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

comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy :)

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

  • #46
    Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

    Hi folks. I haven't figured out how to say "thank you" yet (do you have to post a certain number of times before this feature is activated?), so I'll just do it here. Many thanks to Flox, PacersPride, Emcee, Brad8888, Cordobes, BlueNGold, daschysta, Kester99, colts19 and everyone else for taking the time to read through this and for sharing your feedback.

    Originally posted by kester99 View Post

    One question, if you want to opine, Don: What do you think about AJ's inactivity vs TJ's revitalized role? Obviously, we don't see what goes on in practice, but that one factor seems to me to be the most obvious questionable call from JOB this year....and 'questionable' is about as strong a word I would apply at this (3-3 record) point.
    Thank you. Before sharing my opinion on the playing time of younger players, I think it's sometimes best to take a step back and to take more of a 500 foot view of things.

    Out of the 15 players taken in the 2nd half of the 2nd round of the 2009 draft (i.e., picks 46 through 60), only three are currently in the NBA... A.J. Price, Patrick Mills and Lester Hudson. Mills and Hudson have COMBINED appeared in 40 NBA games, zero starts. A.J. Price? 56 games played, 2 starts. It's interesting how different fans have completely different takeaways with respect to the playing time of a player like A.J. Price. I look at it and see it as another example of O'Brien keeping an open mind and demonstrating a willingness to let younger players receive more playing time (which again is why I invoked J.R. Bremer in my Case for JOB... granted I think Price is better than Bremer was, but that example is meant to remind people that actually on balance, O'Brien is pretty good about giving younger players an opportunity compared to other coaches). Meanwhile, some of the JOB bashers might look at the A.J. Price issue and say that O'Brien is a prick or whatever else, but actually, the amount of playing time that Price received is rather unusual.

    Same thing with Paul George. We can't look at his playing time in isolation. Let's look at how other coaches have approached the decision of allocating playing time to rookies... (I'm excluding picks 1 through 5 because I think it's a different issue... besides exceptions like Hasheem Thabeet from a year ago, I think it's pretty much a given that the top 5 players in the draft will get more PT... and John Wall and DeMarcus Cousins are the two best players in the draft imo, so it makes sense that they will receive more playing time than the following 25 players).

    6. Ekpe Udoh, Golden State—Hasn’t played, injured
    7. Greg Monroe, Detroit—2 DNP-CD’s, averaging 17 mpg
    8. Al-Farouq Aminu, Clippers—0 DNP-CD, 13 mpg
    9. Gordon Hayward, Utah--1 DNP-CD, averaging 11 mpg (As an aside, I think Hayward ought to study Dunleavy's success under O'Brien--and if O'Brien is still coaching in 4 years, Hayward would be smart to look him up).
    10.Paul George--2 DNP-CD'S, averaging 17 mpg
    11. Cole Aldrich, OKC—3 DNP-CD’s, averaging 9 mpg
    12. Xavier Henry, Memphis—2 DNP-CD’s, averaging 15 mpg
    13. Ed Davis, Toronto—Injured, hasn’t played
    14. Patrick Patterson, Houston—Hasn’t played, was assigned to the D-League this week
    15. Larry Sanders, Milwaukee—4 DNP-CD’s, averaging 5 mpg
    16. Luke Babbitt, Portland—6 DNP-CD’s, averaging 6 mpg
    17. Kevin Seraphin, Washington—Hasn’t played
    18. Eric Bledsoe, Clippers—0 DNP CD’s, 7 starts, averaging 29 mpg… Baron Davis is out of shape and not playing, and Bledsoe has made the most of his opportunity… shooting 50% from the floor… But not surprising that the Clippers are 1-9 with a rookie point guard
    19. Avery Bradley, Boston—Hasn’t played
    20. James Anderson, San Antonio—2 DNP’s, 1 CD, 1 b/c of injury, 17 mpg
    21. Craig Brackins, Philadelphia—Hasn’t played
    22. Elliot Williams, Portland—Hasn’t played—DNP CD first 5 games, then dislocated patella on 11/4… probably means he’s done for the year
    23. Trevor Booker, Washington—3 DNP CD’s—6 mpg
    24. Damion James, NJ—2 DNP CD’s, 7 mpg
    25. Dominique Jones, Dallas—1 DNP CD, 6 mpg
    26. Quincy Pondexter, New Orleans—5 DNP CD’s, 11 mpg
    27. Jordan Crawford, Atlanta—5 DNP CD’s, 9 mpg
    28. Greivis Vasquez, Memphis—6 DNP CD’s, 4 mpg
    29. Daniel Orton, Orlando—Hasn’t played
    30. Lazar Hayward, Minnesota—3 DNP CD’s, averaging 8 mpg

    And let me say that I was very happy when we picked Paul George at 10. Some analysts made fun of the pick at the time but I thought it was a bold (and correct) move by Bird. Down the road he could be a key player for us.

    But I'll also say... I've got no problem with him not playing right now. He's a 20 year old kid who was playing at Fresno State last year. He's just not used to this level of competition and there's no way of getting around that (as we can see above, some players like Brackins are on losing teams with more college experience, both in terms of years AND in playing against tougher competition, and they STILL are hardly playing right now). And Besides hurting the team, I think it could actually hurt the PLAYER to give him too many minutes too soon before he's ready. And I disagree with this idea that a player cannot develop when getting dnp-cd's. I've heard it said before by NBA players--you learn the most sometimes when you have a period of time of NOT playing and can instead focus solely on observing and learning/working hard in practice. He seems like a smart guy so hopefully he's using his time wisely.

    Some people believe that George is not playing now because of something he posted on twitter.... I just don't see it the same way--like most coaches, O'Brien is basing his playing time on who is best equipped right now to help the team win. Here's what George's tweet told me.... like a lot of rookies coming in, he probably thought he was hot **** and that he was going to be a world beater in no time at all. I'm not knocking self-confidence, but I definitely think it's a mistake to reward a young player with minutes when they aren't performing well in games and/or practices. I think that approach only reinforces a false sense of entitlement which is bad for the developmental process. So, NOW is the time to remind the young fella that he's going to have to earn it through focused preparation and hard work (same goes for Lance Stephenson). In the long run he'll be better off for it. If come March the playoffs are out of reach then fine, give him more minutes regardless. But right now Dunleavy is playing great and Rush is clearly further along, so George has his work cut out for him if he expects to be included in our crowded wing rotation right now. And if folks don't care for playing older players--consider that if we don't play vets like Dunleavy and T.J. Ford then it's much less likely we will be able to deal them for our biggest need--a backup big--before the deadline. And I really don't trust Solo or Foster's health at this point. Posey has also been a solid player off the bench the last 2 games--his shot was off against Cleveland but I thought he made up for it on the defensive end.

    I know a lot of people like to focus instead on soundbites from our coach... but I think that a lot of coaches can get a bit hyperbolic at times. Whether a person likes it or not, I think it's just O'Brien's way of recognizing and paying tribute to the hard work of some of the players.

    O'Brien on Hibbert... "The best summer I've ever seen out of a player."
    O'Brien on Hansbrough... "He looked like The Incredible Hulk when I saw him this summer."
    O'Brien on Magnum Rolle... "He's been our best player in summer league."
    O'Brien on Price... "He's been our best player in preseason." (I took that to mean he was so impressed with how hard he worked to come back from his injury and was trying to go out of his way to express that).
    O'Brien on Dunleavy... "The hardest I've ever seen a player rehab to come back from that kind of an injury."

    And likewise, he's probably not going to be gushing over the performance of a player in a 32 point blowout loss. So if people want to call the guy a liar or whatever that's fine, but I see consistency in his general approach with younger players.

    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post

    ps.. you never responded to my comments on your idea to trade for Gilbert Arenas over on the indystar.. i was a little dissapointed about that since i took the time to explain why bringing in arenas would be a bad move. not sure if you still feel like that is a good idea or not.. but wouldnt mind hearing your thoughts on the subject as well.

    Go Pacers!
    Oh I promise I wasn't dodging you. I took a break from the NBA in July for vacation and such, and by the time I returned to the board it was August and we were able to pull off the Collison trade, so by that point the issue was moot. But I'd be happy to revisit my thoughts on this matter.

    Keep in mind, I was not saying the move was without its drawbacks, but I was touting the idea because A). It was a sure thing (meaning, he was ours if we wanted him--and actually, I was also somewhat trying to prepare other fans for this possibility since there were rumors of a couple of teams interested in Arenas, and we were desperate for a point guard) and I didn't have faith at the time in our ability to get someone like Collison B). I didn't think the drawbacks were as detrimental as others did...

    1). The contract--Yes it's huge, but in year one by trading Ford and Dunleavy for Arenas, we would have SAVED money (and opened up more playing time for guys like Rush and George). And by year 4 we'd have a massive expiring contract and potential trade chip. The problem I saw was year 3... we probably wouldn't be able to sign a player like Rush to an extension without exceeding the cap. But I could have lived with that.

    2). Free agency 2011--Yes, no doubt about it that Arenas is overpaid, but what quality free agents will voluntarily come to Indiana next summer? You'd likely have to overpay them anyway to lure them here (and I for one do not want to pay a guy like Big Baby Davis something like $50 million over 5 years). I think Arenas would have been psyched to come here... it would have been his last shot at redemption at being the starting point guard on a playoff team, instead of being second fiddle to John Wall. You can tell he's definitely depressed right now. Coming here would have completely rejuvenated him imo.

    3). Off the court issues overblown... Peter Vecsey played a big part in it, and while Arenas definitely made a mistake, I thought he got a raw deal. Yes I realize that because of the brawl we have to be more sensitive to issues like this, but it's worth noting that Arenas at one point was one of the most popular players in Wizards franchise history... with the exception of the Jordan years, the Wizards had their highest attendance numbers during his heyday of "hibachi!" and the like from 2005-2007, and I thought that Indiana would eventually embrace him as well. If you're interested in reading more, here's a good start...
    http://reason.org/news/show/persecution-gilbert-arenas (warning, it's long )

    4). At the time last June, I felt we needed more offensive firepower, guys who won't shy away from getting us points in a hurry... Arenas at 28 isn't the same player he was in 2006-07, when he had 8 games of 40 or more including 54 point and 60 point eruption games.... But I think he can still have maybe 3 good years left. He's off to a slow start this year since he hasn't played in so long, but last night was a good reminder that he can still play as he continues to rediscover his rhythm (30 points in 31 minutes).... and ultimately I think this would have helped Hibbert to surround him with 4 solid 3 point shooters... if teams wanted to double-team Hibbert then they would have to pay for it.

    5). Moxie! LOL. We needed it. And back to the issue of younger players sitting on the bench, as this commercial from a few years ago reminds us, even Arenas was forced to ride the pine for that first half of his rookie season...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEJglM7iuMs


    But again, it's moot now. We got Collison so well done Larry

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

      Heh nevermind, now the "Thanks" icon is showing up, I guess all I needed was 2 posts then haha.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

        I know that some people haven't been happy with some of Coach O'Brien's lineup decisions, but think back to the Chicago game last February as I touched upon in my case for O'Brien....

        5). Versus Chicago on 2/27/10, a Pacers win…. Indiana had just experienced some success with Murphy at center in the previous game vs. Milwaukee, so why not try it out again? Also---Two games prior at Chicago, with Hibbert starting at center, Brad Miller drained 2 threes in the first quarter alone as Chicago outscored Indiana 37 to 18. Clearly there was merit to the idea of saving Hibbert for situational relief later in the game, preferably when the team would not have to concern itself with cross-matching while worrying about Brad Miller on the perimeter… and Big Roy responded with a solid 12, 7 and 3 in 19 minutes.


        So... now I see people not pleased with the Houston loss and assigning blame to the coach... I think the difference in the game was Brad Miller, particularly his two threes in the fourth quarter. Even though Hibbert has definitely improved his agility, he is still going to struggle at times against bigs who shoot from the outside. I'm not here to be argumentative, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of the same people who were making a fuss out of O'Brien's decisions from a year ago to not match up Hibbert with shooting bigs like Miller, were probably also displeased that during the Houston game last Friday Hibbert was in the game at the start of the 4th quarter vs Miller when he drained the threes. So, as soon as Miller got hot, O'Brien pulled him and I think that was the correct move. And really--not having Yao Ming was likely a BENEFIT to Houston, since it meant that Hibbert and Miller would likely be matched up for longer stretches.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

          Originally posted by DonSwanson View Post
          I know that some people haven't been happy with some of Coach O'Brien's lineup decisions, but think back to the Chicago game last February as I touched upon in my case for O'Brien....

          5). Versus Chicago on 2/27/10, a Pacers win…. Indiana had just experienced some success with Murphy at center in the previous game vs. Milwaukee, so why not try it out again? Also---Two games prior at Chicago, with Hibbert starting at center, Brad Miller drained 2 threes in the first quarter alone as Chicago outscored Indiana 37 to 18. Clearly there was merit to the idea of saving Hibbert for situational relief later in the game, preferably when the team would not have to concern itself with cross-matching while worrying about Brad Miller on the perimeter… and Big Roy responded with a solid 12, 7 and 3 in 19 minutes.


          So... now I see people not pleased with the Houston loss and assigning blame to the coach... I think the difference in the game was Brad Miller, particularly his two threes in the fourth quarter. Even though Hibbert has definitely improved his agility, he is still going to struggle at times against bigs who shoot from the outside. I'm not here to be argumentative, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of the same people who were making a fuss out of O'Brien's decisions from a year ago to not match up Hibbert with shooting bigs like Miller, were probably also displeased that during the Houston game last Friday Hibbert was in the game at the start of the 4th quarter vs Miller when he drained the threes. So, as soon as Miller got hot, O'Brien pulled him and I think that was the correct move. And really--not having Yao Ming was likely a BENEFIT to Houston, since it meant that Hibbert and Miller would likely be matched up for longer stretches.
          A thinner and quicker McRoberts was the answer against Brad Miller in the game against Chicago that you referred to, with McRoberts being used at that time as more of a roving low post threat who used his quickness and hops to create a mismatch against Miller on both ends of the court. He is no longer being used that way, and his game is suffering mightily as a result. He obviously was no use against Miller, or anybody else, at the arc, and Roy was little to no use against Miller down low because Roy is both too light weight and has very little polish on his footwork in the low post despite his one and only week with Walton this summer.

          So, you would think our coach, having seen the Chicago game, would have used McRoberts in the way that mde him successful the previous time against a (literally) pivotal player who happens to be with the Rockets now, but, as usual, he failed to do so, and instead continued with his inflexible game plan where Josh is being played out of position in the high post to try to "stretch the court" when he is ill suited for that purpose.

          There is no longer Troy Murphy or Antoine Walker, the closest is James Posey, who predictably is beginning to see an increase in minutes and is soon to be inserted into that slot in the O'Brien system despite his overall hindrance to the team performance due to his slow feet defensively. He sometimes makes a good play, but many more times he simply avoids contact instead of attempting to reach, which reduces his fouling, but also renders him pretty ineffective defensively unless others are funneling driving players into him at the rim for charges.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

            Originally posted by DonSwanson View Post

            Thank you. Before sharing my opinion on the playing time of younger players, I think it's sometimes best to take a step back and to take more of a 500 foot view of things.

            Out of the 15 players taken in the 2nd half of the 2nd round of the 2009 draft (i.e., picks 46 through 60), only three are currently in the NBA... A.J. Price, Patrick Mills and Lester Hudson. Mills and Hudson have COMBINED appeared in 40 NBA games, zero starts. A.J. Price? 56 games played, 2 starts. It's interesting how different fans have completely different takeaways with respect to the playing time of a player like A.J. Price. I look at it and see it as another example of O'Brien keeping an open mind and demonstrating a willingness to let younger players receive more playing time (which again is why I invoked J.R. Bremer in my Case for JOB... granted I think Price is better than Bremer was, but that example is meant to remind people that actually on balance, O'Brien is pretty good about giving younger players an opportunity compared to other coaches). Meanwhile, some of the JOB bashers might look at the A.J. Price issue and say that O'Brien is a prick or whatever else, but actually, the amount of playing time that Price received is rather unusual.
            Here's the problem with that.
            Isn't perhaps the reason Price played more, because Price had no business being left on the draft table that late. The year before he was projected to go around 19th, before his knee injury.

            I'll go even further..Johnny Flynn was a lottery pick because of a six-overtime win over Uconn. Anyone who watched that game knew that Price had matched his effort, but just came up a little short. Flynn blasted up the draft charts..what happens if it's Uconn that wins that game? Then Price goes onto lead his team to the FF?

            A lot of things happen, and with Price in particular you have to watch and see what actually happened, because he had such a..strange college career.

            Part of my problem with O'brien, is that I feel he pays too much attention to statistics and theory, and doesn't pay attention to what is actually happening. The situation from last season was this:

            The Pacers were performing poorly.
            A major reason the Pacers were performing poorly was that the point guards were playing extermly poor basketball.
            A rookie, according to O'brien, was outplaying the vets in practice.

            It doesn't take a great basketball mind to understand what should have happened. Forget what was supposed to be happening..that vets should be better in games, that they should play well, and that second round rookies had no business being on the court ahead of two vets..

            Then he outplayed those two in games. How good was Price's rookie season? Well, if you want to look at stats, some things that O'brien likes...plus/minus. Did you know Price led all rookies in adjusted +/-? By a significant amount too. (Curry was second, and then there was a huge drop off) That's kind of hard to do when you play on a bad team. How about team record? Team record was significantly better with Price in the lineup than it was without him. You can look at a lot of advanced statistics that show Price's rookie season was in fact, quite good. (Impact stats, for example, rates him 13th overall http://www.hoopskarma.com/hk/2010/9/...act-stats.html And he should have been playing. )

            But even beyond numbers, this guy has yanked Price, specifically, around, when truly the logical thing to do is to play him. After you're drafted, it shouldn't be your draft number that matters, but rather how you play. The Pacers got lucky here, so long as AJ stays freak injury free, and it's silly not to take that gift. I don't know how you say to a player, multiple times "He's outplaying people, I'll give him more time" and then bench him.

            Obviously AJ is my favorite player on the team, but you just don't act in the way JOB has acted towards AJ, towards your players. I can accept that there might be something going on behind the scenes with Price (aka, explaining to AJ he's not gonna get time until the trade TJ) but that doesn't explain last year. This year is not something new.

            Originally posted by DonSwanson View Post
            And if folks don't care for playing older players--consider that if we don't play vets like Dunleavy and T.J. Ford then it's much less likely we will be able to deal them for our biggest need--a backup big--before the deadline. And I really don't trust Solo or Foster's health at this point. Posey has also been a solid player off the bench the last 2 games--his shot was off against Cleveland but I thought he made up for it on the defensive end.
            And that to me, is the only logical reason to be playing Ford ahead of Price right now. Problem is, I don't know that the "logical reason" is the reason.

            Sorry Mike Wells, Ford has been decent. He hasn't matched Price's preseason play. That's okay though, Slick, Stacy Paetz, and Dan Dakich prefer my guy, so I'll take their opinion. (slick in particular, might be a bigger fan that I am..)

            Originally posted by DonSwanson View Post
            I know a lot of people like to focus instead on soundbites from our coach... but I think that a lot of coaches can get a bit hyperbolic at times. Whether a person likes it or not, I think it's just O'Brien's way of recognizing and paying tribute to the hard work of some of the players.

            O'Brien on Price... "He's been our best player in preseason." (I took that to mean he was so impressed with how hard he worked to come back from his injury and was trying to go out of his way to express that).
            No, Price had been our best player to that point, and the game after JOB said this, he benched AJ in favor of Ford. Yes, Ford deserved his shot to EARN a rotation spot, but you didn't have to take Price out of the lineup to do that.

            As I've said, the guys know that Price earned minutes, and they see him on the bench. And quite frankly, it's typical of younger players to think something along the line of "I'm not playing because...coach doesn't like me" And not feel as if you earn playing time. All this situation does is give them ammo. Why? Because they look down the bench at Price in his suit and think "He worked his *** off to get back on the court, never has a bad practice (according to the coach) outperformed the two guys ahead of him in preseason (according to the coach), and he's still not playing because he's not the guy coach wants to play"

            or they look at Hibbert, who also worked his *** off all summer to get in shape, and notice that now..the second best player on the team, is not finishing games, because .....coach doesn't want him too.

            I'm not saying that is what they definitely are thinking. I'm saying that's what younger guys typically think. And it's a logical conclusion to make in this situation.

            But once again, there's no real explanation (other than showcasing) here. And truly, the Price situation is baffling. But Price him self is a strange situation. O'brien probably wouldn't be a bad coach if his theories and stats matched what was actually happening. And that was probably the case in Boston. But it's not here.
            Last edited by Sookie; 11-14-2010, 08:09 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
              A thinner and quicker McRoberts was the answer against Brad Miller in the game against Chicago that you referred to, with McRoberts being used at that time as more of a roving low post threat who used his quickness and hops to create a mismatch against Miller on both ends of the court. He is no longer being used that way, and his game is suffering mightily as a result. He obviously was no use against Miller, or anybody else, at the arc, and Roy was little to no use against Miller down low because Roy is both too light weight and has very little polish on his footwork in the low post despite his one and only week with Walton this summer.

              So, you would think our coach, having seen the Chicago game, would have used McRoberts in the way that mde him successful the previous time against a (literally) pivotal player who happens to be with the Rockets now, but, as usual, he failed to do so, and instead continued with his inflexible game plan where Josh is being played out of position in the high post to try to "stretch the court" when he is ill suited for that purpose.

              There is no longer Troy Murphy or Antoine Walker, the closest is James Posey, who predictably is beginning to see an increase in minutes and is soon to be inserted into that slot in the O'Brien system despite his overall hindrance to the team performance due to his slow feet defensively. He sometimes makes a good play, but many more times he simply avoids contact instead of attempting to reach, which reduces his fouling, but also renders him pretty ineffective defensively unless others are funneling driving players into him at the rim for charges.
              I was just talking about defense when citing that part (and it's hard for me to fault our adjustment in the 2/27 follow-up vs Chicago since we won that game!) We did have McRoberts matched up with Miller to close out the Houston game, right? We tried Hibbert on Miller again before that, but even with Hibbert's improved agility he still had his problems.

              This isn't totally related, but I heard a great interview on the radio last May between Jeff Van Gundy and Michael Reghi during the Boston-Cleveland series. Van Gundy was adamant that it is a mistake for coaches to "cross-match" on defense, and I'm guessing that a lot of coaches probably feel the same way. So that's what I mean by supporting O'Brien's decision to take Hibbert out of the game in the final stretch (as long as Miller was on the floor) and to put McRoberts at the 5. I know a lot of people may disagree with that but chalk it up to an honest disagreement I guess. As for the issue of how McRoberts should have gotten more playing time a year ago, I generally disagree with that as I discussed earlier. I see where you're coming from though. But I think O'Brien has been pretty clear that he doesn't want McRoberts to be Troy Murphy... Shoot the occasional three, sure, but his stated role is to run the floor, hustle, rebound, defend, make smart passes, etc. I personally feel that McRoberts may be better suited to a role off the bench if/when Hansbrough improves. In short, I miss Jeff Foster..

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                Here's the problem with that.
                Isn't perhaps the reason Price played more, because Price had no business being left on the draft table that late. The year before he was projected to go around 19th, before his knee injury.

                I'll go even further..Johnny Flynn was a lottery pick because of a six-overtime win over Uconn. Anyone who watched that game knew that Price had matched his effort, but just came up a little short. Flynn blasted up the draft charts..what happens if it's Uconn that wins that game? Then Price goes onto lead his team to the FF?

                A lot of things happen, and with Price in particular you have to watch and see what actually happened, because he had such a..strange college career.

                Part of my problem with O'brien, is that I feel he pays too much attention to statistics and theory, and doesn't pay attention to what is actually happening. The situation from last season was this:

                The Pacers were performing poorly.
                A major reason the Pacers were performing poorly was that the point guards were playing extermly poor basketball.
                A rookie, according to O'brien, was outplaying the vets in practice.

                It doesn't take a great basketball mind to understand what should have happened. Forget what was supposed to be happening..that vets should be better in games, that they should play well, and that second round rookies had no business being on the court ahead of two vets..

                Then he outplayed those two in games. How good was Price's rookie season? Well, if you want to look at stats, some things that O'brien likes...plus/minus. Did you know Price led all rookies in adjusted +/-? By a significant amount too. (Curry was second, and then there was a huge drop off) That's kind of hard to do when you play on a bad team. How about team record? Team record was significantly better with Price in the lineup than it was without him. You can look at a lot of advanced statistics that show Price's rookie season was in fact, quite good. (Impact stats, for example, rates him 13th overall http://www.hoopskarma.com/hk/2010/9/...act-stats.html And he should have been playing. )

                But even beyond numbers, this guy has yanked Price, specifically, around, when truly the logical thing to do is to play him. After you're drafted, it shouldn't be your draft number that matters, but rather how you play. The Pacers got lucky here, so long as AJ stays freak injury free, and it's silly not to take that gift. I don't know how you say to a player, multiple times "He's outplaying people, I'll give him more time" and then bench him.

                Obviously AJ is my favorite player on the team, but you just don't act in the way JOB has acted towards AJ, towards your players. I can accept that there might be something going on behind the scenes with Price (aka, explaining to AJ he's not gonna get time until the trade TJ) but that doesn't explain last year. This year is not something new.



                And that to me, is the only logical reason to be playing Ford ahead of Price right now. Problem is, I don't know that the "logical reason" is the reason.

                Sorry Mike Wells, Ford has been decent. He hasn't matched Price's preseason play. That's okay though, Slick, Stacy Paetz, and Dan Dakich prefer my guy, so I'll take their opinion. (slick in particular, might be a bigger fan that I am..)



                No, Price had been our best player to that point, and the game after JOB said this, he benched AJ in favor of Ford. Yes, Ford deserved his shot to EARN a rotation spot, but you didn't have to take Price out of the lineup to do that.

                As I've said, the guys know that Price earned minutes, and they see him on the bench. And quite frankly, it's typical of younger players to think something along the line of "I'm not playing because...coach doesn't like me" And not feel as if you earn playing time. All this situation does is give them ammo. Why? Because they look down the bench at Price in his suit and think "He worked his *** off to get back on the court, never has a bad practice (according to the coach) outperformed the two guys ahead of him in preseason (according to the coach), and he's still not playing because he's not the guy coach wants to play"

                or they look at Hibbert, who also worked his *** off all summer to get in shape, and notice that now..the second best player on the team, is not finishing games, because .....coach doesn't want him too.

                I'm not saying that is what they definitely are thinking. I'm saying that's what younger guys typically think. And it's a logical conclusion to make in this situation.

                But once again, there's no real explanation (other than showcasing) here.
                I'm not trying to say you're wrong for viewing it that way. Thank you also for providing some extra context. And definitely, I was aware that Price performed well and saw it as well. I'm not disputing that.

                My point in citing draft orders is not as something absolute, just as a guide. Which is why I say, O'Brien's willingness to play Price 56 games a year ago was somewhat unusual for a guy picked that late--and it follows a trend of O'Brien giving players like Kedrick Brown, J.R. Bremer, and Travis Diener an opportunity. Now clearly you thought he should have been playing more than he did and that he should be playing right now. All that I'm trying to show is that this rhetoric I sometimes see of O'Brien "ruining" younger players is off base imo. Whether you think it's fair or not, usually coaches won't include in the rotation players that are drafted that late ahead of veterans like T.J. Ford (heck, many don't even make the team)--and that can't be an easy thing for a coach to play a 2nd round pick over a guy whose salary is 16 times higher--yet O'Brien responded to the reality that Price was playing well and was probably better than his draft order indicated, and thus decided to give him a chance. Maybe he didn't play as much as you would have liked... but I think there is a middle ground here in acknowledging that O'Brien at least gave the kid a shot which is more than you can say about a lot of coaches. And I'm OK with Ford right now, he's been a decent backup for us. Hopefully we can get another big for him because I'd prefer we keep Dunleavy for the full season.

                And I'll say something else in defense of your favorite player... I think he can handle this adversity. He's clearly a mentally tough guy to rehab the way he did over the summer.... But there's just a disconnect for me I guess. I look at how hard some of these players work, and how some people will then generally criticize O'Brien for somewhat vague things like how he's supposedly not good at installing the proper culture or whatever... Just doesn't make sense to me. Oh well.

                When people talk about how a lot of these players may not like playing for O'Brien, it sort of reminds me of school... If you've ever had a teacher who was rather strict and no-nonsense, it's probably true that you probably didn't always enjoy being in their class compared to a teacher (or coach like Kurt Rambis) who is probably more laid back in comparison... But after the fact you realize, "Hey, that guy forced me to prepare more than what I was used to or than i would have otherwise... I didn't always like it, but it made me better." I mean, isn't it supposed to be uncomfortable? Isn't that an important part of the developmental process? It's the same thing when people talk about not always enjoying their experience playing with Kobe Bryant... I'm sure it's a chore, and some like Smush Parker have admitted that he didn't particularly care for it... but playing with a guy like that only forces everyone else to step up their games otherwise he'll be all over them about it, and I think this makes everyone around him better. Since we don't have a player like Kobe here, this is another reason why I think it's important to have a no-nonsense coach like O'Brien in here to hold down the fort. That's my pop psychology take on it anyways.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: comments from an O'brien supporter - warning its lengthy

                  Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                  So, you would think our coach, having seen the Chicago game, would have used McRoberts in the way that mde him successful the previous time against a (literally) pivotal player who happens to be with the Rockets now, but, as usual, he failed to do so, and instead continued with his inflexible game plan where Josh is being played out of position in the high post to try to "stretch the court" when he is ill suited for that purpose.
                  Where should McRoberts be played? What's his position, in which way he was used that made him successful? In the low block? When did that happen?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X