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

Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

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

  • #91
    Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

    Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
    I argue that using this year's numbers from 15 games that he has played mostly while frustrated and not wanting to be there as a case against Iverson's game is a very flawed and disingenuous argument.

    You clearly don't like how the guy plays the game. And that's fine. I disagree, but I understand your argument. I just don't think using this year's stats to make your points is at all valid.

    Last year, Iverson took fewer threes (3.1 per at 32%), had fewer TOs (3.4 instead of 4.4) and shot much better (44.7% instead of 41.3%). These were all close to career bests, so I imagine you don't believe they'll hold up, but when you look at the year before last, the numbers began trended that way. It started happening right as he was turning 29 and 30 years old, which is the exact time most players hit their playing prime and their mental and physical games both are at their peak.

    15 frustrated games is not a proper sample size to use.
    I've at times put up numbers this year just because now is what people are trying to fix, not last year or apparently 3 years from now (when did protecting the future become a bad thing?).

    But AI has ALWAYS been a 40-42% type of shooter and ALWAYS been a 3 times a game 30% 3 ball shooter. It's not just this year while frustrated. Even you admit it with
    These were all close to career bests
    for 44% shooting. BEST. ONLY 3.4 TOs.

    In his MVP season he shot 42%, 32% from 3 (306 attempts/4.3 3PA per game), 3.8 reb, and 4.6 assists, 3.3 TOs. Look long and hard at those numbers. Now pretend those are Jackson's numbers, or Tinsley's. Acceptable?

    Last year Jackson was 41%, 34.5% (4.2 per), 3.9 reb, 2.8 assists, 2.5 TO. So the worse 3pt shooting and the extra 2 assists made AI an MVP and Jackson a worthless bum? I'll admit that the extra 1.5 steals was an impact, but he also gave the ball up 1 time less per game.


    He's been spun into folk lore at this point. I watch him play, he is able to burn guys all night long, but his SHOT SELECTION SUCKS. With his talent he should be able to score as efficiently as Ray Ray, Redd, Payton in his prime, etc. But he doesn't and hasn't.

    Compare his MVP season with Gary Payton THE SAME YEAR
    45.6%, 37.5% from 3 (3.4 per), 4.6 reb, 8.1 ast, 1.6 stl, 2.65 TOs

    Until last season Payton had shot UNDER 44.8% 1 freaking time. Iverson has only gone OVER 44.8 1 time, and that was only 46%. His 2nd best year was the 44% last year and other than that it's ALL 42% or worse.

    And you pair his outbursts with his on-court results. He fueded with Brown but that was the only coach to get him to the Finals. He rants and complains and refuses to practice or follow lots of team directives, and pairs this with a history of criminal activity that excedes Jack.



    Look, I'm not totally anti-AI. I understand the desire. But I also have to listen to the day to day complaining about Tinsley, Jackson and JO. The REASONS that people don't like those players also apply to what AI does.

    Could I get people to buy into Jack having intangibles that don't show up on the court? How about Tinsley? Nope, only when it's AI. Yeah, that doesn't sound reasonable to me.

    The grass isn't greener. We've measured it. And the response to that shouldn't be "you can't trust the numbers, you just have to realize that it has some undefinable greeness to it". That is not rational thought. That's the kind of thinking that scam artists use.





    As for the offensive rebounding with AI joining the team...you think that had to do with him (especially all his missed shots) OR with all-star caliber rebounders like Ratliff, Mutumbo, Coleman (still pulling down 9 a night when he got to Philly), and Webber (also consistantly a 9-10 rpg guy even away from AI)?

    Coleman was injured the year before AI joined, but came back to put up a 10.1 that was in-line (slightly worse than) his NJ numbers.

    Weatherspoon also pulled down 8.3 a night in AI's first year. That's actually 2 rebounds WORSE once AI joined the team.

    Ratliff joined these 2 the next season and grabbed 7.3, again directly in line with his entire career.

    Coleman and W'spoon left and Geiger came in and pulled 7.2, similar to what he'd been doing in Charlotte.

    Tyrone Hill also was brought in and pulled 7.3, down for him. He had 10 rebound seasons before and after playing with AI, but only a pair of 9's to go with that first year 7.3.

    George Lynch also joined the team around then and saw his rebounding rate go down, but he still was getting 6.5-7.5 a night.

    Mutumbo joined these guys (Ratliff out) and saw his 2nd worst rebounding rate year ever in his 1 full season with AI, and even in the trade season his rate dropped from 22 to 20 (17 the next year) after he got to Philly.


    What does this mean? AI has had TONS of established, quality rebounders, some of them specialists even, his entire career. None of them suddenly got better playing with him, most were the same or slightly worse. The team made a point to be a rebounding roster, that's the type of player they brought in.

    Why would Philly need all those rebounders? My guess, 42% 25 times a night.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      In his MVP season he shot 42%, 32% from 3 (306 attempts/4.3 3PA per game), 3.8 reb, and 4.6 assists, 3.3 TOs. Look long and hard at those numbers. Now pretend those are Jackson's numbers, or Tinsley's. Acceptable?

      Last year Jackson was 41%, 34.5% (4.2 per), 3.9 reb, 2.8 assists, 2.5 TO. So the worse 3pt shooting and the extra 2 assists made AI an MVP and Jackson a worthless bum? I'll admit that the extra 1.5 steals was an impact, but he also gave the ball up 1 time less per game.
      At best....Tinsley and SJax were 2nd, 3rd but rarely ( only when the rest of the team gets a hangnail ) the 1st option on the team. Iverson is the #1 scoring option on the team with more FGA, more opportunities to score, gets double teamed and played comprable minutes ( to SJax ) and more minutes then Tinsley.

      I'm not saying that you're right or wrong.....but its difficult to compare stat when it comes to AI / Tinsley / SJax.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

        Originally posted by FrenchConnection View Post
        Seth, I was only commenting on the Pacers' options to get that one transcendent wing/guard that most championship teams seem to have. I want the Pacers to win every game. I really like the current mix of players. I am a Tinsley fan. I even like Jack. I love JO and I would be really upset if the Pacers traded him for anyone. However, I would like us to have that superstar that can take over a game from the perimeter.

        I have been arguing against tanking the season all year. I got into an argument with Since86 about the draft where I posited that Al was a better bet than any draft pick in any draft. However, I have had the feeling that we have had a long succession of role players since I have been a fan of this team and I had a hope for a superstar. Just for once, I want the other team to stay up late trying to figure out a way to stop our guy.
        I understand that feeling, I just don't think it matters whether the other team worries about stopping your star or not, as long as the team wins.

        Besides we've seen plenty of success from teams that don't have a "the guy" on the roster, like Detroit or this season both Utah and Orlando.

        And last I checked JO was a pretty solid all-star level player. Fans are just USED TO HIM. If the Pacers offered JO straight up for AI Philly fans would punch us in the face and grab JO before we could think twice about going back on the deal.

        Teams do have to double him, and they have to watch Al and Danny from the 3, and they have to watch Tinsley getting his shots in the mid-lane or from the post, and so on. The team has a pretty good mix of weapons. Why consolidate that into one guy who can be tripled-teamed till he passes the ball (or chucks it anyway)?


        BTW, I've actually become less of an AI fan the more I've looked into his history and numbers. Plenty of this stuff I didn't used to realize, at least at this level.


        I will agree that the Pacers have needed a tie game, time to take over player. JO is good late, but not really at the very end of games. But is that part of AI's history, getting and making good shots at the ends of games for the win? Honestly I don't recall one way or the other.

        If you want "drive past guy and then clank the ball off the iron" you can just have Tinsley run a PnR at the end. At this point I'd actually feel more comfortable with that than AI just going ISO.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

          Seth, out of curiosity. Where would you rank AI as a player in the NBA last year?

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            I will agree that the Pacers have needed a tie game, time to take over player. JO is good late, but not really at the very end of games. But is that part of AI's history, getting and making good shots at the ends of games for the win? Honestly I don't recall one way or the other.

            If you want "drive past guy and then clank the ball off the iron" you can just have Tinsley run a PnR at the end. At this point I'd actually feel more comfortable with that than AI just going ISO.
            That would be one reason I'd like this potential trade. I'm not sure where the Pacers go in crunch time. Either a last second shot or last 3 minutes type situation. JO is very good, but post players are rarely the offensive focus late in close games. The team needs a dominant wing or PG that can get into the lane. Tinsley is showing flashes, but historically he is not a good finisher or shooter. Jax seems like our only option and that scares most people. Jax has skill, but I don't get the feeling fans and some players feel comfortable with Jax as our late game option. Too much has happened with him. RC has shown he trusts Jax but we'll see how this last incident impacts that.

            AI might not be the only guy we can get, but he would fill the need for a late game scorer.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              At best....Tinsley and SJax were 2nd, 3rd but rarely ( only when the rest of the team gets a hangnail ) the 1st option on the team. Iverson is the #1 scoring option on the team with more FGA, more opportunities to score, gets double teamed and played comprable minutes ( to SJax ) and more minutes then Tinsley.

              I'm not saying that you're right or wrong.....but its difficult to compare stat when it comes to AI / Tinsley / SJax.
              Wait, LAST SEASON? Ron/Peja missed 26 games, JO missed 31 games, Tinsley missed 40 games. Jack took 16 FGAs per last year, more than Tinsley did and roughly as many as Peja when he was here.

              Who was the #1 option over Jack for half of January? Um, no one. Certainly not Fred, AC, AJ, Saras, and Granger (what was the defense of AI by Simmons, that he had no supporting cast).

              The other 8 games he had JO, so he was the #2 guy. Same for most of December where it was just he and JO.


              I don't see how it actually is that difficult to compare because a big portion of the point is that Iverson CHOOSES to have it this way. He doesn't actually have to shoot that much. Am I to believe that every coach he's had schemed games the same way, for AI to shoot everything and everyone else to go get the rebound?

              It just makes my point stronger because as I said I've heard the complaints about Tins, Jackson AND JO...the knock on JO? Star, can't lead his team to a title, takes too many shots.

              You know that's the truth, that's been an on-going local rant on JO. I don't really agree with it, but my point is that the people mad about how things are now are going to be even madder once they spend a few seasons with Philly 02-03 or something.

              Watch AI turn JO into Coleman or Webber, Jackson into McKie, Harrington into Korver, and Tinsley into Snow. Granger will be gone with Foster, so they get turned into empty space.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                Seth, out of curiosity. Where would you rank AI as a player in the NBA last year?
                I thought his total package was about in the range of what Billups or Andre Miller brought every night. Strong, but not elite. Maybe around 25th-35th in the NBA.

                Yes he GETS OFF SHOTS, but he misses a ton of them. My question then is "what's the point". Miller scored less, shot less, but moved the ball better and still defended, rebounded, etc at a strong level.

                Is it any coincidence that the Lakers got better with Odom being more involved in the offense and Kobe shooting a higher FG% this year? I don't think so. Kobe dropped his FGAs to 18 and brought his FG% up from 41-42 to 48%.

                So that's where I see AI hurting his team. You can't just take shots, you need to take makable shots. One of Reggie's claims to fame was his LIMITED FGAs. He consistantly got high quality shots and therefore kept his PPS and Adj FG% high. He didn't forced up every touch he got.

                AI touches the ball EVERY PLAY and still he's never seen 8 assists per night. How can I see that as more productive than what Nash or even Kidd do?

                He was 32nd last year in Points per Shot (which includes earning FTs, something his speed and constant shooting should create) among players that took at least 10 FGAs per game. He was 14th amoung players that took at least 15 per (including Mike James having a better PPS).

                He was 89th in adjusted FG% (giving credit for making the extra point from a 3). Something like 26th among players taking 15 or more shots per game.

                Bear in mind his biggest contribution, the justification for his big paycheck, is SCORING THE BALL.

                Breven Knight outdoes AI in terms of assists (by a lot) and steals, and while AI's 7th place finish in steals was strong, some of that was the playing time. He falls back to 17th (only using the top 25 spg players, so no 2 minute wizards with a per48 skew) in the per48 count on steals.

                Take away the name and if I gave you all these numbers you wouldn't see it as AI except if I showed you the FGAs per and the PPG.


                He's probably got top 10 TALENT, but he doesn't play a smart, unselfish game. Honestly I have to suspect that all that hustle and effort during games is because he gets to touch the ball. Would we see AI going off if he was asked to stand on the weakside and wait for Tins to feed JO in the post without touching the ball at all?

                That's why he doesn't like practice. Game time means it's all about him, so he hustles. I'll admit he's been tough too, I just don't see him not throwing a fit if he got asked to stay out of plays for the sake of team play.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  I thought his total package was about in the range of what Billups or Andre Miller brought every night. Strong, but not elite. Maybe around 25th-35th in the NBA.
                  If AI's career year of 2005-06 puts him at 25th best in the League in your eyes, I'm really not going to try to debate AI's overall offensive effectiveness with you anymore. Our difference of opinion is obviously just too far apart to really have any meaningful discussion. All due respect.

                  The last thing I do have to say is that Iverson's historically elite ability to penetrate and either get to the hole or get to the line or dish to a big man on the block or kick to a jump shooter is something that the Indiana Pacers franchise has never had to the degree in which he is able to do so. And it's not close.

                  Most games that matter (namely, Playoff games between closely matched teams) are decided in the final few possesions. Every possession of a game of course counts for something, but somebody going 3 for 9 in the 2nd Quarter rarely precludes a team from winning a game, if they do in fact have the horses to make a push in the 2nd Half. Allen Iverson gives an offense the opportunity and priviledge of knowing that there is a player to whom they can give the ball at any time and get a shot in late-game situations. When good defenses are really manning up and trying to stop penetration, he can still get to the cup.

                  That ability supercedes FG%.

                  Of course, I'm guessing your belief is that those late-game shots will be succesful about 42% of the time. That could be true. I don't know. And honestly, I'm not sure anyone does. Aside from that one Finals run, I don't know if we've seen Allen Iverson in big, late-game situations enough to know the answer (no pun intended).

                  But I do know that we've never seen him with much talent around him either, nor have we ever seen him playing with a 30-year-old's elevated mental approach to the game.

                  My belief is that he would make good decisions when it matters. I could care less if he finishes every first half of the season going 5-13 for 14 points. I would still want the ball in his hand when we're down by 1 with 12 seconds left in a Playoff game.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                    I'm at the point where I feel that we are so mediocre ( good one game....crappy the next game...and not knowing what to expect ) that I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't get Iverson...but also wouldn't object if we did trade for Iverson.

                    I can hope that he would be a difference maker on the team...most notably a "go-to-guy" at the end of game and be enough of a difference maker to get us into the 2nd round of the playoffs....or worse....become a player that completely dominates the ball and transforms JONeal and the rest of the team into spectators.

                    But I do know one thing....that it would be a significant change from the "status quo" from the .500 team ( in a very weak Eastern Conf ) that will not likely make it past the 1st round of the playoffs.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      What does this mean? AI has had TONS of established, quality rebounders, some of them specialists even, his entire career. None of them suddenly got better playing with him, most were the same or slightly worse. The team made a point to be a rebounding roster, that's the type of player they brought in.

                      If you go back and look specifically at offensive rebounds per game you'll see it differently. Total rebounds may have gone down, but offensive rebounds were up for some players compared to their time before and after Philly. Theo Ratliff for example. And on other players like Tyrone Hill, the OR per 40 minutes is higher, even though the actual numbers our down. Total rebounds is misleading since he isn't affecting defensive rebounds.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                        I just wanted to bring this back to Vescey.

                        Remember how the tread started, his "everyone but JO and Danny".

                        Now he follows with this comment in his most recent column.
                        The Pacers talks never went anywhere worthwhile.
                        Excuse me if I don't see how this matches his initial intentionally provocative statement.

                        How can he say they never went anywhere worthwhile if he himself KNEW FOR A FACT that the Pacers were offering just about the entire team? That sounds pretty worthwhile to me. To me this change of tune within a few days says it all about PV.
                        I just saw on NBA TV, Peter talked 10 mins about which teams are today IN the "AI hunt"
                        Notice that he didn't mention the Nuggets...or the Pacers of course.

                        Here's Deadspins claim about PV
                        Here are two recent Vecsey scoops: The Pacers' Ron Artest to Seattle for Brent Barry ... and Steve Francis "going to the Denver Nuggets in the next 48 hours" ...
                        Link
                        Of course they note that his old Post articles must be paid to view, helpful to avoid net searches that review your old predictions.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          I just wanted to bring this back to Vescey.

                          Remember how the tread started, his "everyone but JO and Danny".

                          Now he follows with this comment in his most recent column.

                          Excuse me if I don't see how this matches his initial intentionally provocative statement.

                          How can he say they never went anywhere worthwhile if he himself KNEW FOR A FACT that the Pacers were offering just about the entire team? That sounds pretty worthwhile to me. To me this change of tune within a few days says it all about PV.
                          But for the talks to be worthwhile, the Nuggets have to be interested in what the Pacers have to offer. Most of what I've read have the Nuggets wanting young players, draft picks, and expiring contracts. With Granger off the table and Shawne Williams unproven, that makes the Pacers 0-3 on what the Nuggets want. So Vescey hasn't really changed his tune. The Pacers very well could've offered everyone except Granger and JO. But it doesn't mean the offer was worthwhile to the Nuggets.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                            either get to the hole or get to the line or dish to a big man on the block or kick to a jump shooter is something that the Indiana Pacers franchise has never had to the degree in which he is able to do so.
                            Really. All that shooting at the rim and he's 42%, all that drawing attention and dishing and he never got to 8 assists per game either.

                            Results. He drives and what happens? The 42% isn't made up, he only did better than that a couple of times. So what are those misses? Blown layups from his great penetration?

                            And what is happening on all those passes, guys just miss for him all the time. Korver's 40-45% from 3 isn't enough to make his passes turn into assists, the dumps to bigs inside are constantly being blown at the rim?


                            Look, I agree that AI has speed and drives a lot. I disagree that it's nearly as effective as you think it is. If it was then there would be results (stats). You guys argue against the stats, but keep in mind that the most fundamental stat is WINS.

                            When you say "he drives to the rim for shots or passes" and then dismiss the numbers as misleading, that's the same as me saying" ignore the 35 wins, the Knicks played great ball all year. At some point you want to see the results start to add up and match what is being claimed to happen.

                            If someone says "hundreds of people showed up for the PD party" but the attendence count says "23", then it's not the stat that's misleading someone.

                            He's getting shots he can make then he'll make them and his FG% will be strong. He's forcing shots that he can't make and his FG% will be low. He's driving and dishing like nobody else then his assists would be closer to what Knight or Nash or Kidd do, rather than what Tinsley does.

                            I could care less if he finishes every first half of the season going 5-13 for 14 points.
                            As long as you feel the same way about Jackson. I happen to think all parts of a game matter. Score early and get the big lead and you can taken teams out of it. Shoot poorly and fall behind and you might spend all your energy pressing and trying to catch up.


                            IMA - I didn't check but I believe your about the O-REB thing, but my question is "how's that make the AI case?"

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              I will agree that the Pacers have needed a tie game, time to take over player. JO is good late, but not really at the very end of games. But is that part of AI's history, getting and making good shots at the ends of games for the win? Honestly I don't recall one way or the other.
                              I was wondering about AI late in games, too. Seems like I remember him making his first ever game-winning buzzer beater against the Pacers not that long ago.

                              Anyway, it led me to this page from 82games.com. Only one Pacer made the list and it's not pretty.......

                              http://www.82games.com/random12.htm
                              PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vecsey says Pacers offering everyone except JO and Grange for AI

                                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                                If AI's career year of 2005-06 puts him at 25th best in the League in your eyes, I'm really not going to try to debate AI's overall offensive effectiveness with you anymore. Our difference of opinion is obviously just too far apart to really have any meaningful discussion. All due respect.
                                I agree. AI has been at times during his career one of the very best players in the NBA. Very best. Not top 10. Like top 3. You cannot even say that about our god Reggie. Whether you like AI's personality is one thing, his talent is just undeniable. People are simply underestimating his value.

                                There have been very few years in his career where he had a solid team around him. For example, right now his team is horrible. When he did, he was still young and stupid yet went to the finals. The man gets ALL of the attention from the opposing defense and is still able to score over 30ppg and shoot almost 45% as, basically a SG. He is still lightening quick, something else we lack to the point we don't even know what we are missing.

                                Now, if you are concerned about the negatives he brings, you can be sure AI will fit in perfectly with the culture of this team. AI is not the idiot he was several years ago. He may not be a model citizen, but neither are many of our players. We might even have a felon on our roster next year. We were made for him.

                                JO is going to be moving out of his prime in a few years. AI is as well. It is time to make this kind of move as a franchise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X