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.
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
-
2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws
-
Re: This team needs a new coach
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he has shown any interest in getting back into the NBA, although I always thought he was a really good coach.Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post"Ever wonder what it's like to wonder what it's like to wonder, they get up out of bed but can't awaken from their slumber, they know what they've been told by those who know what they've been told, you see this hand me down knowledge generated ages ago, and I know what they've been told because I've been told the same thing, I had to broaden my horizons to expand on greater things..." Many Styles
Comment
-
Re: This team needs a new coach
nor has the NBA shown any interest in him.
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, 2004Comment
-
Re: This team needs a new coach
Does an up-tempo offense require alot of ball movement?
Do we have the type of players that can move the ball around like the way the Suns do?
I noticed the way that the Raptors were playing us in the 1st half....when they were killing us by 20 points.....they were moving the ball around ALOT....the ball didnt remain in a players hands for more then a few seconds until it got to a player that could hit the shot.
I saw too many instances where we reverted to our standard "dump it to JONeal" or "watch SJax dribble the ball for 15 seconds before shooting the ball".
I just don't think that the players that we have fit the type of offense that we are trying to run here.Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: This team needs a new coach
No, good defense can often suffice.Originally posted by CableKC View Post
There's only one steve nash.
Do we have the type of players that can move the ball around like the way the Suns do?
That's what I was talking about before...the key is having non-PGs that are active passers. Bargnani and Garbajosa are prime examples. In a fluid motion offense, everybody has to be thinking pass-first unless he has a quality scoring chance. The PG can't be the only guy passing the ball.I noticed the way that the Raptors were playing us in the 1st half....when they were killing us by 20 points.....they were moving the ball around ALOT....the ball didnt remain in a players hands for more then a few seconds until it got to a player that could hit the shot.
I don't think JO is fit for an up-tempo offense, nor is jack.I saw too many instances where we reverted to our standard "dump it to JONeal" or "watch SJax dribble the ball for 15 seconds before shooting the ball".
I just don't think that the players that we have fit the type of offense that we are trying to run here.
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, 2004Comment
-
Re: This team needs a new coach
Originally posted by CableKC View Post
To me... the offense seems to not be running as smoothly, nor do players seem to be looking as comfortable, since around the time JO had his talk with management. In trying to make JO happier has the team short changed the rest of the players in some way? Or did we just give the NBA time to figure out what the new Pacers would be trying to do (so in a word we were better 'scouted' after a few games were under our belts) and now we have less of a margin of error?
How many more losses before Slog Ball makes a full fledged return? On one hand, you have to plug the leaks somehow... or the other hand... are we building a team and a system for the long haul or just looking to eek out wins wherever we can? But I guess that goes to the 'vision' question....
This road trip should tell us something in that regard because it's doubtful we come thru it looking like world-beaters on the other side. What will we do in the midst of it... how will we handle adversity during it.... and what happens when we return and assess our position after it?
-BballNuntius 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 WoodenComment
-
Re: This team needs a new coach
This is what I don't understand.Originally posted by Bball
"Slog ball" has been very good to the pacers over the last 3 years.
Why is that such a bad thing? I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty.
The best player on the roster is a low-post player. Put him in the best position to succeed, and let the other players play off of him or find someone who will.
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, 2004Comment
-
Re: This team needs a new coach
I blame management for the current situation - pretty much 100%.
One of the things management must do is bring in the kind of players that fit your coach. Pacers management has done nothing but bring in players who are the antithesis of players that suit Carlisle's coaching style.
It's a lot like the Knicks with Larry Brown last year. We went and threw a bunch of money at LB. LB proceeds to do what he does everywhere he coaches - and we suddenly decided we didn't really want LB as coach after all.
It's better for everyone if Carlisle goes because management's vision for the team can't be the same as Carlisle's - if they think it is then everyone involved is delusional.
I happen to think the Pacers have a better coach than they do management but that doesn't change the ultimate problem, which is an incompatibility of management and coach - two aspects of the organization that don't share the same vision for the team. Or if they do, two aspects of the organization that have no clue how to make that vision a reality.The poster formerly known as RimfireComment
-
-
Re: This team needs a new coach
Yeh, well it's a LONG season.Originally posted by Kstat View Post
We shall see.Comment
-
Re: This team needs a new coach
That's what I have been thinking lately. One of the reasons that we are not a few games under .500 is because of the talent on team. We really should have a worse record than we have now. We have willed our way or snuck by if you will on a few occasions, that we might not have last year. Something however is just not clicking. Style of play, the meshing of players and how they compliment on another. As good of a problem as it may be it still seems that we have too much talent at a few positions, and still deficiencies in certain areas.Originally posted by Kstat View Post
You have to wonder if Chicago was not in our division, they could be a potential partner to tweak the roster some.
Why Not Us ?
Comment
-
Re: This team needs a new coach
Originally posted by Kstat View Post
Good grief. I'm sitting here and I can barely get the monitor in focus, and I have to read this kind of myopic stuff? With all due respect, what do you mean by, "Slog ball has been very good to the pacers over the last 3 years"?
The Pacers are a marginally profitable (if that) team that has underachieved in 2 of the past 3 years and has been characterized more by on- and off-court scandal than any achievements in the standings. I don't understand why we're talking about anything being "very good" for them. Obviously, we're not meaning the same thing by "Slog Ball."
Slog ball was the Pacers inability or unwillingness to run fast breaks. How has that been a good thing in the past, and why should we be happy that this year's 'faster' team still gives more points off fast breaks than it scores? Versus the Raptors the Pacers had a 3-14 deficit. Three fast-break points in a whole game!
Slog ball was the tendency to use all 24 seconds of offensive possessions as a DEFENSIVE maneuver, just to keep the ball out of the other team's hands. That was common last year, and the offense (hence the team) suffered for it because they really only came to life with 5 seconds left in the possession. This year, they are at least moving the ball around more. How was slog ball better?
Slog ball was dumping the ball to Jermaine on isolation plays, and turning the other 4 players into spectators. What is to like about that? Yeah, Jermaine is a good scoring threat in the post, but how is the clear-out the best way to use him? If it provided spacing, it would help, but if it merely enables the other team to double Jermaine it is not smart basketball.
I agree. Jermaine seems to be a better and more willing passer this year (based on Slick leanoard's comments. I didn't check the data.) and it would be great to work the ball in and out through him. But is that what you mean by slog ball?Originally posted by KStatAnd I won't be here to see the day
It all dries up and blows away
I'd hang around just to see
But they never had much use for me
In Levelland. (James McMurtry)Comment
-
Re: This team needs a new coach
Ah, the mother of it all...Originally posted by Kstat View Post
"Slog Ball" was never good to anyone, except maybe the 1989-1990 Pistons. I say maybe because they were A LOT more talented than they were rough.
How many championships have the Pacers won with "Slog ball"? Did the wins come due to the "Slog"ness or were there other factors that came in and won the games (hint: Reggie's finesse? Artest's hustle? Passing?).
JO is the best player on the team, but the Pacer's record is better when he's not playing... How can you ever win consistently with that?
The more broader point is that big-men can't be the stars on a championship team. The league has been in the past, and is today even more guard-oriented. Even Shaq always needed Kobe or DWade to help him out. Even Duncan & Robinson needed Avery Johnson & Tony Parker, and even before that Wilt never won, and Bill Russel needed Havlicek et al. Last year's finals were a great example of the big guy (Dirk) losing out to the guard (Wade). Karl Malone always lost to MJ, and the Houston-Sprewell project made it to the finals from the 8th spot only when Ewing started to decline.
JO is not on that level, and he will never be. If the Pacers want a shot at something they need a star who is a guard-forward to build around. That's where the NBA is going. The good bigman can be #2, but he needs to understand his role just like Shaq in Miami, Rasheed in Detroit, Duncan in SA, etc etc. The Pacers have no-one even close to being that #1 guy that JO can be #2 to.
So...
Put your eye on a potential star - Randy Foye? Brandon Roy? Rudy Gay? Adam Morrison? - And trade anything you've got except JO for that one special guy, and pray that he's good enough.
But in the meanwhile - I agree the players (Jack, Tinsley, JO, Al) are not pass-first guys, but Rick is not coaching them right either. I dont know why he doesnt educate them more by pulling them out after mistakes, even to bring them back in the next possession - after an explanation of what they did wrong.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks, but you should be able to teach an overpaid basketball player how to pass and move the ball, how to screen down low, how to block out, how to talk on defense, and how to move without the ball.Comment
-
Re: This team needs a new coach
Has it been good to us? I thought the chemistry has been bad... and the team barely made the playoffs.Originally posted by Kstat View Post
I'd be OK with "Slog Ball" if JO was more dominant when he got the ball... let alone if he could make better decisions and keep the other players involved.
-BballNuntius 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 WoodenComment
-
Re: This team needs a new coach
I agree.Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
Clearly there seems to be a growing issue, but a fire doesn't get better when you kick your best firefighters off the job and bring in some hack replacements, even if the fire was getting out of hand. Sometimes even the best at their job aren't enough, but changing them out only makes a bad situation worse.
The Jazz rode out several down seasons with Sloan when they might have been tempted to use a coach firing as a way to appear proactive. Some of their bad years were due to injury, some were due to retirement.
Gee, where have I heard that before? And isn't it funny how they got a lot better when they added a top notch PG in the draft?
Larry has admitted that he DID NOT DO THE STRATEGY for the teams he coached. He was the "rah rah, let's have confidence" guy. How have things changed? Can he and Rick not still have a similar role on this team? Larry can't "rah rah" in practice or at halftime when RC schemes the offense?
Or maybe Jax, Reggie, McKey, Dale and Rik understood their roles better and worked the gameplan better.
Bird's success was with a team that had basically been to 2 ECFs already and had one burnout year with Brown. He didn't exactly "fix" a broken or unproven situation, and he didn't do it without Rick and Harter. In my mind Bird doesn't disprove the "great players = bad coaches" theory because he never had to turn around a situation and prove himself.
Reggie and Jax didn't need a corrective coach, they needed someone to stay out of the way and show some confidence in them. And maybe RC's offense worked pretty well for them (I think they were the top scoring team in the East over those 3 years).
When the Suns lost ONLY Amare, did you predict 50 or 60 wins for them? I mean no way you said they wouldn't repeat as West champs with that minor setback.that has underachieved in 2 of the past 3 years
If today you learned that the Cavs just lost Z and Lebron, would you consider 44 wins underachieving for the year?
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that losing the team's 3 best players for 30-40 games or more typically ensures that a team won't do well. Making the playoffs with that situation looks like overachieving to me.
Did you expect the Pacers to win it all BEFORE Rick took over in 2003? I'm betting the answer is NO. So just because you were disappointed by the ECF loss doesn't mean that the team didn't exceed the preseason expectations. They didn't meet the goal, they overachieved that season. The next year after Stern's suspensions the general view was "they're toast" with perhaps a "if they can just get to the playoffs and get Ron back..."angle. And still they took 2 games from the eventual East champs in round 2.
I've yet to see a Rick team do worse than expected given the circumstances at the time. Now this year may be different, but so far they aren't dramatically off the league-wide expectations. I didn't see anyone with them much above the 6th seed, and some suggested they wouldn't make the playoffs.
Also it's funny that this thread wasn't posted FRI night, isn't it?
Comment
Tweet
Comment