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

Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

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

  • #31
    Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

    JOB was brought in to make the most of a salary strapped team. I have said that if the team was a perinnal loser that Indy would not have a team. That was an incomplete thought.

    If the Pacers hit the lottery every year and got the results of Minny, LAC, or even Portland, and we are not even contenders....I can not say with certainty that we would still have a team. I really do not think it is as much as what the current roster does in the W/L column. It has more to do with corporate sponsors, NBA governmental politics, and a viable market to move in that is leaps and bounds above Indy.

    So no JOB did not save this team. Nor did Bird. Nor did Vogel. Simons alone can't be credited. Yes folks, be thankful that we have the Simons. But if a sweet deal comes along, we are not as secure as you may think.


    Let me ask this question:
    What is a greater possibility; the team moving or a championship?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      I don't think O'Brien was ever coming back for another year. He completed the rebuild and his job with the team was done and done well. I do think that the fans calling for his head too soon led to the hiring of an inexperienced coach who is costing the Pacers games every year, especially in the playoffs. If JOB had finished the year, the man sitting next to Vogel might have been the coach and the Pacers would be even better prepared to win..... ...

      WOW!!!! Are you just trying to ?


      And layoff the reason behind the poll. Would you rather talk about Brandon Rush?

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

        Major Cold;1494600]JOB was brought in to make the most of a salary strapped team. I have said that if the team was a perinnal loser that Indy would not have a team. That was an incomplete thought.
        The problem is that the team was a perennial loser, 30+ wins but still a loser.

        If the Pacers hit the lottery every year and got the results of Minny, LAC, or even Portland, and we are not even contenders....I can not say with certainty that we would still have a team. I really do not think it is as much as what the current roster does in the W/L column. It has more to do with corporate sponsors, NBA governmental politics, and a viable market to move in that is leaps and bounds above Indy.
        The Pacers are not contenders either, they are also on the bottom attendance wise, I'm sorry but I don't think that sponsor, the NBA, the City of Indianapolis and the Simons changed their minds because instead of winning 10 games they were winning 30, I just don't see it.


        So no JOB did not save this team. Nor did Bird. Nor did Vogel. Simons alone can't be credited. Yes folks, be thankful that we have the Simons. But if a sweet deal comes along, we are not as secure as you may think.
        So they expend a bunch of money in new screens and in upgrades for the Fieldhouse and you believe they can still leave? I don't see that happening.


        Let me ask this question:
        What is a greater possibility; the team moving or a championship?
        Neither are a possibility at this moment.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          The problem is that the team was a perennial loser, 30+ wins but still a loser.
          Its not technicality Tuesday is it? I think you know what I mean. Basement dwellers, lottery fodder. Under 25 wins.

          The Pacers are not contenders either, they are also on the bottom attendance wise, I'm sorry but I don't think that sponsor, the NBA, the City of Indianapolis and the Simons changed their minds because instead of winning 10 games they were winning 30, I just don't see it.
          That is my point. Winning 30 vs 10 games would not matter if corporate sponsors, NBA decisions, the Simons sell/vacate INDY were ideal. If they are going to move, the will move regardless of a subpar season. Heck the Kings would have moved the moment Webber busted out if it weren't for the NBA, corporate sponsors, and a much more lucrative market opened up.

          Lets say the Nets never moved to Brooklyn. And Brooklyn were as wanting as Seattle in getting a team. I would think more owners (NOH, ATL, IND, CHA, MIL) would be more interested. Especially since the last CBA did nothing for them.....nothing.



          So they expend a bunch of money in new screens and in upgrades for the Fieldhouse and you believe they can still leave? I don't see that happening.
          I don't. And I don't think they are a lock to be as secure as you think in 20 years. My point is if a more lucrative market opens up with NBA subsidies, along with the younger Simons taking over the estate, then a 25 year old building with lips stick won't alone keep the Pacers.

          This is all a huge what if. But I don't see the threat any time soon. And if we are sub-par in March, I would not cry if we tanked.

          [/QUOTE]Neither are a possibility at this moment.[/QUOTE]

          What is the greater possibility though?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

            [=Major Cold;1494614]Its not technicality Tuesday is it? I think you know what I mean. Basement dwellers, lottery fodder. Under 25 wins.
            Yes I know what you mean, basement dwellers or not the Pacers were still losers, winning more or less didn't make any difference, my point is that I think that tanking at that time could have helped the team improve in the future, just look at all the Pacers picks from the "non tanking" years, how many of those picks are actually helping them right now? two? Roy and Paul George that's it.

            That is my point. Winning 30 vs 10 games would not matter if corporate sponsors, NBA decisions, the Simons sell/vacate INDY were ideal. If they are going to move, the will move regardless of a subpar season. Heck the Kings would have moved the moment Webber busted out if it weren't for the NBA, corporate sponsors, and a much more lucrative market opened up.
            So if winning 30 or 10 games don't matter why you and others are(were) worried that "tanking" would have taken the team to another place?

            Lets say the Nets never moved to Brooklyn. And Brooklyn were as wanting as Seattle in getting a team. I would think more owners (NOH, ATL, IND, CHA, MIL) would be more interested. Especially since the last CBA did nothing for them.....nothing.
            The new CBA is doing something for those teams, "stay mediocre and you make money not matter what as long as you don't go over the tax line".



            I don't. And I don't think they are a lock to be as secure as you think in 20 years. My point is if a more lucrative market opens up with NBA subsidies, along with the younger Simons taking over the estate, then a 25 year old building with lips stick won't alone keep the Pacers.
            Tanking in 2006/07,08,etc is not going to change the outcome of the Pacers in 20 years I don't think.

            This is all a huge what if. But I don't see the threat any time soon. And if we are sub-par in March, I would not cry if we tanked.
            The opportunity to tank has passed at this moment the best thing to do is stay the course and maybe win some second round games.

            What is the greater possibility though?
            Winning a championship in 10 years maybe if they rebuild the right way? either way I don't think either happens in a long long time.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              Yes I know what you mean, basement dwellers or not the Pacers were still losers, winning more or less didn't make any difference, my point is that I think that tanking at that time could have helped the team improve in the future, just look at all the Pacers picks from the "non tanking" years, how many of those picks are actually helping them right now? two? Roy and Paul George that's it.
              Then again it could have been worse than it is now.

              So if winning 30 or 10 games don't matter why you and others are(were) worried that "tanking" would have taken the team to another place?
              I was wrong in thinking that. I thought the immediate result would be losing the team. But I still think that we are not a lock to have a team in 20 years.



              The new CBA is doing something for those teams, "stay mediocre and you make money not matter what as long as you don't go over the tax line".
              But what would any sane owner want. A small market team guaranteed to have some cash? Or a big market team guaranteed to have a lot of cash and a shot at a superstar?

              Tanking in 2006/07,08,etc is not going to change the outcome of the Pacers in 20 years I don't think.
              Either do I. Tanking and being the Clippers of the 90s, today will in fact make us a lose this team.

              The opportunity to tank has passed at this moment the best thing to do is stay the course and maybe win some second round games.
              You never know what happens with this team in the next 5 years. Granger could walk, Hill plateaus, Tyler taking over starting PF after West goes to chase a ring, PG is a sub-allstar player, Green is not that good, and Hibbert is skiddish for the remainder of the contract. That spells a 2006, 2007, 2008 win team. Hibbert can get a sinus infection and we could shut it down.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                Originally posted by Hoop View Post
                Some thought we would win more games, growing pains and all, I was in that group.
                I was too. Which is why I didn't watch much of those seasons. Watching Troy Murphy, TJ Ford, Nesterovic, Murray, Dunleavy, Head ... firing up a bazillion three pointers... barf.

                Back at those prediction threads, where I was consistently forecasting the lowest number of wins... I think I hated those teams even more than the Artest-era. At least Artest kept a good team from reaching its potential. Those teams had no potential unless all of the minutes were going to Jack, Rush, Granger, TBD and Hibbert. Or as I used to say then, a "core" of TBD, TBD, TBD, TBD and Hibbert sounds more interesting...

                Some thought just having JOB in charge was tanking.
                The second sentence just makes me laugh. Unfortunately.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  The new CBA is doing something for those teams, "stay mediocre and you make money not matter what as long as you don't go over the tax line".
                  I don't think the new CBA means what you think it means.
                  BillS

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

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    The Pacers were never going to leave
                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    The Pacers were never going to leave
                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    The Pacers were never going to leave
                    .
                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    The Pacers were never going to leave

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                      O'Brien did more to PUSH the team outta Indy than keep it here.
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

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

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                        I still can't figure out how Jim gets credit for "rebuilding." You rebuild one of two ways. You either go after young players and develop them, or you trade/sign for vets that are going to be apart of your core. You "rebuild" the foundation of your franchise.

                        The Pacers selected option number one, young players. If Jim was apart of the "rebuilding" process, then he wouldn't have restricted young players so much. He wouldn't bench them in favor of vets like James Posey. Had he benched them for vets, that were apart of the built core, then yes, he would have been going along with the rebuilding concept. But he did the opposite of a team that's trying to rebuild with youth. You rebuild a team with youth, not only by aquiring more youth/better youth, but also by developing them. A big part, not all but big part, of development is playing actual NBA games.


                        Jim was the coach during the rebuilding process. That doesn't mean that he was apart of the rebuilding process.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          I don't think the new CBA means what you think it means.
                          In the last month and a half a book could be filled with VNZLAs "facts" about the Pacers and the NBA...
                          Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            The Pacers selected option number one, young players. If Jim was apart of the "rebuilding" process, then he wouldn't have restricted young players so much. He wouldn't bench them in favor of vets like James Posey. Had he benched them for vets, that were apart of the built core, then yes, he would have been going along with the rebuilding concept. But he did the opposite of a team that's trying to rebuild with youth. You rebuild a team with youth, not only by acquiring more youth/better youth, but also by developing them. A big part, not all but big part, of development is playing actual NBA games.
                            The coach's job is to play the guys he thinks are best in the best way he can play them. He may not be competent in terms of making that decision, but once he has got his depth chart his job is NOT to bench the best guys in favor of giving significant minutes to the young guys (arguments about how much time is significant and how much time can be given without taking away from the guys the coach thinks earned their playing time aside, as they are essentially still agreeing the coach has to make that decision even if fans might disagree with his resulting choices).

                            The FO sends a mixed message by providing players who are veterans and who, in the coach's KNOWN and PUBLIC opinion, deserve playing time over the young guys the FO supposedly wants to develop as quickly as possible. If the FO believes the young guys should have more time than the ones the coach thinks will do a better job, then they need to clean house of the vets OR find a coach who sees the skills of the young players the same way they do.

                            In other words, setting young guys up to develop is well into the 90% range of being the FOs job in planning the strategy for a season. Tactically, the coach has to play the best he has when he has them - the remaining up to 10% however is that there ARE gray areas and choices that could increase playing time without sacrificing the end goal.
                            BillS

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

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              The coach's job is to play the guys he thinks are best in the best way he can play them. He may not be competent in terms of making that decision, but once he has got his depth chart his job is NOT to bench the best guys in favor of giving significant minutes to the young guys (arguments about how much time is significant and how much time can be given without taking away from the guys the coach thinks earned their playing time aside, as they are essentially still agreeing the coach has to make that decision even if fans might disagree with his resulting choices).
                              Coaches bench better players for younger players with more potential every single day. Thinking Jim should do the same, when the organization is clearly trying to bring in and develop younger players with more potential, isn't a very extreme position to hold.

                              There are various coaching approaches. Playing to maximize your wins is one approach. Coaching for the future is another.

                              I think Jim's coaching for max wins was just the wrong choice, especially when Vogel comes in and starts playing younger players and reaching the playoffs when Jim said it wasn't doable even with playing the supposed better, older players.

                              I really wasn't trying to argue which approach is best, just saying that Jim wasn't apart of the rebuilding process.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                                True, the front office could have taken away Jim's pet veterans. The front office sent a mixed message.

                                Coaches are supposed to by myopic, they are focused on winning the current/next game. Not the big picture. And that's what Jim did. He cashed in some early-season wins with the stinky veterans while making sure the younger players didn't reach much of their "potential". The team could have been further along when Vogel took over, but that would have been because the youth were developed. Jim got everything he could out of the veterans (that stunk). That's not a bad coach, that's bad vision. That's my complaint with him. I didn't like his gimmicks either, but on the other hand Run-TMC was a gimmick that worked extremely well and helped Nellie's reputation as a coach, so we shouldn't summarily dismiss coaches with gimmicks.
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X