "underrated" list in a thread I started a couple weeks ago. Having said that, your example was well explained and correct, in the sense that it was intended...I just dont think in that case that Michael Williams was indeed as good of a defender as the stats said. On a side note, Tinsley sadly has this same kind of stat line,as many of his steals come from behind, after he has been beaten off the dribble....

                      3. Individual rebounding...Kind of disagree here..as I think rebounding is the one area in basketball I dont mind a player being selfish in. id like to hear your reasoning on that one.

                      4. Offensive rebounds are overrated.... I think thats basically correct, in as far as it goes. Some teams who do shoot well arent good offensive rebounding teams by the numbers, since there are fewer chances. On top of that, some teams who crash the boards hard to get an extra 3 rebounds per game might be risking giving up twice that many fast breaks by the opponent by not getting back on defense. Its kind of like the stat of turning the most double plays in baseball (KC is the MLB leader in that stat)...it sounds good, but the reason you lead that isnt good defense, its that your terrible pitchers have allowed more runners to reach first base.

                      5. Situational subs....well, in an ideal world your top 5 offensive players = your top 5 defenders, but in some cases you can't help but sub. Rik Smits is an example from the Pacers I think youd have to sub most likely on defense.

                      An interesting point on that is that at younger levels, I found out a few years ago, when I had a team that I had to that kind of substitution pattern alot with (lots of close games, a somewhat patchwork roster), that my players really really HATED that. I always talked to my players alot during and after the season, and almost to a kid they absolutely despised being subbed in and out like that in a close game, even though doing it in my view gave us the best chance to win on that particular night. Since hearing that Ive almost stopped doing it unless its just an obvious move that you can't help but make. I never did really understand why the kids hated it so, but it is something we talked about as a program and with other coaches.

                      6. Slam dunks...totally agree.


                      Im going to try one more time on the "confidence" question:

                      Example A: 5 seconds to go, we are up 1 point and the opponent has the ball at midcourt. You as a coach KNOW who will get the ball for the opponent....for fun let's just say we are playing Cleveland, and you know it will be going to LeBron. Who do you have guard him?

                      You look at your team, and decide that clearly Granger is the guy with the athletic ability and defensive skill to guard him. You assign him to LBJ, but he shakes his head and indicates to you he doesnt feel he can do it, even though you as a coach strongly feel he is the best for the job.

                      At the same time Armstrong pipes up and says "Coach, put me in, I know I can stop him one time for you....I have "confidence" I can do the job." Now, you as a coach have a guy in Granger who has the skill but not the "confidence" or the "experience", in DA you have a player with the "confidence" and "experience", but not the size or the skill......who do you put on him in this spot coaches?

                      By my way of thinking, I use Granger and tell him to "get tough" and go guard him, and I disregard the issues discussed.....am I wrong? if the player who voulnteers isnt DA but instead is someone else, does that make a difference?

                      Just asking.....and thx jay for all the good responses all of the time.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                        confidence is HUGE
                        *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                          You don't think that the fact that Granger might have a lack of confidence in his abilities is bad for him? If that scenario you just laid out happened then I'm sure Lebron scores because LeBron believes he can score on anyone and Granger believes LeBron can score on anyone. Btw, that which you described is misplaced confidence. DA would never believe he could guard LeBron.

                          What makes Granger a great defender is that even as a rookie he never shied away from guys like VC, Pierce, or LeBron.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            So how did you deal with them after highschool?

                            Heck, that's being generous. I can't recall seeing the scenario you just described since 2nd grade.

                            I can just imagine Rip Hamilton or Danny Granger taking the ball down the lane and seeing ben wallace or alonzo mourning in their way:

                            "It's ok, if he blocks my shot I can just run the ball down and score while he's celebrating! Yay!"

                            Where did you pick up the impression that all shot-blockers got on the floor by being stupid?
                            Not sure if using Alonzo was the best idea. The guy does front flips and flexes every time he even tips a shot. Hell, the guy makes a layup, we get to see him fly around the arena.

                            As you can tell, I'm not a big Mourning fan.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                              Originally posted by Moses View Post
                              Not sure if using Alonzo was the best idea. The guy does front flips and flexes every time he even tips a shot. Hell, the guy makes a layup, we get to see him fly around the arena.

                              As you can tell, I'm not a big Mourning fan.
                              Me neither...but it has nothing to do with this, more about how he stabbed two teams in the back and whined off of them and got a free pass because of his kidney problems while any other player in the NBA would have gotten crucified. But Zo is a hero...he had kidney surgery.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Winning basketball: top ten overrated things you hear

                                Mutumbo offends me much more than Mourning on the court, with that low-class finger wag. But we can't talk about him either, because he's charitable off the court.

                                I'll get back to the substance of this thread tomorrow.
                                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