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

Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

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

  • #46
    Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

    If it wasn’t for a few other scenario’s I would say let’s just rename this thread what it should be called “Why did the Pacers start & play Troy Murphy extended minutes every game and often times give Josh McRoberts DNP-CD’s”.

    Really over the past few seasons that is what it has come down to, sure there was the Rasho vs. Roy debate but for the most part it is really this.

    It really boils down to the quality of the starter vs. the young player and what each of them brings to the floor.

    You won’t see many people complaining that Paul George is not getting minutes from Danny Granger however you might see people complaining that he is not getting minutes that are going to James Posey.

    But getting back to the main point of the argument (Josh vs. Troy) I see nothing that McRoberts has done in the pre-season that he did not do since December of last season. I would go so far as to say even the spring of the year before but I’ll just concede to last season. The difference is two fold. First he is getting solid consistent minutes and second our style of play has changed.

    Is he stronger? Maybe but not that much. Does he know the system better? Probably but again we’ve changed somewhat how the system works so he is learning new again.

    So then it boils down to why now vs. then. Anybody who thinks it’s because Josh has greatly improved is just deluding themselves, if Troy were here he would still be starting and we would still have the same argument as last season.

    For me it has never been about just playing young players, I assure you I was never advocating playing Jeff Foster over Dale Davis, but it is about the type of players and if young players can produce.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
      James White?
      Nope, we cut him before the regular season.

      I honestly can not think of a rookie off the top of my head that was here for a season and then gone the next. I'll have to think about this one for awhile.


      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

        I don't think playing time necessarily leads to development. If you throw all three rookies out there together and they don't know what to do then no one develops and we lose. They just end up getting confused, learning bad habits and getting frustrated...

        I'd rather see the vets get the offense flowing and the defense established. Then ease a rookie in. Put him in a situation where everyone else is doing the right thing and he just needs to figure out his role and execute it...

        I think that's the current plan for Paul George. He'll have a role in the rotation, but it'll be off the bench and with solid veterans around him. Once he starts to "get it" then his real development will start. It's a matter of learning what he's expected to do within the design of the offense and defense and then gaining the experience to do it well...

        But it's really hard to do that with 3 rookies at once. That's why I'm really hoping to see the D league used this year. I'm not sure multiple rookies can learn on the floor at the same time without disrupting each other. And then playing time becomes counter productive to the learning process...

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

          I want to win. I want JO'B to play the players who will get us the most wins. If we win 42 games and George, Stephenson, and Rolle don't play a single minute, I'm fine with that.

          At the same time, if it's a toss-up situation between a player who is part of the future (George, Price, Stephenson, Rolle, Hansbrough) and a short-timer (Dunleavy, Ford, Posey, Foster) then I'd like JO'B to default to the younger guy.

          I've always been a win now guy. Last season, however, there was a time when we should have pulled the plug on some guys or reduced minutes earlier than we did.

          For example, for the last few games of last season Murphy and Watson were still playing 35+ mpg. Why? Also, the benching of AJ for TJ after TJ's first banishment, was inexplicable. In both cases the playoffs were fully out of reach and the youngsters were performing well enough to earn minutes.
          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

          - Salman Rushdie

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            Nope, we cut him before the regular season.

            I honestly can not think of a rookie off the top of my head that was here for a season and then gone the next. I'll have to think about this one for awhile.
            We traded Dampier to GSW for Chris Mullin after his rookie season. I don't think that exactly fits your bill though as that trade was more about a chance to get Mullin than it was giving up on Damp.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              OK, I think everyone would agree with you. But how do you know that before the fact. How did you know two years ago that Josh would have helped the pacers win as much as a veteran would have.

              How do we know right now if Paul George playing 30 minutes every game would help the pacers win just as often as if Dunleavy played 30 minutes a game. if someone told me right now if George getting all of Mike's minutes will get the same team results as if Mike got all of Paul's minutes. I would say, OK, sit Mike and play George. But how do we know that.

              Once again sure it is easy two years from now to look back and complain, why did we even play Mike when George could be an allstar now if he had just played more his first two seasons. I'm sure next summer many of you will make that argument. Why did Mike play all those minutes he won't even be here in another year where as George might be one of our best players for years to come. Purpose of this thread to to see if anyone wants to go on record before the fact as opposed to after when it is easy
              Right, you never know the alternate reality, but you do know if you're losing at a good clip now. So the example about AJ and Earl the end of last year is a good one. Why play Earl the end of last year without giving AJ some of his minutes. We would have said that at the time, too.

              If they start losing at a good clip, I'll want PG to get as many of Dunleavy's minutes as possible. If they are in the hunt and winning decently I'll not make a peep.

              The problem I've had the last few years is no wins and no hope (young players). So I'm watching Luther Head, Stephen Grahm types in February, instead I needed to see Roy Hibbert getting more reps for good or bad. Either way, I'm watching a loss, most likely.

              I guess to finally answer the question, you don't know for sure it will be neglible, but you know what your doing now isn't working pretty readily.

              The alternate reality things always interesting to me. Should I get a Flu shot, should I not?

              Edit, just read Pecks post about JMac vs Murphy. Thats a good counter to my argument, without intending to be. Thats an alternate reality I don't think I personally could project, since it's night and day for style, experience, everything. Being honest, I would have been all for a traditional PF last year, but also, I didn't believe that player was JMac in any way, at the time.
              Last edited by Speed; 10-14-2010, 12:17 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                OK, I think everyone would agree with you. But how do you know that before the fact. How did you know two years ago that Josh would have helped the pacers win as much as a veteran would have.
                2 years ago, maybe not, but last year we certainly saw early in the season when Murphy was out, that Josh was just as, if not more effective as a heavy minute guy. He played well in every game he got a chance, and then as soon as Murphy got back he was relegated back to the bench. Performance results did not equal playing time. The situation was the same with AJ Price, and even to a lesser extent Roy Hibbert.

                Originally posted by Unclebuck
                How do we know right now if Paul George playing 30 minutes every game would help the pacers win just as often as if Dunleavy played 30 minutes a game. if someone told me right now if George getting all of Mike's minutes will get the same team results as if Mike got all of Paul's minutes. I would say, OK, sit Mike and play George. But how do we know that.
                We don't know that. I agree. But just because we don't know if George is capable of handling all of Dunleavy's minutes, doesn't mean there is no reason to at least give him a chance to earn some of those minutes. There is no reason to just forget about a guy on the bench because "we just don't know if he can handle it." Find out if he can handle it. Dunleavy can't play 48 a night, I'm sure of that.

                Originally posted by Unclebuck
                Once again sure it is easy two years from now to look back and complain, why did we even play Mike when George could be an allstar now if he had just played more his first two seasons. I'm sure next summer many of you will make that argument. Why did Mike play all those minutes he won't even be here in another year where as George might be one of our best players for years to come. Purpose of this thread to to see if anyone wants to go on record before the fact as opposed to after when it is easy
                You can put me on the record. Do I think that there is a chance we could contend for the playoffs this season? Absolutely. Do I think if we make it we have a chance to make any noise? Absolutely not. Even if it means a couple less losses, or even the lottery for that matter, I'd be in favor of getting guys like Paul George exposed to the rigors of the NBA season. I just don't think that George getting minutes will be too detrimental to the team's success.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                  Originally posted by Speed View Post
                  Right, you never know the alternate reality, but you do know if you're losing at a good clip now. So the example about AJ and Earl the end of last year is a good one. Why play Earl the end of last year without giving AJ some of his minutes. We would have said that at the time, too.

                  If they start losing at a good clip, I'll want PG to get as many of Dunleavy's minutes as possible. If they are in the hunt and winning decently I'll not make a peep.

                  At what point are you "losing at a good clip"? Starting the season 0-10? Dropping below .500 in January?

                  Do you go by absolute record or by standings? If you are below .500 but still in the playoff hunt do you go for it or give it up? If you are over .500 but out of the playoffs do you chase the playoffs and/or the better record or do you give it up?

                  We've seen too many seasons (including the 1993-1994 season) where significant periods of losing, even unto being below .500, occurred and yet teams pulled out and were competing by the end of the year.

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  How much better the Pacers got by playing Rasho,Flip and the rest of the old guys we got as one year rentals or trough trades? giving Rasho minutes made the team better in the long term? Are the Pacers better now for playing every game with old vets giving the young guys a winning attitude? My opinion is no they are not better.
                  Would they have necessarily been better if you sit guys who were, in someone's opinion, the best guys to be on the floor? What do they learn?

                  As I've said often, IF you think that those vets should not have been playing because the young guys were better than they were, then we really have no argument with one another. IF you think those vets should not have been playing simply because they were vets, we have an argument.

                  In many cases, though, I think we're actually only quibbling over a few minutes. If those vets don't play as much as they did, would we have been better off? My opinion, certainly last season, is yes. If the vets play SIGNIFICANTLY less than they did, would we have been better off? There, I'm not so sure.
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    But getting back to the main point of the argument (Josh vs. Troy) I see nothing that McRoberts has done in the pre-season that he did not do since December of last season. I would go so far as to say even the spring of the year before but I’ll just concede to last season. The difference is two fold. First he is getting solid consistent minutes and second our style of play has changed.

                    Is he stronger? Maybe but not that much. Does he know the system better? Probably but again we’ve changed somewhat how the system works so he is learning new again.

                    So then it boils down to why now vs. then. Anybody who thinks it’s because Josh has greatly improved is just deluding themselves, if Troy were here he would still be starting and we would still have the same argument as last season.
                    I've only seen one game with my own eyes, so I am not going to claim this as fact by any means.

                    However, I think Josh is quite different from last year. I think he is more aware of what is going on around him, more able to stay focused from play to play, and I think his shooting from all areas has improved because of the shooting work he put in this summer that so many people disapprove of.

                    To me, he seems a much more mature and ready player than he was last year, and not all of it would have come had he got significant minutes.

                    I know some (Seth) will disagree violently, and that's fine - but this is my opinion and yelling at me isn't going to change it.

                    On your last sentence, though, I think we need to stop falling into the trap of saying the if Murphy was here Josh would still be on the bench and treating it as if Troy IS here and Josh IS sitting on the bench. It isn't a valid fact to use as a point of argument, especially in a "Josh hasn't changed that much and we know that because Troy would be starting over him if he were still here" sense.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      I've only seen one game with my own eyes, so I am not going to claim this as fact by any means.

                      However, I think Josh is quite different from last year. I think he is more aware of what is going on around him, more able to stay focused from play to play, and I think his shooting from all areas has improved because of the shooting work he put in this summer that so many people disapprove of.

                      To me, he seems a much more mature and ready player than he was last year, and not all of it would have come had he got significant minutes.

                      And outside of shooting how do you get better in those other two areas?

                      Practicing? I think not.

                      I think Speed(?) mentioned about how some are viewing Rolle like he's guessing Atlanta fans viewed Solo. Who has said anything about Rolle? Who honestly expects Rolle to get significant minutes? I know I don't. He doesn't even have a spot on the roster right now. Or have I missed something?

                      Peck nails it, and it's really not even about Murphy. It's about playing Mike Dunleavy and DJones at the 4 while Josh sits there with his hand on his chin. It was stupid then, and it's stupid now.

                      If Rush comes out and plays extremely well, and you're splitting time with him and Mike at the 2, if there turns out to be very limited minutes for Paul I can't object to that.

                      Now if Rush is the same Rush, then I expect to see Paul in the game more.

                      I don't want to hear about how Lance is our best PG in practice, and then never see him in a game until Darren or AJ is out with an injury. If he's playing better than either one of them, then he needs to play during games. Shut your mouth with IRRELEVANT praise if it's not the truth. Don't, basically, lie to your fan base talking about how great he is. That's only going to **** us off when he doesn't get to play.

                      But it's nothing new. Jim came in to Indy thumping his chest about how if you didn't practice you didn't play, and then we find out that JO isn't practicing but playing as many minutes as he can handle.


                      My argument is pretty simple. Play the best performers in practice. Like he should have done with AJ last year. Don't play players completely out of position when you have capable players at that position sitting on the bench.

                      How hard is it to do those two things?
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                        This is the NBA, the best league in the world. Nothing should be "given" to anyone. If the rooks want to play, make them earn their minutes by beating the vets in practice. If they can't do that, then they don't deserve to be out there on game day.

                        You forge steel with fire and a hammer, not with milk and cookies.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          I've only seen one game with my own eyes, so I am not going to claim this as fact by any means.

                          However, I think Josh is quite different from last year. I think he is more aware of what is going on around him, more able to stay focused from play to play, and I think his shooting from all areas has improved because of the shooting work he put in this summer that so many people disapprove of.

                          To me, he seems a much more mature and ready player than he was last year, and not all of it would have come had he got significant minutes.

                          I know some (Seth) will disagree violently, and that's fine - but this is my opinion and yelling at me isn't going to change it.

                          On your last sentence, though, I think we need to stop falling into the trap of saying the if Murphy was here Josh would still be on the bench and treating it as if Troy IS here and Josh IS sitting on the bench. It isn't a valid fact to use as a point of argument, especially in a "Josh hasn't changed that much and we know that because Troy would be starting over him if he were still here" sense.
                          Hmmmmm..... interesting concept. Kind of like when people don't like O'Brien via opinion we shouldn't have thread after thread clogged up with people brow beating them into something they aren't going to change their minds on either. I like the way you think.

                          As to your last paragraph, I honestly am to stupid to really understand what you are saying.

                          If your point is that if all things were the same and Troy was still here that Josh would be starting & Troy would be coming off of the bench or even splitting min. between the two with Troy still starting I'll just say that we will agree to disagree.


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                            Originally posted by bphil View Post
                            This is the NBA, the best league in the world. Nothing should be "given" to anyone. If the rooks want to play, make them earn their minutes by beating the vets in practice. If they can't do that, then they don't deserve to be out there on game day.

                            You forge steel with fire and a hammer, not with milk and cookies.
                            Ok, this guy has actually summed up all of the arguments on both sides in a clear and concise written statement of fact.

                            There is nothing in this post that either side can really disagree with, at least I would hope.

                            Hell in fact I think this is a post of the year candidate right now.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                              Wow this thread got big in a hurry. I'll post my thoughts after just reading UB's first post, then I'll dive in to the replies.

                              For me, I only ask that if a veteran player doesn't appear to be earning his spot in the rotation, that a young guy gets a chance to try that role on for size for a while. Then if the rookie is struggling as much or more than the vet, go back to the vet for a while, and repeat.

                              It looks right now like Posey is going to keep either Rush or George out of the rotation once Rush is no longer suspended. Is he's playing well, I can live with that, but if he keeps looking old and slow and not doing a whole hell of a lot, I'd prefer Rush or George to backup Danny instead.

                              If Jeff is struggling, eventually give either Solo or Rolle a look there (assuming either or both is on the team in a month). Actually if Jeff struggles, we're probably screwed because I don't think much of Jones right now, and Rolle is probably too raw still. But I'd still give them a chance if Jeff isn't doing well.

                              Otherwise, I look at the backup 1. It's going to probably be TJ or AJ, and probably not Lance unless Lance just explodes offensively, I guess. We all know TJ isn't part of our future plans, we seem to all agree AJ is playing well already, so just leave AJ in that role, please. If for some reason AJ bottoms out, then give TJ or Lance a look, but otherwise, we need to roll with DC and AJ at the 1.

                              Lastly, if we do get to where a veteran isn't playing well but his young counterpart is, please don't put the vet back in just for the sake of putting the vet back in. Leave the youngling in there as long as he's producing fairly well.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                                If Jim keeps the rotation he has right now, I'd be pretty happy.

                                We have
                                Collison/AJ
                                Dun/George
                                Granger/Posey
                                Josh/Hans
                                Roy/Foster

                                The only change I'd make is to exchange Posey for Rush. Rush is better than him, even at Rush's worst. It's really not even a question over who should play.

                                In this lineup, there is a good combination of competent vets (Dun and Foster and obviously Granger) and young guys that'll help us win.

                                With AJ/Ford. Look. AJ's better than him. AJ's played as well as anyone in the preseason (if not better) And the Pacers plan to keep AJ and want to get rid of Ford. It's pretty obvious who should play. The only possibility is playing Ford to up his trade value, but lets be realistic here. The only teams that are going to want Ford, are the ones that want him for his contract.

                                With Hans and George, I think that is developmental minutes, but I also don't think it'll hurt the team.

                                With Lance and Magnum, I don't think Lance is ready (and don't know if he'll be here) and I think Tyler is better than Magnum, and they are both young guys so I'd give the minutes to Tyler.

                                That being said, if at about Febuary, we are CLEARLY out of the playoffs, you gotta start giving them minutes. Take away Dun's and Fosters minutes, and who cares what our record will be, Magnum and Lance should get some time. (That doesn't mean thirty minutes..but 15 would be nice)

                                And last season, I'm sorry, people were frustrated for many reasons.

                                For one, Price was, without argument a better PG option than Ford, and arguably a better option than Watson. (And it wasn't arguable if you took into consideration how he would have been had we played him twenty minutes a game last season)

                                For two, whether you thought Josh was ready or not, he was most certainly a better PF option, whether we were trying to win or developing players, than DJones or Dunleavy at the PF spot.

                                For three, Hibbert was always a better option than Murphy at the center position.

                                It was a combination of "look, they're better AND they actually have a shot of being part of the future core."

                                So yea, I think, once you're clearly out of the playoffs you give the younger guys the playing time. But I also think that playing young guys vs. playing vets doesn't necessarily mean it's detrimnetal to wins and losses. We'll win more games if we play Price instead of Ford or Rush instead of Posey or let Josh start instead of Foster ect.. And it also helps the team's future. But I don't have as big of a problem with letting Lance, Solo, and Magnum be introduced to the NBA game slowly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X