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

JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

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

  • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

    Originally posted by D-BONE
    JO may want the ball in the low post more, but I am not sure he's actually more effective there than the way he's been utilized so far this year.
    I didn't get this either, yes he needs to draw fouls, yes he needs to utilized his quickness and athleticism, but there was about 5 low post shots I can remember against Boston 2 got stuffed in his face and 3 were altered or they would have been stuffed in his face. How can you say I need the ball in the low post more after shooting terrible in that Boston game. I appreciate a guy wanting to be the man, but um, what did he want 40 shots so he could make 5.

    Olawakandi and freakin Kendrick Perkins made him look bad that night, hurt his feelings and he had to react defensive to save face, thats my take.

    Comment


    • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

      Originally posted by able View Post
      "JO Needs to get into the paint more, that's where his strengths lay"

      "JO needs to play more in the low post, he can wreck that team on his own there, I wonder why he is not playing lower"


      Want to know who these quotes are from ?


      Slick Leonard

      cheers
      Thank you.

      JO is our franchise guy. We are so underappreciating him. I can't believe this. We have one of few dominant big men in the league and he can never seem to do right with some of you. I am sure that in every game thread you will find someone yelling out "why is JO taking so many jumpers!" or "JO needs to get to the line more!" Well...JO is trying to fix that...he is the leader of this team after alll (as well as its most effective player).

      Comment


      • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

        Euro friends,

        We've had numerous discussions at PD of the pitfalls of individual player +/- (especially the one as reported by Pacers.com) over the years.

        I even built a database to track five-man +/- on here a few seasons ago (I think a lot of that was "lost in the fire" however.) Since then, 82games.com has signficantly expanded its use of five-man +/-, which is the ONLY meaningful basketball stat in my opinion (the only time I look at a box score is to see if there is numerical evidence to corroborate something I've observed during a game, or I'll glance at the box-score on my way to the offical play-by-play).

        I'd love to take the time to pick apart individual +/- on an item by item basis, but I just don't have time to do it again.
        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


        • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

          I'm not bashing anyone, but I must admit I've lost a lot of faith in JO's ability to be successful in the low post. I like when he faces up and drives to the basket, or when he gets an open 12 footer on a pick and pop. Yes post up some, but that IMO should only be about 1/3 of his attempts. He and the coaches need to mix it up and how and where he gets the ball and then he needs to change his tactics after he gets the ball.

          As soon as JO shoots the ball I can with about 80% certainly know if the balls going in or not. If he fades on his jump shot the ball will hit the front of the rim, if he doesn't go up fast and strong on his turnaround, he'll get his shot blocked.

          Comment


          • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

            I like JO better in the low post when he's using speed, or speed and power. But we've seen that he's not as good at just bowling over defenders, like the other O'Neal.

            That's why, IMO, he lost a little bit of weight. Not so that Rick could use him on the wing as if he's Rik Smits redux. And that's what they've been doing.

            He's damned if he says anything (he's just been selfish) and damned if he doesn't (he's playing soft). Rick put him in a no-win situation, as far as Pacers Digest PR goes.

            Give him a break.
            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


            • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

              There are two things about JO, I've been thinking for a long time:

              1. I think he's the kind of player who needs a 'dirty worker' in the post beside him. JO is not a rebounding machine. You need to pair him with a PF/center who is an excellent defender & rebounder. A beast in the paint. That's why I've been saying in the summer we need to get Ben Wallace here. That was a one time opportunity.
              It might sound crazy, but considering our roster, I think it would be a nice try to pair him with Baston, and tell Maceo to concentrate on the defensive tasks. This is a low post that is a defensive threat to anyone, except maybe against a team with big men in both positions.

              2. JO has aspirations to be a leader both on and out of court, but its quite obvious after these few last years that he is not dominant enough in the locker room. By enough, I'm referring to the ability to get his team to play consistently as a team. Each time the guys play for each other we are looking like a solid playoff team. But they just can't seem to keep it up. This lack of consistency strikes me as a clear lack of locker room leadership. This is also a responsibility of the coach of course.

              Comment


              • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                Euro friends,

                We've had numerous discussions at PD of the pitfalls of individual player +/- (especially the one as reported by Pacers.com) over the years.

                I even built a database to track five-man +/- on here a few seasons ago (I think a lot of that was "lost in the fire" however.) Since then, 82games.com has signficantly expanded its use of five-man +/-, which is the ONLY meaningful basketball stat in my opinion (the only time I look at a box score is to see if there is numerical evidence to corroborate something I've observed during a game, or I'll glance at the box-score on my way to the offical play-by-play).

                I'd love to take the time to pick apart individual +/- on an item by item basis, but I just don't have time to do it again.
                I glance at Pacers Top Five-Man Floor Units (http://www.82games.com/0607/0607IND2.HTM) and our first unit (plays 55 % of all time) Tinsley-Jackson-Granger-Harrington-O'Neal isn't performing well yet (42,8 % wins (3/4)). Other two units Tinsley-Daniels-Jackson-Harrington-O'Neal (17 min) and Tinsley-Jackson-Granger-O'Neal-Foster even worse (14 min) (25 % wins each (1/3). Tinsley-Jackson-Granger-Harrington-Foster - 0 % wins (0/2) (9 minutes of play).

                That's our main units which usually fight against main other teams units. That's the top force of our team.

                Other units get to play only from 6 minutes to 8.

                The most effective units are
                Jasikevicius-Marshall-Powell-Granger-Harrison (8 min) and Armstrong-Jasikevicius-Daniels-Harrington-Harrison (6 min) with one win and no losses each. Then Armstrong-Daniels-Jackson-O'Neal-Foster unit - 2 W 1 L (8 min). Then Tinsley-Daniels-Jackson-O'Neal-Foster (8 min) and Jasikevicius-Daniels-Marshall-Harrington-Foster (8 min) (1/1) and Armstrong-Jasikevicius-Daniels-Harrington-Foster (1/3 7 min).

                Wins = number of games a unit outscored its opponents while on the court
                Losses = number of games a unit was outscored by its opponents while on the court


                So I say our top units definitely aren't performing well yet. They should because they play the longest time and should feel each other better (should be better teamwork). You can't expect bench units who usually play against other teams bench to do miracles in 7 minutes.

                And I think that players +/- is useful also. That don't necessary mean if one player is better than other in the team, but it shows how the team performs at the moment he's on the floor in different units. Yes, for example if he has +10 in one unit in same playing time and - 10 in same time in other in one game, his +/- will be 0. While units +/- shows one units effectiveness (but in that unit play 5 players and one is more effective than others and plays better, but +/- is the average of all players in that unit. There have to be each players deep analysis how well they performed in the unit, to find out who performs best and who worst and maybe there's a need to change one player let's say and this unit will be even more effective), players +/- shows effectiveness in different units overall. That's like to take out a player from all the units he played and see how he's performed with all those units relatively.



                There have to be each players analysis in each unit to find out in which units the player plays better and also what units with him play better and with what players we can make the most effective units. Players and units +/- alone don't tell us very much.
                "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

                - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                  JO can still be one of the top post players... he seems to be struggling a little with footwork. I think he's gotten called for a travel at least once every game when he's in a back to the basket situation. He tends to take a little bunny hop as he goes into a move...which he used to get away with, but they're calling him early this year and i think its gotten to his head a little.

                  Anyway he still has great low post skills.... he just needs a refresher course so to speak. He needs to swallow a little pride and work on some basic footwork, work some pump fakes in...up and unders...and finish with the left more which he does very well... then once he in a rhythm go to the jump shots and fadeaways.

                  Comment


                  • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                    Originally posted by Pitons View Post
                    Did you see 1 of his turnovers? That could be the turnover of the year.
                    Was it worse than Sarunas Jasikevicius inbounding off the backboard?

                    Comment


                    • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                      Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                      Was it worse than Sarunas Jasikevicius inbounding off the backboard?
                      But why Saras turnover is the turnover of the year and nobody sees Tinsley turnovers?
                      "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

                      - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                        Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                        Thank you.

                        JO is our franchise guy. We are so underappreciating him. I can't believe this. We have one of few dominant big men in the league and he can never seem to do right with some of you. I am sure that in every game thread you will find someone yelling out "why is JO taking so many jumpers!" or "JO needs to get to the line more!" Well...JO is trying to fix that...he is the leader of this team after alll (as well as its most effective player).

                        I'm sorry Rexnom but when is the last time JO "dominated" any player or team let alone being one of the most dominating in the league? I just don't see it at all. When I think of dominating PF's I think of McAdoo and Malone...not JO.
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                          After sleeping on this whole brouhaha I'm fine with ending the 'JO as a Pacer' era.

                          It's time to move on for both parties.

                          -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


                          • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                            Well, there's obviously a reason coaches pick who starts and who doesn't.

                            Our starting lineup right now is not competing well against other team's starters. We don't even need a five-man +/- to figure that out, its painfully obvious.

                            Let's see, JO has missed a lot of games because of injury over the past two seasons, but he's still our best player so its worth the investment.

                            Al has missed a bunch of Pacers games over the past two seasons, because he was playing somewhere else. But he's still our second-best player so its worth the investment.

                            Danny is a second-year player and first year starter. There's still a long learning curve for Danny but its worth the investment.

                            Tinsley is far and away our best guard, even with his defensive limitations, but he's missed a bunch of games with injury over the past two years. Worth the investment unless we make a blockbuster trade to upgrade that position.

                            SJax is the only real "holdover" in the starting lineup, but he was brought here to be a sixth man and he's still learning how to not dominate the ball (which would actually be okay for him to do if he were playing with the second unit, but its not okay when he's playing with the starters).

                            Does anybody in their right mind really think things would be better right now? I'm doing backflips that we're 4-4 and showing signs of life, even if one of the early-season strategies (placing JO too far from the basket) is undermining our best player's effectiveness - rebounding, shot selection/ FG%, getting to the line, that type of stuff. You can look at JO's stat line and accuse him of "not hustling" or whatever. But its hard for a post player to "do his thing" when he's that far away from the basket.

                            This is going to be a long, painful process, especially for our key players. Advocating that a vastly inferior bench player get more minutes - to the detriment of the long process of building first-unit chemistry and cohesiveness, is outlandishly short-sighted and counterproductive.

                            The solution is not necessarily "play the bench more", or even "change the starting lineup" (although at some point a Marquis for SJax change might be warranted).

                            Rome was not built in a day. Neither was Greenwood. And I'm not even sure if we're trying to build Rome or Greenwood with this team, anyway.

                            If, at the All-Star break, our starters are still getting worked over this badly in terms of 5-man +/-, then we'll talk.

                            I swear, I might need a four-month vacation from PD (but not the Pacers). This team is going to require a LOT of patience. And they're also going to have to admit it when they make missteps along the way (such as playing JO too far from the basket).

                            But goodness gracious, P-A-T-I-E-N-C-E.
                            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


                            • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              After sleeping on this whole brouhaha I'm fine with ending the 'JO as a Pacer' era.

                              It's time to move on for both parties.

                              -Bball
                              My goodness, buddy,

                              You've taken over-reacting to a new extreme.

                              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


                              • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                                Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                                Well, there's obviously a reason coaches pick who starts and who doesn't.

                                Our starting lineup right now is not competing well against other team's starters. We don't even need a five-man +/- to figure that out, its painfully obvious.

                                Let's see, JO has missed a lot of games because of injury over the past two seasons, but he's still our best player so its worth the investment.

                                Al has missed a bunch of Pacers games over the past two seasons, because he was playing somewhere else. But he's still our second-best player so its worth the investment.

                                Danny is a second-year player and first year starter. There's still a long learning curve for Danny but its worth the investment.

                                Tinsley is far and away our best guard, even with his defensive limitations, but he's missed a bunch of games with injury over the past two years. Worth the investment unless we make a blockbuster trade to upgrade that position.

                                SJax is the only real "holdover" in the starting lineup, but he was brought here to be a sixth man and he's still learning how to not dominate the ball (which would actually be okay for him to do if he were playing with the second unit, but its not okay when he's playing with the starters).

                                Does anybody in their right mind really think things would be better right now? I'm doing backflips that we're 4-4 and showing signs of life, even if one of the early-season strategies (placing JO too far from the basket) is undermining our best player's effectiveness - rebounding, shot selection/ FG%, getting to the line, that type of stuff. You can look at JO's stat line and accuse him of "not hustling" or whatever. But its hard for a post player to "do his thing" when he's that far away from the basket.

                                This is going to be a long, painful process, especially for our key players. Advocating that a vastly inferior bench player get more minutes - to the detriment of the long process of building first-unit chemistry and cohesiveness, is outlandishly short-sighted and counterproductive.

                                The solution is not necessarily "play the bench more", or even "change the starting lineup" (although at some point a Marquis for SJax change might be warranted).

                                Rome was not built in a day. Neither was Greenwood. And I'm not even sure if we're trying to build Rome or Greenwood with this team, anyway.

                                If, at the All-Star break, our starters are still getting worked over this badly in terms of 5-man +/-, then we'll talk.

                                I swear, I might need a four-month vacation from PD (but not the Pacers). This team is going to require a LOT of patience. And they're also going to have to admit it when they make missteps along the way (such as playing JO too far from the basket).

                                But goodness gracious, P-A-T-I-E-N-C-E.
                                I realize that it needs time and so on and I hope our starters and others will play very well how I would like to see them, but as I see Saras or Foster are accused of bad performance, but not others who perform bad also and even much worse sometimes, I lost my patience and mentioned those +/-, which show that our main units aren't playing well, not talking about each players +/-. Those stats don't show us everything though, but it still means something imo.
                                "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

                                - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X