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

Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

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

  • #46
    Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

    Originally posted by hoops_guy View Post
    I don't think Wes Johnson or Evan Turner are ever going to be that good. Wes doesn't have the "it" factor and he's too passive-now of course that could change and he has plenty of time-, and Evan Turner just lacks quickness and the jumpshot.

    But I will be rooting for them.

    Now for Wall, he'll have many years of 20 ppg and 10 assists as long as he has a big like JaVale to rack up the dimes. But in my biased opinion, again very biased because I've been watching his games since his freshmen year, George will be a guy that can average 30, 7, 6, 2, and 2. Once again, very biased and extreme opinion so don't bother quoting me about it because I am in the extreme minority.

    However, if anyone feels how I feel about George let me know.
    Ya i've watch him since his freshman year also and i have the same opinion you do. I dont know if he will ever live up to what i see in his game. But the guy is so skilled and has one of the best jump shots ive seen. I cant wait till he shoots like he did at Fresno. Once he learns the NBA game he will get to the line at will and the rim. He is gonna be a really special player. I think he will also ave 8-10 FT attempts per game when he hits his prime.



    How many times did u watch him at fresno?? i saw him 15+ i dont know for sure.
    Last edited by pacer4ever; 01-06-2011, 10:23 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

      Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
      Ya i've watch him since his freshman year also and i have the same opinion you do. I dont know if he will ever live up to what i see in his game. But the guy is so skilled and has one of the best jump shots ive seen. I cant wait till he shoots like he did at Fresno. Once he learns the NBA game he will get to the line at will and the rim. He is gonna be a really special player. I think he will also ave 8-10 FT attempts per game when he hits his prime.



      How many times did u watch him at fresno?? i saw him 15+ i dont know for sure.
      I have some family in California so I watched all college teams when I went on a trip to help her decide where to go and what to pursue. Since I'm obsessed with basketball, I spent my downtime watching primarily Fresno and UCLA. I was super intrigued by George, Jrue Holiday, and too a lesser extent Collison (Funny considering that two of the three are on the team) so when I got back to Indy I kept watching them.

      Jrue is looking good right now and I'd expect him to take a while to click. Darren is a very good player who uses hops and creating ability to do his thing and would average 18 and 8 if we had a PnP or PnR player (that is why I stress that we need David West, Anthony Randolph, or Kevin Love so much).

      But I see something different in George. The tools, IQ, silky smoothness, youth, shot creating ability, AND the "it" factor. Wow. I saw him in his ups and downs and I started telling my friends to watch out for him. He does all the little things too; something that Danny doesn't do (uses his left hand, knows the extra pass, does TD passes, amazing gambling ability, good rebounding instincts). I saw him play about half of his freshmen year and most of his sophomore year.

      I have a mancrush with his outside shot; it's the prettiest stroke in the league besides Ray Allen when he takes his time and Kobe when he doesn't fade away on wide open shots. He flat out fills the stat sheets and he isn't even close to as turnover prone as I thought he'd be at the pros coming out of the gate. He gets steals, rebounds, and blocks which would get most guys playing time for energy but he also scores. Just wait until he gets it going.
      We need better than solid. No JJ Redicks, Andray Blatche, Mike Dunleavy type guys to have big roles on our team.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

        Originally posted by hoops_guy View Post
        I have some family in California so I watched all college teams when I went on a trip to help her decide where to go and what to pursue. Since I'm obsessed with basketball, I spent my downtime watching primarily Fresno and UCLA. I was super intrigued by George, Jrue Holiday, and too a lesser extent Collison (Funny considering that two of the three are on the team) so when I got back to Indy I kept watching them.

        Jrue is looking good right now and I'd expect him to take a while to click. Darren is a very good player who uses hops and creating ability to do his thing and would average 18 and 8 if we had a PnP or PnR player (that is why I stress that we need David West, Anthony Randolph, or Kevin Love so much).

        But I see something different in George. The tools, IQ, silky smoothness, youth, shot creating ability, AND the "it" factor. Wow. I saw him in his ups and downs and I started telling my friends to watch out for him. He does all the little things too; something that Danny doesn't do (uses his left hand, knows the extra pass, does TD passes, amazing gambling ability, good rebounding instincts). I saw him play about half of his freshmen year and most of his sophomore year.

        I have a mancrush with his outside shot; it's the prettiest stroke in the league besides Ray Allen when he takes his time and Kobe when he doesn't fade away on wide open shots. He flat out fills the stat sheets and he isn't even close to as turnover prone as I thought he'd be at the pros coming out of the gate. He gets steals, rebounds, and blocks which would get most guys playing time for energy but he also scores. Just wait until he gets it going.
        Thats what I see it sets him apart from most players i scout. That "It" factor



        I didnt think he would be to turnover prone coming out simply because he is playing with so much better players. No offense but he was all Fresno had he had to do everything and i mean everything thats why he over dribbled so much. Im just glad he started playing AAU so late and SG/SF late and went to Fresno or he would have been a top 5 pick.

        Ya i know he was in a funk in SL and still aved 17 (i think) .When he settles in to the NBA all im saying is watch out he will be scary good.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

          Originally posted by hoops_guy View Post
          I don't think Wes Johnson or Evan Turner are ever going to be that good. Wes doesn't have the "it" factor and he's too passive-now of course that could change and he has plenty of time-, and Evan Turner just lacks quickness and the jumpshot.

          But I will be rooting for them.

          Now for Wall, he'll have many years of 20 ppg and 10 assists as long as he has a big like JaVale to rack up the dimes. But in my biased opinion, again very biased because I've been watching his games since his freshmen year, George will be a guy that can average 30, 7, 6, 2, and 2. Once again, very biased and extreme opinion so don't bother quoting me about it because I am in the extreme minority.

          However, if anyone feels how I feel about George let me know.
          First off, holy smokes with the Paul prediction, or whatever you wanna call it. My best case scenario when we drafted him to me was probably 23-25 points, 5 rebounds, 3 assists, 1 block, 1 steal. I didn't watch him much until leading up to draft time. I was more or less hoping for Andre Iguodala. Watching him in an Indiana uniform I think he can rebound, block shots and get more steals than I originally thought. He also has some serious potential as a defender. I've got a man crush, it's safe to say. However 30 points per? Whew, that's elite. In the time I've seen you post, I haven't seen anything I'd consider outrageous or crazy, so I'm a bit shocked. I hope you're right.

          In the case of Evan Turner, it took him a while to get it going in college too. I think the step up to the NBA will be similar. It will take him a minute to figure out ways to overcome his lack of elite athleticism. I think it will happen, but it may take a couple years.

          For Wall, I don't think it matters who he plays with, he'll get those assists, especially as he gets his jump shot figured out. His quickness will be magnified and even more of a weapon (that's scary).

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

            Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
            First off, holy smokes with the Paul prediction, or whatever you wanna call it. My best case scenario when we drafted him to me was probably 23-25 points, 5 rebounds, 3 assists, 1 block, 1 steal. I didn't watch him much until leading up to draft time. I was more or less hoping for Andre Iguodala. Watching him in an Indiana uniform I think he can rebound, block shots and get more steals than I originally thought. He also has some serious potential as a defender. I've got a man crush, it's safe to say. However 30 points per? Whew, that's elite. In the time I've seen you post, I haven't seen anything I'd consider outrageous or crazy, so I'm a bit shocked. I hope you're right.
            Yeah, but once again I'm biased when it comes to him since I have emotions attached to watching him play and rooting for him. Never seen anything like it though. He's got the total package and insane shot creation ability. That is what is going to set him apart from most guys like Danny, Paul Pierce, etc. and move him into the Wade, Kobe tier. And no I am not being hyperbolic; I mean all these words that I am typing. I won't be one to say ridiculous things or whatever, I'm not even an "optimistic" type of person. But Paul George will be a hell of a player.

            In the case of Evan Turner, it took him a while to get it going in college too. I think the step up to the NBA will be similar. It will take him a minute to figure out ways to overcome his lack of elite athleticism. I think it will happen, but it may take a couple years.
            The thing that worries me though is his size. In college he was bigger than most guys guarding him and he used his body as leverage. That doesn't happen anymore. He'll be a solid player for sure and I'm a bit suprised that he isn't all that at all right now.

            For Wall, I don't think it matters who he plays with, he'll get those assists, especially as he gets his jump shot figured out. His quickness will be magnified and even more of a weapon (that's scary).
            Wall will be a handful for every team in the league once he gets the jumper going. He has the form to and it will improve with some work.
            .
            We need better than solid. No JJ Redicks, Andray Blatche, Mike Dunleavy type guys to have big roles on our team.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

              The first time I saw Paul play wasn't on purpose. I was flipping channels( I have an insane amount of B ball games om my cable package)The first time i saw him shoot was when i said I "Holy **** that is the sexiest jumper i've ever seen". Then I started tuning into more Fresno games and just fell in love with the way he plays the game. I dont know if he will ever ave 30,7,6. But i see him aving 26 ,7 ,4 ,2 steals, 1 block at during his prime.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

                I have no idea what he'll end up averaging (assuming healthy), but I will say I see a ton of ability in this kid.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

                  I'm just hoping Paul stays consistent in the effort on defense. I thought Granger had great potential as a defender once upon a time too. I remember very early in his rookie year Granger was playing some wicked defense and Dwayne Wade went for a turn around near the FT line, and Granger came out of nowhere to make him eat it.

                  Granger's been better this year defensively, but still hasn't been what I hoped early in his career.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

                    K people on this board are blatantly disregarding how good of a player Danny is! He is clearly in the upper region of players in the league. Now what u seem to be looking at is the fact that his shot selection and defense are lacking a lot of the time...well I'm sorry to tell u those things can be fixed. That's his basketball decision and iq which with the right coach can change. I mean seriously he can play three different position if needed the only other players that can do that are the elite like:

                    Durant who can probably play 4
                    LeBron
                    Smith

                    ... And for now that's all I can think of. You jus can't find a player like Danny he is a Superstar and very close to Perennial All-Star/Franchise Player. I bet u that u guys would rather have him than Devin Harris who was in trade discussions, Kevin Martin, Jameson and so on. If you take the best player on most of the temas around the league I guarantee u Danny wins over 50% of the time maybe 60-70. He is a great player that we thought we couldn't even get so be thankful and when he gets more talent around him then we can judge. Plus he's been very clutch for us many times accepted a contract that's beneath him and his been very patient. I guess my point is I would rather have him on my team then without him because if u were to take Danny out via fa these team would be horribly worst so give the man his props! Thank You

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

                      Wade, LeBron, Kobe, Durant, Howard, Dirk, Manu...

                      To me those guys - and certainly some others I'm leaving out - are in the superstar discussion. I don't see DG in that strata. Maybe the next one down. He just doesn't have the impact and consistency to be in that discussion at this point.

                      I also feel his offensive game is fairly one dimensional in comparison. He has made some strides driving the ball, but he's essentially a shooter. He's still struggles with handles and passing in those situations. His defense could be better, too.

                      I'm glad to have DG. Like him a lot. But he can't affect a game and raise his team's overall level of play to the degree to the guys I consider superstars. Could be that the issue is purely semantic, but that's where I stand on DG relative to elite players in the league.
                      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                      -Emiliano Zapata

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

                        Your right and your wrong too. For one those players u mention are very special, rare players that don't cone around often and what I labeled franchise/ perennial all stars. But like u said dg is one level below them with like Ellis, and others but...yeah

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

                          Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                          ... I thought it might be fun to look at our players and see where they fall in the pantheon of NBA players at each position.
                          ...
                          , no wonder the pacers suck. right now, our players are not very good. I do not think any coach, including larry brown, could win with this bunch. to have more wins, the pacers need better players, or the player they have now have to get much much much better.
                          They have had some real good wins this year; now we’ll see how they respond to adversity. Even with Danny Granger playing like an average NBA player and an apparent inability for the team to make open shots they are the seventh seed in the East, so making the playoffs is within their grasp.

                          One thing has been a constant: team defense has been very, very good. That tells you that the players are on the same page as the coach.

                          "Your contribution as a coach is defending and rebounding." - Dick Motta

                          Originally posted by IndySDExport View Post
                          I don't think ... we will win 60 games by firing JOB.

                          I do think it will improve the team by:
                          1. creating stable rotations which will create more consistent playing time and thus more consistent play.
                          2. providing playing time to younger players who need to develop if they are ever expected to perform like we would like them to.
                          3. Move the offense from a spread PF 3 point shooting non-sensical cluster ****.
                          4. Improve team morale (I don't think any of our players enjoy playing for this guy.)
                          5. Allow the point guards to play to there strengths.
                          6. Maybe allow the team to run a pick or roll or 2

                          We won't be an elite team, but at least our players may play up to their potential or develop, which is not happening under JOB.
                          Unlike most critiques of Jim O’Brien, this one is at least systematic; on the other hand, like most such critiques, it is short on specifics or real-world justifications. It’s been my experience in the past that when invited to add such specifics and justifications, posters have either failed to do so or offered “facts” in support of their opinions that were demonstrably wrong. At the risk of wasting time, I’m going to address each of your points in turn.

                          Originally posted by IndySDExport View Post
                          I don't think ... we will win 60 games by firing JOB.
                          On this we agree.

                          Originally posted by IndySDExport View Post
                          1. creating stable rotations which will create more consistent playing time and thus more consistent play.
                          Here’s an exchange from Hollinger’s chat last week that is pretty close to my take on this.

                          Cole (Indianapolis)
                          Is Jim O'brien on the hot seat? With the recent Pacers struggles it would seem so, since the Pacers are a talented team.

                          John Hollinger**(2:51 PM)
                          Really? To me they're a bunch of half-good players. Danny Granger isn't playing well, and that has nothing to do with O'Brien's rotations or anything else -- he's just not having a good year. You can argue that Collison should be playing more, and that Solomon Jones should be playing less, but really ... when you have a bunch of players who are roughly as good as each other, the rotation is going to change a lot depending on match-ups.

                          TJ Ford has been much better defensively than Collison, though the offense has been so poor that Collison is at least finishing games now.

                          As for “stable rotations”, I guess if I’m a coach I’ve got to be confident that a guy is going to deliver on a regular schedule. What you’re really asking for is for guys to be handed minutes they haven’t earned. I’ll say more about how poisonous this is later.

                          As for consistent playing time, I don’t see a problem. The guys with promise are getting plenty of minutes.

                          Originally posted by IndySDExport View Post
                          2. providing playing time to younger players who need to develop if they are ever expected to perform like we would like them to.
                          This seems to be the most common argument for firing the coach, at least nowadays. It’s interesting, by the way, that that old standby accusation “no D” isn’t showing up anymore; fans have heard tell that the Pacers are a good defensive team now, and that particular canard can’t be found in the duckyard anymore. As I write this, the Pacers are currently sixth, per possession (their ranking went UP in the loss to San Antonio, the top offensive team in the league).

                          Back to playing the young players - anyone with a functioning pre-frontal cortex can recognize that you’ve got to develop a future the team, and the most precious time (but not at all the only precious time) is on-court time.

                          The question might be asked: who’s gotten minutes on this team? Minutes per game:

                          Danny Granger
                          Brandon Rush
                          Mike Dunleavy
                          Darren Collison
                          Roy Hibbert
                          Josh McRoberts
                          TJ Ford

                          This ranking looks about right, and younger players are definitely getting theirs. Tyler and Paul George have been getting burn lately, too, and despite their inexperience, as coach is looking for someone to step up.

                          Originally posted by IndySDExport View Post
                          3. Move the offense from a spread PF 3 point shooting non-sensical cluster ****.
                          (The usual term is “stretch 4” nowadays, though your term would actually be more consistent with the “spread the floor” terminology.)

                          Since the only thing concrete that you’ve identified here is that the Pacers use a big to space the floor with three-point shooting, I’m going to have to assume that that is what you’re basing your criticism on. Of course it’s really ironic that you use the “cluster *” analogy, since the whole point is to spread the players out and get a big defender out of the paint, rather than bunch them together, but whatever.

                          In fact, almost every team in the league uses a stretch big (either 4 or 5), and all the playoff teams did last year, with the exceptions of Denver and Atlanta. After the hard fall on the tailbone that the Nuggets got in the playoffs, I note with interest, they went out and got Al Harrington, who at this point in his career is mainly a 4. Atlanta fired their coach, and now Josh Smith has already shot 71 threes on the year, compared to 7 in 81 games last season.

                          Not only that, but if you look at the minutes of the stretch bigs who played for playoff teams, all of them were in the top five on their team in minutes except for Rasheed, who was sixth.

                          So you may find that to be “non-sensical”, but it’s a kind of nonsense that the coaches of the successful teams around the league think is working for them.

                          Originally posted by IndySDExport View Post
                          4. Improve team morale (I don't think any of our players enjoy playing for this guy.)
                          “This guy”? Sounds like contempt to me. But if you’re going to adopt that attitude, I’d like to know on what real-world basis you make this claim. Otherwise, you’re just another self-important guy who can talk all about why someone else in the world is a worthless parasite (or would that still be true even if you had a justification for your claim? Prove me wrong).

                          I’m not privy to their locker room conversation myself, but I’ll give you one decisive counterargument: they play defense for him. When a coach loses a team, team defense is the first thing that goes. What’s happening is the opposite of that: a big-time buy-in on team defense.

                          Originally posted by IndySDExport View Post
                          5. Allow the point guards to play to there strengths.
                          Again, I’d like to know on what real-world basis you make this claim. Looks to me as though playing Collison off the ball is a brilliant way to use his speed and ability to shoot; if you were thinking of something else, you again have not been either concrete or specific.

                          Originally posted by IndySDExport View Post
                          6. Maybe allow the team to run a pick or roll or 2
                          It often seems clear that fans of a particular team don’t watch the rest of the league; but sometimes I can’t help wondering if they even watch their own team.

                          Originally posted by IndySDExport View Post
                          We won't be an elite team, but at least our players may play up to their potential or develop, which is not happening under JOB.
                          This is an astonishing claim. Players are not developing? Are you actually going to say that Roy Hibbert has not developed? I emphatically disagree. Josh McRoberts? Danny Granger went from being a 14 pts-a-game scorer to being a 25-a-game All-Star. People rag on Brandon Rush, but he’s come a long way - it now looks like he’ll be an NBA rotation player through a long career; his first four months in the league had a lot of people calling him a bust.

                          I could go on, but I don’t think that I need to persuade most people of this.


                          Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                          I think this team can be like the Bucks.
                          We don't need a superstar player to make us a good playoff team. We need a good coach who is willing to work with the young players we have and run a system that suits everyone and one where we let the PG (DC) play like he knows and slow it down on the offense.
                          I agree that Indiana doesn’t need a superstar to make them a good playoff team. Given the money situation, it’d better be true, and it’s obviously what Larry Bird is counting on. I take it that you mean that Granger is not a superstar, by the way, and I agree with that, too, though not everyone does around here. Bird is also counting on the current roster becoming good enough to attract a superstar, though, because his goal is to play for a championship, and in the end why would you want anything else? When it comes to Larry Bird, I know the answer to that question.

                          What makes you so sure that the system doesn’t suit Collison? Looks to me on the contrary as though it’s maximizing his strengths. He hasn’t shot well, but he’s getting to the line more and turning it over substantially less (per possession). The turnover problem is something that simply has got to be solved if Indiana is going to have at least an average offense, and Collison was frankly awful at taking care of the ball in his rookie year.


                          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                          We need to see a traditional offense and we need to see these players, along with the Rookies, in it in order to evaluate them and in order for them to learn from their mistakes.
                          Huh? Why would a “traditional” offense, whatever that means, help players to learn from their mistakes, or for that matter to be evaluated? Sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense.


                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          Posey, Dun, Foster and TJ aren't apart of this team for very much longer.
                          Not at their current contracts, at any rate. Larry Bird has said, however, that he would consider re-signing his expirings for different (presumably lower) amounts, so there is a good chance that one or more of this group will be staying.

                          Of those you mentioned, I think that TJ is least likely to stay. It’s obvious that the coaching staff loves AJ Price, but he can’t get court time with TJ getting 20 minutes a night; he’s caught in the proverbial “numbers game.” Most rosters carry three points in case of disaster, and it’s far from clear that Lance Stephenson has a future as a point guard or for that matter a future with the Pacers; but third string point guards are not the dearest commodity in the pro basketball world.

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          They aren't going to learn from their mistakes, and they aren't going to help us win anything more than our younger players will. Why are they playing?
                          Your premise is clearly mistaken (that the vets won’t help the Pacers win more than the younger players), but beyond that they have a lot to teach the younger players, both on and off the court. Mike Dunleavy in particular is an ideal mentor.

                          I’ve followed other teams through re-building (successful and otherwise), and I’m here to tell you that, predictable as the tide, fans clamor to have their favorite idealized young players get handed minutes that they haven’t earned, because of what they think that they could be. Even if fans correctly see the potential, they usually don’t see the bad team defense, the missed assignments, the poor spacing, and all the bad things that young guys do to hurt a team. Yes, a guy with potential (like Collison, who is learning on the job), should get some burn. But if you talk to people around the league, especially to coaches, you’ll find an overwhelming agreement - overwhelming, there’s no other word - that players should earn their precious court time.

                          Anything else undermines the team short-term and long-term; it undermines management’s relationships with agents and your ability to sign those all-important veteran role players when it comes time to contend; it poisons your locker room because you need those vets to be leaders for you... the list of things goes on, but I’m not writing a book.

                          But in fact, Peck, you’re going even farther than that! You don’t even want the vets getting on the floor at all! Sorry, but you’re not going to convince me that decades of NBA wisdom should be turned 180 degrees without a better argument than you’ve made.


                          Originally posted by HOOPFANATIC View Post
                          I think the fact is we have quality team oriented guys ...
                          I do, too. Kudos to Larry Bird for that. Stephenson may be an exception, but the risk/reward ratio is pretty favorable on him and his contract.

                          Interesting also to note that Bird has repeatedly given credit to O’Brien for “changing the culture of the team”. Also note how damn good the team defense is - you don’t get that with a bad coach.

                          Originally posted by HOOPFANATIC View Post
                          I don't see how any honest appraisal of how good our players are can be made by a simple comparison to where they rank by position.
                          This is a worthy argument, one that I for one am sympathetic to. It’s also the primary critique of a lot of the modern statistical approaches to personnel development. But a more fundamental issue is: is it even possible to rank players by position “by a simple comparison”, to use your words.

                          Nevertheless, it’s the kind of calculation that goes on every day with league management, with the important difference that they have the power to pull the trigger. And, I think that you will have to agree with me that there is no doubt that some players are better than others, and that their skill-level usually translates pretty well, for the most part, from team to team.

                          What’s remarkable - and this is what moved me to respond to xIndyFan’s thread, is that the Pacers are as good as they are, given their players.


                          Originally posted by DaveP63 View Post
                          Because they (the younger players) are either the problem or the solution. We need to determine which. In order to do that, we need somebody who will make a roatation and stick to it. Worry less about matchups and worry more about seeing what's there to work with.
                          Why do you think that “what’s there to work with” can’t be seen? And I don’t buy your argument that you need to “make a roatation and stick to it” in order to do that. The coaches work with the players every day; why would their games for some reason be a mystery to men who are used to evaluating and training young talent? More importantly right now: why would sticking with a rotation when it’s not working be somehow a virtue? Asking the question is to answer it.

                          Originally posted by DaveP63 View Post
                          Right now I think he's trying to ride the veterans to the best possible record (I can't blame him for that. It's his job to win games, bottom line) and the rest of it be damned.
                          I agree that it’s his job to win games - beyond that, his boss Larry Bird has repeatedly stated the same. But he’s hardly “riding the veterans”! Should he not be playing Danny Granger? Rush gets the second most minutes, Collison, Hibbert, and McRoberts are fourth, fifth, and sixth. Are you calling them veterans? Probably not. In fact, “riding the veterans” to the contrary, he’s playing a variety of players both young and old rotation minutes.


                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I will count the number of pick and rolls the pacers run against the spurs. Anyone want to set the over/under. I think it is a lot more than most realize. Probably should count for 3 or 4 games just so we get a good number. I will count every pick and roll they run whether it is on a delayed fastbreak situation or if they run 2 or 3 on one play.
                          So? What were your results? O’Brien wants what he calls “random pick and rolls” out of the “organized chaos” - he wants to scramble the defense to open up driving lanes and create mismatches; so you should expect to see more pick and rolls in a long possession. Are you going to include pick and pop/fade?


                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          But the problem is at power forward and center. I love Foster but he is old and cannot physically play many minutes. Josh just isn't very good - on 75% of the NBA teams he is a 10th man at best. Roy is a decent starter, but if he is your best big guy you are in big big big trouble.
                          I think you’re a little harsh here, but the biggest difference in our opinions here, I think, is that I’m looking at the upside, and both Josh and Roy have got plenty.

                          Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                          I think both Hibbert and Collinson are better than they have looked lately, the system does not take advantage of their talents. They both also have the potential to improve a lot.

                          Hibbert: from the couple games I've been able to watch, the P's are absolutely TERRIBLE at feeding the post. He's a low post player, but the other players don't have the ability to get him the ball there.
                          So... your argument is that because the Pacers can’t get him the ball, he shouldn’t be used in the low post? You’re saying he’s not being used right, so that’s the only possible conclusion to make from your post. I don’t agree, by the way.

                          Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                          We all know how good Granger is, he is just in a funk, as are most of the players. Again I think this has to do with the system.
                          More vagueness. Do you have any concrete reason why you think that? Doesn’t that also have to mean that you think the system was great for him two years ago, when he was an All-Star?


                          Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                          The real question is this though? How do we go about finding the other 6 needed to compete? The "3 year plan" has thus far provided 1 quality guy every 2 years.

                          So at the Current rate, assuming everyone resigns and stays healthy. We should be able to compete in or around 2022-2024.

                          The trick is for us REAL FANS to stay patient.
                          Given what else is in your post, the last line is really ironic. The REAL Pacers fan can be patient until 2022... or later!!!

                          I do disagree with you, though.


                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          Right now we have the talent to be a solid playoff team (seeds 3-6)...

                          If we kept who we have with additions this team would be bordering on elite with the talent.
                          I just can’t agree that the Pacers’ talent is that good - you’re claiming that they have the talent to be the third seed, RIGHT NOW??!!! Better than Orlando/Boston, one of whom is likely to be the third seed at this point? Better than Chicago? Atlanta? Those are some rose-colored glasses you’re wearing, and God bless you for it.

                          On the other hand, I can agree with you that “with additions” the “team would be bordering on elite”; but does that really say much?


                          Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                          Granger, Hibby and Collison are the 3. Nobody else sees the court on a good team.

                          You really don't think this team has the talent to be a top 3 team in the East do you? I honestly think the level is much closer to Bottom 3 in the east and bottom 5-7 overall. Similar to what its been for 5-6 years now.
                          I think that you’ve got an argument here, as long as you don’t consider the potential that the Pacers’ young players have, and as long as you don’t include team defense in the equation. As I write this, the P’s are sixth in the league, per possession, in defense - and given how young they are, the potential to be even better is clearly there.

                          To my mind, that’s the best argument for what a great job Jim O’Brien has done.

                          Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                          On a good team Brandon Rush will play a Bruce Bowen role off the bench at least. Hit open 3's, and play defense. Except Brandon is a better rebounder and shot blocker than Bowen.
                          He’s also a better FT shooter, but the bar in this case is very very low - Brandon has just got to get better at that. On the plus side, he is finally diversifying his offense and putting it on the deck once in a while, and even getting to the line a lot more - meaning that he’s already expanding beyond a Bruce Bowen role.

                          Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                          I think Dunleavy gets time on a good team as well. Despite what people complain about on here, I'd guess coaches would love a guy who was raised by a coach and understands the correct way to play the game.
                          I love watching him play, and I think that it’s invaluable to have him on the team, showing the younger guys how to do it right. At this point, though, he’s only average, and it’s not clear that he’ll ever regain what he had before the surgeries.


                          Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                          We don't really know yet what we have with Roy... to be elite, we may need a starter in front of him...
                          Usually people on this board are over-valuing him, as though he’s already arrived. I think that to the contrary you’re undervaluing him. This is one of those situations where it depends what the definition of “is” is - as in, he can be very good, but he’s not there yet. One thing looks certain: whatever his ceiling is, he’s going to reach it.

                          In fact, I think we really do know what we have in Roy Hibbert, but he has only begun to fulfill on it. He can post up from both low blocks, and has a varied repertoire there. He can shoot the 15-18, though he has not done that very well in games; that’s a matter of time and touches. He’s an excellent passer for a big man, so you can run offense through him. There have been stretches this season when that has worked well. He can block shots and play excellent team defense; he talks, and his lateral movement and anticipation are hugely improved. His work ethic is outstanding, his leadership ditto.

                          He’s had a bad month - well, welcome to rebuilding; he’s a young guy with a lot of new responsibilities on his shoulders. He’ll get there, there’s a lot of cause for optimism. His demotion was overdue, but it is definitely not permanent.

                          It may be unprecedented for a center who went to college four years and got taken at 18 to come so far so fast, and still have big upside. I’ve got my fingers crossed for him.

                          Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                          There is no guarantee that George will be a solid starter if Rush cannot gain consistency.
                          I’m going to give you that guarantee, and despite his own recent inconsistency. Brandon Rush’s development, by the way, is nicely on track.

                          Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                          I would guess that 3 years from now, half or more of our roster will have been replaced.
                          For most teams with this roster, in this phase of the cycle, I’d say that that was a sure bet; on the other hand, though, Larry seems to be very conservative in this respect (he’s the anti-Don Nelson, you might say) - but I still think that you’ll be proved right. the whole point is to develop tradeable assets that either fit going forward or can be plugged into a trade for a star player.


                          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                          In 3 yrs Paul will be = with danny or slightly above. He is a pure scorer and to me Danny is just a really great shooter.
                          There’s that ******* term “Pure Scorer” again. “Pure Shooter” makes sense, but “Pure Scorer”?! I don’t think so. Nevertheless, it was being used by insiders in the league as long ago as the 1980’s, so I can’t blame you too much (usually it was ironic, though, used for a guy who wouldn’t pass). If it’s used seriously I guess it means something like, “a guy with a complete offensive game, who can shoot from all angles and ranges, standstill or off the dribble, with either hand, who gets to the line and shoots over 80%...”, or something like that. But Paul George is definitely not that, not yet, and may never be. Again, I have my fingers crossed.

                          Paul George is going to be an elite defender, and, especially important in today’s game, he’s going to be a first-class team defender. Yes, he got suckered by Manu last night, but rookies are going to take their lumps. Book it, he’s going to be very, very good on D.

                          Originally posted by sunsun View Post
                          I dont think Rush still is a BruceBowen-kinds of player any more...
                          In this season..except his consistent defence, his has many layup and mid-distance shot on offence this year...
                          Great point - the coaching staff were prodding him to develop his offensive game off the dribble and to get into more open spaces on the floor since his first year; remember that he put in a lot of time with them on his handles in the 2008 off-season. Finally he’s starting to bring that onto the court.

                          I haven’t heard anyone mention the huge amount of work he’s done on his body this year.

                          Also - once again, he’s getting the second-most minutes on the team. The Pacers are currently sixth in team defense; he and his minutes are a big reason.


                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          Although it would depend on the specific situation I think many of the elite teams would find McRoberts to be very useful for about 20 minutes a game....

                          On average I would not consider a 3 seed to be elite. They may be competing for a championship, but they are not favorites.
                          You are plainly saying that McRoberts would be playing 20 minutes on a second seed or better, right now, since you think he can do that and you call an elite team better than a third seed. Wow. I’ll just keep it simple: you’re wrong.

                          Josh is a work in progress, and I don’t mean to diminish the huge progress he’s made. He’s got a much better body this year, and obviously he’s worked his way into the rotation by working on that and his skills. Yes, he’s been hugely turnover-prone this season; yes, he’s a mediocre rebounder. But we forget how young he still is. Some day, you may be right - but definitely not now, and not this season.


                          Originally posted by hoops_guy View Post
                          But I see something different in George. The tools, IQ, silky smoothness, youth, shot creating ability, AND the "it" factor. Wow. I saw him in his ups and downs and I started telling my friends to watch out for him. He does all the little things too; something that Danny doesn't do (uses his left hand, knows the extra pass, does TD passes, amazing gambling ability, good rebounding instincts).

                          I have a mancrush with his outside shot; it's the prettiest stroke in the league besides Ray Allen when he takes his time and Kobe when he doesn't fade away on wide open shots. He flat out fills the stat sheets and he isn't even close to as turnover prone as I thought he'd be at the pros coming out of the gate. He gets steals, rebounds, and blocks which would get most guys playing time for energy but he also scores. Just wait until he gets it going.
                          Just want to acknowledge this - I agree wholeheartedly. As you say, “Just wait until he gets it going.” Yes, the stroke is beautiful, but you’ve got to get it to go in, too.


                          Originally posted by King Phoenix View Post
                          K people on this board are blatantly disregarding how good of a player Danny is! ... That's his basketball decision and iq which with the right coach can change.
                          Are you seriously claiming that a coach can change a player’s I.Q.? I don’t buy it.
                          :

                          "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                          "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                          "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

                            Obird. I only skimmed your post, I admit. But are you seriously disputing the fact that Collison is NOT better off in a more pick and roll oriented offense? And that somehow, he is better off playing the role of an off ball player?

                            His statistical output was much greater in New Orleans with the ball in his hands, and he is now asked to give it up much earlier. You disregard the fact that this might be bad strategy given the personal strengths of said player?

                            Is it possible that Jim Obrien plays his preferred system in spite of the strengths of his personnel? I find this to be not such a ridiculous statement. What do you have to say about that, and please, in a fairly concise manner?
                            "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                            - ilive4sports

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

                              Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
                              But in fact, Peck, you’re going even farther than that! You don’t even want the vets getting on the floor at all! Sorry, but you’re not going to convince me that decades of NBA wisdom should be turned 180 degrees without a better argument than you’ve made.
                              .
                              At first I could not figure out where the hell you drug up these quotes from attributed to me then I went back and found that these were Sookie's quotes in reply to one of my posts.

                              whew, I'm off of the hook.


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

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Just How Good are the Pacer Players??

                                Originally posted by O'Bird View Post




                                So? What were your results? O’Brien wants what he calls “random pick and rolls” out of the “organized chaos” - he wants to scramble the defense to open up driving lanes and create mismatches; so you should expect to see more pick and rolls in a long possession. Are you going to include pick and pop/fade?



                                33 - There is a whole thread on this

                                http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=60050

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X