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

Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

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

  • Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...2&sportCat=nba

    Terrific article.

    This article is taken from the Jan. 14. issue of ESPN The Magazine.
    Remember right after "Moneyball" was published, when baseball execs began to embrace the logic of, "Hey, if we put together a lineup of high-OBP hitters, we might score more runs," and everyone else was like, "Wait, that's obvious -- why didn't they always do this?"

    I don't want to jinx it, but we may have reached a similar tipping point in the NBA. If you're a hoops fan, you should be delighted. If you're Spurs coach Gregg Popovich or GM R.C. Buford, you should be miserable. If you're Ricky Davis' agent, you should resign before he becomes a free agent this summer. If you're a sarcastic sportswriter who loves making fun of bad GMs, you should be in mourning. (Note: I'm writing this column dressed all in black.) And if you're a Knicks or a Heat fan, throw down two shots and hit yourself in the head before reading on.

    Here's the new mantra for savvy NBA teams: "Chemacterility." Why haven't you heard the term before? Because I just made it up. But it's an amalgam of three concepts that have formed the foundation of the Duncan Era in San Antonio: chemistry, character and (cap) flexibility. As soon as Duncan arrived, in 1997, Popovich and Buford began to avoid bad guys and bad contracts, preferring role players, quality guys and short-term deals. They're so fanatic about chemistry that when Luis Scola jumped to the NBA this summer, they traded his rights, partly because they weren't sure he could adjust from being a star in Spain to being a supporting player here. They didn't even want to take the chance he'd screw them up!

    Even though the Spurs have won four titles with Duncan, for whatever reason, every other GM except Detroit's Joe Dumars has continually refused to emulate them. But that changed this summer. Sure, Danny Ainge revamped the Celtics by acquiring Ray Allen and KG, but the rest of his game plan has been equally important to the team's early success, and it hasn't received nearly enough fanfare. He filled a depleted roster with unselfish, high-character guys like Eddie House, James Posey and Scot Pollard and refused to pursue any moody vets. Thanks but no thanks, GP and Troy Hudson!

    Much has been made of Boston's team slogan -- "Ubuntu," an African word meaning unity -- but you need to attend a Celtics game to understand why they're on pace for 139 wins this season. In the layup lines, everyone is high-fiving and joshing. Before the opening tip, Posey greets each starter with a prolonged man-hug and inspirational words. The nightly sequence might hark back uncomfortably to Rocky and Apollo's beach snuggle, but it works. During games, bench players stand and cheer as if they're being coached by Mark Madsen. In garbage time, the starters root just as passionately for the scrubs.

    These guys eat dinner, hang out, work out and play video games together. They don't care about stats, acclaim, shots or minutes. It's a team in every sense. Even better, Boston's future is protected for years to come: Allen's contract expires in 2010, Pierce's in 2011, KG's in 2012. The Celtics are good, and they will continue to be good. What more can you ask for? When you can mix talent with chemacterility, you have something substantial.

    Now, if you're a Blazers fan, you're thinking, Wait, that sounds familiar! After enduring the debilitating Jail Blazers Era, the locals despised the team so much that Portland's suits targeted chemistry guys out of self-preservation. Quite simply, Blazers fans needed to like the team again or the franchise was going to be run out of town. When the Blazers spent a 2005 lottery pick on Martell Webster, then-GM John Nash defended the reach pick by telling ESPN, "We think we took an outstanding young man. He's a terrific character, somebody that the community of Portland can be proud of." Was he drafting a councilman or a shooting guard?

    That mind-set led Portland to Jarrett Jack, Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge. It also convinced them to give away Zach Randolph for Steve Francis and Channing Frye, then to buy out Francis, the world-class sulker, for $30 million, nipping any chance he'd contaminate the kids. Maybe those last two moves seem like an over- reaction -- you don't just give away 20/10 guys, right? -- but their devotion to cleaning house was admirable, and smart. (Note: Sure, Darius Miles still lurks. But when he's done rehabbing his knee, he'll surely be looking at a Francis-like buyout. Well, unless they can trade him or frame him for something. After that win streak in December, it's clear that keeping Miles makes as much sense for the Blazers as replacing Zac Efron with Pacman Jones for High School Musical 3 would for Disney.)

    Although their initial rebuilding plan centered on creating cap space after 2009 and stockpiling enough assets to swing a KG-like deal, the Blazers sped things up this season by becoming the poster boys for chemacterility. They've also left the average NBA fan perplexed. After all, Boston's resurgence makes sense because they have three All-Stars; the Blazers have one emerging star (Roy) leading a mishmashed collection of youngsters and role players. They're a good raw team, but 13-in-a-row good? Without Oden? After they thumped a more talented Raptors team on Dec. 19, Jason Kapono told reporters, "Their chemistry is so good right now, and that's so hard to deal with."

    Have you ever heard anyone blame the other team's chemistry for a loss? Me neither. Clearly the Blazers have stumbled onto something. On the flip side, look at the ongoing catastrophe in Miami. Poor D-Wade looks like Will Smith trying to carry I, Robot: His supporting cast stinks, and the script sucks. Who'd blame him if he were thinking about his next movie? Shaq's monster contract killed their cap through 2010, which would be fine if he hadn't developed rigor mortis over the summer. Even worse, Posey was allowed to leave, and the team violated chemacterility Rules 1 through 23 by trading for Davis and Mark Blount. That made about as much sense as holding practice next to a leaking nuclear reactor.

    (Last note, I promise: Yes, I know, Miami looks like San Antonio South compared with the damage Isiah Thomas has inflicted on the Knicks. As a belated holiday gift to New Yorkers, I'll skip the gory details. Just know that Isiah is to chemacterility what the Saw series is to wholesome family comedy.)

    Regardless, Popovich and the Blazers' Kevin Pritchard have to be cringing. Their secret is out: Talent and chemistry go hand in hand. Will we ever see a team willingly trade for Davis or Blount again or sign a knucklehead like Randolph to an $86 million extension? Sure. There will always be desperate GMs. But I expect more teams to copy the Celtics and Blazers with shrewder signings, more short-term deals and a higher premium on character.

    So welcome to the era of chemacterility. Who knows? Brian Scalabrine's five-year, $15 million deal might seem reasonable someday. (I lied: Okay, that's a stretch.)

    Bill Simmons is a columnist for Page 2 and ESPN The Magazine.
    Last edited by rexnom; 01-02-2008, 02:32 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

    Thanks for posting this article, rexnom. It is a very encouraging trend.

    Originally posted by rexnom
    If you're a hoops fan, you should be delighted.
    Changing basketball into a team sport rather than a showcase for individual talent. Bring it on.
    Last edited by Putnam; 01-02-2008, 02:50 PM.
    And 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


    • #3
      Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

      I agree with Putnam, here. It is a very encouraging trend. Maybe talent doesn't mean everything. Jack and Al were talented but they also messed up our chemistry. Meanwhile, they meant a lot to GS's chemistry - Jack being the unquestioned soul of that team.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

        When a team wins they have good chemistry. When they lose they have bad chemistry. Joe brought in Rasheed the poster boy of the Jailblazers and now Bill says Joe's following Chemistry 101. James Posey was traded from Memphis because of his attitude. Now he is a chemistry guy. I just see two players who are on winning teams now.
        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

          Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
          When a team wins they have good chemistry. When they lose they have bad chemistry. Joe brought in Rasheed the poster boy of the Jailblazers and now Bill says Joe's following Chemistry 101. James Posey was traded from Memphis because of his attitude. Now he is a chemistry guy. I just see two players who are on winning teams now.
          You bring up the age old question. Is it the player or the situation.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

            Very good read. Can someone email this link to Bird?

            This does bring up some intereting thoughts.....how does a team build chemistry?

            It sounds like it can be done like the way the Spurs, Pistons and the Blazers ( to a certain degree ) have done it....but putting together a primary core of players, signing them for a reasonable amount of time and then making minimal changes over time. I'm gonna chalk the Celtics chemistry up to having 3 All-Stars that are unselfish and willing to put aside their egos to win a Championship.

            Are we capable of doing what the Spurs and Pistons have done from a chemistry POV?

            Bird did go the safe route this offseason and signed Deiner and Rush.....where one literally sounds and looks like a Boy Scout.

            The only thing that I really hope that TPTB does take from this is the importance of role-players...something that I think is important and much needed on this team.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              You bring up the age old question. Is it the player or the situation.
              It has to be the situation, right? Tinsley was poison in the past, but he's been huge this year. Jack was poison in Indy but the key to GS's resurgence.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

                He basically made an entire article out of his Page 2 list of best contracts piece a week or two back where he shoe-horned in a paragraph about how the Celtics were the new Spurs. The comparison still doesn't fit. He's just sentimentalizing his fave team now that their good. He's like Mitch Albom light all of a sudden.

                I agree that its nice when teams like each other and the players are stand up guys but Miami, the team he uses as the anti-chemistry team, just won a championship thanks to a trade that wasn't all that dissimilar to the Ricky Davis/Mark Blount acquisition.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

                  I think what will be more interesting is how the team is going to respond to their "rough patch" they have hit. As of 2 weeks ago they were the best friends in the world and Tinsley was a new guy, etc, etc.

                  Now that they are losing are the fingers going to begin to be pointed? I'm interested to know if we will regroup or implode as we have the last few seasons. I'm certainly tired of that and I think that is what I miss the most, the consistent group of guys out there that play together and hard every night out. We WERE getting there....and now we are where we have been over the last few years again. We need that identity.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

                    Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                    When a team wins they have good chemistry. When they lose they have bad chemistry. Joe brought in Rasheed the poster boy of the Jailblazers and now Bill says Joe's following Chemistry 101. James Posey was traded from Memphis because of his attitude. Now he is a chemistry guy. I just see two players who are on winning teams now.
                    Also, don't forget about the run the Sacramento Kings had from 1999-2004. Remember when they were the epitomy of "how to play the game the right way"? The very essence of team basketball?

                    Well that team had the whiney Chris Webber who the Wizards shipped out for an over the hill Mitch Richmond. People also forget that guys like Bobby Jackson and Doug Chrisite were viewed as malcontents in their previous stops. All of a sudden they were perfect role players. Mike Bibby was viewed as a guy who couldn't lead in Vancouver, then he turned into Mr. ClutchShot for quite some time. They even had Keon Clark in the rotation the year that they might have had their best shot to win it all.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

                      How does someone write an article about malcontents and horrible contracts and not even mention the Pacers? I'm flabbergasted.
                      Read my Pacers blog:
                      8points9seconds.com

                      Follow my twitter:

                      @8pts9secs

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post

                        The only thing that I really hope that TPTB does take from this is the importance of role-players...something that I think is important and much needed on this team.
                        Role players need to be able and willing to accept their role, of course... but it cuts both ways- Players ahead of them on the depth/glamour chart need to command the respect of their peers thru their own performance and work ethic.

                        Also, sometimes you need to let the natural progression of leadership and pecking order take place. With guaranteed contracts and high salaries that is not always the easiest thing for a GM to do. They want to justify that contract they put in front of "their guy".

                        It's not always the box score that shows a player's value to the team.

                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

                          Originally posted by Fool View Post

                          I agree that its nice when teams like each other and the players are stand up guys but Miami, the team he uses as the anti-chemistry team, just won a championship thanks to a trade that wasn't all that dissimilar to the Ricky Davis/Mark Blount acquisition.

                          Agreed, didn't Miami bring in Antoine Walker and Jason Williams, two low-character guys, and win a title, while the good guys in Dallas got destroyed.

                          Like Arcadian said, if you win, sportswriters say you have good intangibles. It hides the fact they don't know basketball.
                          2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            Role players need to be able and willing to accept their role, of course... but it cuts both ways- Players ahead of them on the depth/glamour chart need to command the respect of their peers thru their own performance and work ethic.

                            Also, sometimes you need to let the natural progression of leadership and pecking order take place. With guaranteed contracts and high salaries that is not always the easiest thing for a GM to do. They want to justify that contract they put in front of "their guy".

                            It's not always the box score that shows a player's value to the team.

                            -Bball
                            The only role-player that I wish we could somehow acquire is a solid perimeter defender that can lockdown the wing. That's the concern I had....can a player that is effective on one end of the court but not highly effective on the other fit in JO'Bs system?

                            On paper....I think that the answer is no.....but in reality....I think that we have to find some way to address the pourous perimeter defense that we have. I've mentioned this in another thread....but next season....if we were faced with the choice of resigning someone like Rush and had the option to sign a lockdown and aggressive perimeter roleplayer......which is clearly debateable given Rush's somewhat decent defense as of late....I would likely choose the lockdown perimeter defender roleplayer that isn't a great scorer.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Bill Simmons article about character, chemistry, and cap flexibilty

                              Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                              When a team wins they have good chemistry. When they lose they have bad chemistry. Joe brought in Rasheed the poster boy of the Jailblazers and now Bill says Joe's following Chemistry 101. James Posey was traded from Memphis because of his attitude. Now he is a chemistry guy. I just see two players who are on winning teams now.
                              Originally posted by bulldog View Post
                              Like Arcadian said, if you win, sportswriters say you have good intangibles. It hides the fact they don't know basketball.
                              this reminds me of a blog i read today. KnickerBlogger.net did a Basketball English => English dictionary that was quite amusing. it includes "chemistry" "intangibles" and my favorite "athletic"



                              Language is a living evolving being. It intermingles with many different fields including sports. Phrases like “three strikes” and “the whole nine yards” are frequently used outside of sports. Meanwhile sports has acquired words from the English language and gives them a new meaning. A word like “dime” has a totally different meaning when applied to basketball. This guide is intended for those who would like to learn more about basketball terminology. All of these words are borrowed from the English language, but their meanings are radically different from their original meaning. All quotes are made up.

                              Intangibles (adj) - Statistics other than points per game; Tangible stats like rebounds, blocks, steals, etc.
                              “Ben Wallace is a phenomenal player because of his intangibles.” - Bill Walton

                              Proven (adj) - A player who has done this feat once in his career. Frequently used when the player isn’t likely to ever repeat that feat.
                              “Charles Smith will help the Knicks reach the Finals. He’s a proven 20-8 guy.” - Anonymous analyst, summer 1992

                              Legitimate (adj) - A player who has been a starter for more than one year. Usually refers to one that is a borderline starter.
                              “We could probably get a lot back for Willie Green, since he’s a legitimate shooting guard.” - Random message board commenter, Philadelphia suburbs

                              Winner (n) - A person that was lucky enough to play on a championship team. Today this usually applies to just about anyone who played with Tim Duncan or Shaquille O’Neal.
                              “Derek Fisher is a great acquisition for Golden State. He’s a proven winner.” - Bill Walton

                              Choker (n) - A person that was unlucky enough to face Shaq or Duncan late in the playoffs, during one of their championship runs.
                              “Chris Webber isn’t a winner, he’s a choker.” - Eric Montross

                              Athletic (adj) - Unskilled. Usually in intangible areas, like rebounding, blocking shots, etc.
                              “Our team could use an athletic player like Kwame Brown or Tim Thomas.” - No one. Ever.

                              Glue guy (n) - A valuable player who’s main contribution isn’t using up lots of possessions.
                              “Andrei Kirilenko is the type of glue guy that every team needs.” - Spokesman, Elmer’s Glue

                              Energy guy (n) - Unlike some of the aliens you would see on Star Trek (Q, Pah Wraiths, Trelane), these are corporal beings. Usually an illegitimate glue guy that can run the floor in transition, or excels in one intangible part of the game.
                              “And a fast break dunk by energy guy Tayshaun Prince.” - Kenny Smith

                              Chemistry (n) - Winning Percentage.
                              “The Lakers had great chemistry under Shaq, Kobe, and Phil Jackson.” - Jack Nicholson



                              http://www.knickerblogger.net/?p=640

                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X