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

Post Trade Thoughts

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

  • #16
    Re: Post Trade Thoughts

    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
    you're forgetting we got diogu also. i consider him as the replacement for the #1 we gave up for harrington
    The big deal is that Diogu is a safer bet than anyone we could pick at #15. He was a lottery pick at #9 and is considered to have significant upside. The fact he came with two very good fits for our system is just gravy. Considering Al is completely redundant with JO on the team...and we purged cancer by moving Jack, this trade should go down as a good one. If Ike develops into an all-star, which is a distinct possibliy, it could be viewed as a steal. We need to keep in mind that Jack and Al were getting in the way of Granger's development as well. They jacked up so many shots and lacked consistency, it hurt the team. The trade's all good in my book.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Post Trade Thoughts

      I was trying to say what Anthem & DocPaul said. They just said it better. The pick the Pacers will end up with will likely be the same pick they've ended up with the last 10 years. Somewhere in the mid-teens or lower thus getting something like they've picked the last ten years, largely role players.
      I'm in these bands
      The Humans
      Dr. Goldfoot
      The Bar Brawlers
      ME

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Post Trade Thoughts

        Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
        Point Guard:
        Can we just drop the absolute negativity surrounding Jamaal Tinsley for a few minutes? Jamaal's been solid. Before you skip the rest of my post and start with your rebuttals, hear me out. I saw a defensive effort against the Heat I've never seen before from Tinsley. He was picking Williams up at the half court line and keeping him from initiating the offense at will. He got beat on some pick and rolls and J-Will flat out ran by him in the open court at least once. What he didn't do was force a bunch of shots, go all Rucker league, or lose his mind and just start pushing people when he got burnt. He had 5 turnovers vs the Heat (one went thru Murphy's hands and one was when he just threw the ball out on the court to let the time expire) and only one against the Knicks. In the same time span he has 12 assists and 5 steals. That's not gonna get you on the all-star team but it's solid. He's also averaging 14.5 points. I am concerned with the overall position though. I like Armstrong. I also know he's 38 years old and his game relies entirely on the one thing 38 year old atheletes cannot provide night in and night out...energy. I want to see DA playing like he did against the Knicks in the playoffs not in a wheelchair. I think if we keep riding this guy like we have post trade that's where he'll end up. He's playing 26 minutes a night because we have no formidable backup points. Orien Greene and Keith McLeod aren't nincompoops like Eddie Gill but I wouldn't be upset if they never saw the court. We don't need a guy who wants 20 minutes a night but we need someone who can be relied upon to keep the train rolling. Maybe that guy is McLeod I don't know.


        I'm not getting the same impression from Tinsley. I think it's very visible right now that the team plays much better without him in the lineup. I think he's a huge part of the energy problem to start games. It's especially noticeable because his replacement is DA. And I still think he's making poor decisions. The deficit last night disappeared as soon as he left the game.

        I've always had great things to say about Tinsley, but my faith in him is wearing very thin right now, between the forced shots, ball penetration, etc. I'd feel better if we ran MDJ and MD at the point, at least to see how it goes.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Post Trade Thoughts

          The deficit last night disappeared as soon as he left the game.

          But we didn't get the deficit because of Tinsley, really. He was setting up his teammates well, nobody outside of Murphy was hitting their shots. And JT was doing his part to give us some offense when he could see most everybody else struggling.

          I am concerned about the energy and attitude he brings, even when he plays efficiently. It's a good point that compared to DA, he looks even more indifferent. I like JO's leadership this year, but how much better would we be if our best point guard took more command of the team?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Post Trade Thoughts

            I complain about Tinsley when he leisurely brings the ball up court, dribbles around aimlessly for 15-20 seconds, then tries to start the offense. He did that at times last night and it drove me nuts.

            But early in the game when we couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, he was hitting 4/5 to get us some critically needed offense and keep the game close. And don't forget DA took a few very ill advised shots during that run that could have cost us big so was hardly perfect. Armstrong shot 1-7 from three point land and some of those never should have been taken to begin with.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Post Trade Thoughts

              Originally posted by JB's Breakout Year View Post
              The deficit last night disappeared as soon as he left the game.

              But we didn't get the deficit because of Tinsley, really. He was setting up his teammates well, nobody outside of Murphy was hitting their shots. And JT was doing his part to give us some offense when he could see most everybody else struggling.

              I think that's a huge part of it though. I don't think he's setting up his teammates at all. The only play I saw him "involved" in was the re-entry when he posted up Williams. Did you know that his first pass to Mike Dunleavy was in the middle-late 3rd quarter (at least that's the first I saw)? If he's not dribbling he's not doing anything on the floor to help his teammates. I will say there were a couple of exceptions, like the one pass he caught under the goal, but for the most part there's nothing. And as soon as he's out, the rotation gets better and players start finding the ball where they like it. And they even run down the floor faster.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Post Trade Thoughts

                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                Did you know that his first pass to Mike Dunleavy was in the middle-late 3rd quarter (at least that's the first I saw)?
                You must've gone for snacks at precisely the wrong times......
                PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Post Trade Thoughts

                  Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                  The deficit last night disappeared as soon as he left the game.
                  Jamaal left the game in the second quarter with the Pacers down by 3. They were down by 7 at half.

                  Miami then opens the second half by scoring on their first 5 possessions to push it up to 18 on two Wade baskets, two Haslem baskets and a Kapono 3. The Pacers during that same stretch went Murphy miss, Dunleavy turnover, JO miss, Dunleavy miss, Dunleavy turnover.

                  And it's all Jamaal Tinsley's fault........
                  PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Post Trade Thoughts

                    I have not watched every pacer game... I was leary about exchanging Dun for Jax. I thought we would miss Jax on Defense and figured Dun would not be a better shooter but I did know Dun would move better on the offensive end so I figured that would make up for his defensive laps... I was estatic about getting Murphy for Al and exchanging Ike for Sars...

                    I hoped and expected Murph JO to work worlds better then Al JO both in scoring and rebounding.....

                    I love Ike as a better option for resting JO at the power foward spot... he gives us another big who is capable of guarding the likes of Sheed, Kristic and now Webber ect away from the basket better then JO...

                    With tins.. I have been following the debate for a while... my take.. IMO from what i have seen Tins has been much better this year game in game out being more consistant about playing defense and running the offense. I have seen few mano mano events that I do think is one of his major problems.. but about sharing the ball and taking too many shots over all I haven't looked each and every game but it seems to me there is normally three other pacers taking as many or more shots each game then Tin's... and lookin at the over all stats.. he is 4th on the team in FGA's per game... Behind JO who has 598, Al who had 541 and Jax who had 477 in 40 games as a pacer... Tin's has 480 in 41 games.. 1 more game only 3 more shots...

                    This means game in game out JO and Al were getting the most shots.. with Jax then getting a few more per game then Tin's.... yes most people would like to see Granger and I do no disagree get more shots then Tin's but the reality is Granger really started off very very slow this year.. was no aggresive at all in taking shots and to expect 4 players on your team to get more shots then your pt guard is a little difficult..

                    for the record.. nash who is renound on this board for his team ball and such is second on his team in shot attempts.... and I would think most Pg in the league will be in the top three of their teams... I imagine if you we keep record from the trade on I bet even with Tin's starting he will not take more shots on this team then JO, Granger, Murphy and Dun's..... so no I do not see how Tin's is going to hurt this team by taking too many shots... and yes I was disapointed by DA coming off a game where he obviously played a high amount of minutes so he probably had dead legs taking a lot of three point shots... just some other stats.... JT only took 1 3 point shot of his 6-11 DA took 10 shots and was 1-7 from 3

                    To me DA should be limited to 15-18 minutes a game in four seperate stretches and Tins getting 30 to 33 minutes....
                    You didn't think it was gonna be that easy, did you? ..... You know, for a second there, yeah, I kinda did.....
                    Silly rabbit..... Trix are for kids.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Post Trade Thoughts

                      Originally posted by FrenchConnection View Post
                      It is really hard to get 2007 draft picks right now. That trio might get you the PG but not the pick. Also, why would any team that is projected to have a good pick want Foster or Tins?
                      One point guard who is available and might be able to help us is Carlos Arroyo. ORL doesn't have many bigs; they roll with only Howard, Battie and Darko. Harrison + filler for Arroyo, unless people think he's too much like Saras.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Post Trade Thoughts

                        Originally posted by quiller View Post
                        for the record.. nash who is renound on this board for his team ball and such is second on his team in shot attempts.... and I would think most Pg in the league will be in the top three of their teams... I imagine if you we keep record from the trade on I bet even with Tin's starting he will not take more shots on this team then JO, Granger, Murphy and Dun's..... so no I do not see how Tin's is going to hurt this team by taking too many shots... and yes I was disapointed by DA coming off a game where he obviously played a high amount of minutes so he probably had dead legs taking a lot of three point shots... just some other stats.... JT only took 1 3 point shot of his 6-11 DA took 10 shots and was 1-7 from 3

                        To me DA should be limited to 15-18 minutes a game in four seperate stretches and Tins getting 30 to 33 minutes....
                        The problem is not that Tinsley makes too many shots, it's that he misses such a large percentage of them. BTW, the same can be said about MDJ if he doesn't start shooting better. However, at least MDJ shoots very well at the line.

                        I would not mind a shoot first PG if he made his shots. No, I would not mind Nash one bit. But with all due respect, bringing Nash into the conversation simply highlights how much better of a PG Nash is...both in shooting and playmaking.

                        The problem with Tinsley is less his attitude and health. It's that his strength is supposed to be on offense...because he is a poor defender. But, he is not only a bad defender, but a poor offensive player with a below avg fg% and below avg in assists as a starting PG.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Post Trade Thoughts

                          I don't want to start a new thread for this, but I enjoyed reading this article out of the Bay area.


                          http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...printstory.jsp



                          Kawakami: As dust settles for Warriors, Mullin finds his comfort level

                          Tim Kawakami
                          Mercury News

                          Chris Mullin never rules out anything and loves to fade into the shadows, out of sight, until the lightning strike.

                          ``I don't broadcast,'' he said this week, and that's a typical massive understatement from Mr. Radio Silence.

                          So imagine my surprise when the Warriors chief recently answered my question about Jason Richardson's future in the most emphatic terms I've heard Mullin use.

                          My question: A week ago you gave a rejuvenating jolt to the franchise by trading Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy to Indiana; could Richardson, another of your old favorites, be next out the door?

                          ``Jason?'' Mullin said, bolting up in his seat. ``No. I've seen Jason enough to say, `No.' ''

                          No, as in: Richardson's not going anywhere. Right, Chris? Anybody asks about him, you say . . .

                          ``No,'' Mullin said.

                          If you want to know how comfortable Mullin feels about his roster, featuring the additions of ex-Pacers Al Harrington and Stephen Jackson, there it was.

                          Mullin has Don Nelson as his coach, Baron Davis, Harrington and Richardson as his centerpieces, Andris Biedrins and Monta Ellis blooming, and now sounds more comfortable than I've ever heard him during his three-season tenure.

                          Mullin doesn't deny that the Warriors could use another big man. He won't rule out making any move that could bring the playoffs into view.

                          But he said that Richardson is ``absolutely'' on another level than Dunleavy and Murphy. Even though Richardson (due back from his broken hand in a few weeks) hasn't been healthy enough to show much to Nelson yet, Mullin said Richardson has proved his worth.

                          ``Nellie's waiting for him with open arms,'' Mullin said.

                          Maybe this was just post-trade languor. Maybe Mullin will change his mind if Richardson is the price he has to pay to land a key big man. But it doesn't sound like it.

                          ``We're more athletic, longer, just tougher physically,'' Mullin said. ``I think we can match up one-on-one more, offensively and defensively. I think we've seen that. It's been apparent.

                          ``It's got me excited. I think it's a nice team for Nellie to have moving forward. And then you talk about one of the top players not having an impact yet. Get him back, let's see what we have.''

                          By the way, I talked with Mullin before the Warriors beat New Jersey on Ellis' buzzer-beater Wednesday, which ended a three-game post-trade losing streak and crept the Warriors back to within range of the eighth playoff spot.

                          Everything that happened in the game, from Harrington's 29 points to the tight, active defense in the final minutes, illustrated Mullin's point.

                          Afterward, Harrington said that he doesn't see the need for more major retooling. You couldn't use one more player, Al?

                          ``I really don't think so,'' Harrington said. ``Maybe a `big,' a shot-blocking `big.' But I don't know if he could help us because of the way that we run. For the style that we play, I think this is a great team.

                          ``I like the team we've got right now. I'd rather keep the team just how it is.''

                          No arguments out of Mullin on that point. The Warriors were 19-20 when he pulled the trigger on the eight-player trade. Murphy was harrowingly bad. Dunleavy was up and down and getting booed either way. Ike Diogu was lost.

                          Murphy and Dunleavy had big, long-term contracts handed to them by Mullin. The Warriors were sinking.

                          ``I felt like we needed a change,'' Mullin said. ``But a good change. Not any change.''

                          He had defended Murphy and Dunleavy for years (mostly from me, I should add). He gave them the big deals and was criticized for both. Was it hard to trade them after so much history?

                          ``Not really, no,'' Mullin said. ``I think the world of them and I think they're going to be good players. And part of me thinks that it would've happened here. But I just felt good about the deal.''

                          But Dunleavy was your guy from Day One, Chris. Were you in a way letting the world know that he had failed as a Warrior?

                          ``I still think the same things about Mike,'' Mullin said. ``Now the one thing that didn't happen was consistency. He played some really good stretches. That's not a secret. But I think as far as his talent and skill level, there's no reason he shouldn't be a really good player.''

                          Mullin suggested that he would have been willing to move Dunleavy and/or Murphy last summer. But Nelson, hired in August, wanted to see if Murphy could play center and Dunleavy power forward in Nelson's open offense.

                          ``I had a little more feeling about the way our team was, and Nellie wanted to look at it,'' Mullin said. ``That was something we talked about together.''

                          Nelson looked at it, and let the whole world know when the experiment failed.

                          Did Nelson push you to make this trade? Mullin smiled at that one, and went Radio Silent again.

                          He looked comfortable with any possible interpretation. He looked comfortable about everything, as comfortable as he has been in three years.


                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Check out Tim Kawakami's Talking Points blog at www.mercextra.com/blogs/ kawakami. Contact him at tkawakami@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5442.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Post Trade Thoughts

                            Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                            Jamaal left the game in the second quarter with the Pacers down by 3. They were down by 7 at half.

                            Miami then opens the second half by scoring on their first 5 possessions to push it up to 18 on two Wade baskets, two Haslem baskets and a Kapono 3. The Pacers during that same stretch went Murphy miss, Dunleavy turnover, JO miss, Dunleavy miss, Dunleavy turnover.

                            And it's all Jamaal Tinsley's fault........

                            I don't think it's all Jamaal's fault, but I don't think it's coincidence either...especially after about ten straight games where the team plays better with Jamaal out of the lineup.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Post Trade Thoughts

                              Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                              I don't think it's all Jamaal's fault, but I don't think it's coincidence either...especially after about ten straight games where the team plays better with Jamaal out of the lineup.
                              Uhhhh can you please show the numbers to back that up?

                              over the year,

                              Darrel:
                              PPG 4.2 16.128
                              RPG 1.5 5.76
                              APG 1.8 6.912
                              SPG .81 3.110
                              BPG .10 0.384
                              FG% .418
                              FT% .730
                              3P% .325
                              MPG 12.5 48



                              Jamaal:

                              PPG 12.5 19.478
                              RPG 3.5 5.436
                              APG 6.3 9.786
                              SPG 1.59 2.469
                              BPG .44 0.683
                              FG% .381
                              FT% .704
                              3P% .313
                              MPG 30.9 48

                              Their shooting percentage is pretty close, considering everything I would say that JT might not look better in your eyes, but on paper and on the court he remains the better PG, certainly if you consider that most his stats are v starters
                              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                              If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                              Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Post Trade Thoughts

                                Originally posted by able View Post
                                Uhhhh can you please show the numbers to back that up?

                                over the year,

                                Darrel:
                                PPG 4.2 16.128
                                RPG 1.5 5.76
                                APG 1.8 6.912
                                SPG .81 3.110
                                BPG .10 0.384
                                FG% .418
                                FT% .730
                                3P% .325
                                MPG 12.5 48



                                Jamaal:

                                PPG 12.5 19.478
                                RPG 3.5 5.436
                                APG 6.3 9.786
                                SPG 1.59 2.469
                                BPG .44 0.683
                                FG% .381
                                FT% .704
                                3P% .313
                                MPG 30.9 48

                                Their shooting percentage is pretty close, considering everything I would say that JT might not look better in your eyes, but on paper and on the court he remains the better PG, certainly if you consider that most his stats are v starters
                                This is a tough one Able. Tinsley is clearly the player with the better pedigree, the higher expectations, the talk of All Star visits a couple of years ago. Stats that look pretty good compared to Armstrong.

                                But don't you have that feeling in your gut that when Armstrong is in there, he just provides that spark? Feels like it to me at least. The only stat that I believe can attempt to quantify those non-tangible contributions is the +/-, and low and behold:

                                http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/plus_minus_0607.html

                                I think those data at least point to the possibility that DA is a better presence on the floor. Wish it weren't the case, but.. it is what it is.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X