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

The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

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

  • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

    Some of the SportVU stuff is up. http://stats.nba.com/playerTracking.html

    we're only 2 games in so the numbers mean absolutely nothing yet, but seeing the Pacers have 3 of the top 4 defenders at the rim is a fun visual. and PG's covered the most distance in the league, so that means...something?

    Comment


    • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      If they're good franchises, then they won't be punished for long. Consistent bottom dwellers need more help than a team that had an unlucky year, and the draft process should reflect that IMHO.
      But you are assuming these bad franchises will get better with the picks and move up. Thus spurring along the good teams who could use the picks to move up as well. But look at the bobcats, bad every year. Their cumulative suck just keeps increasing. How are the good franchises who could actually use a top pick wisely supposed to move up and get those top picks. Even if the Bobcats get Wiggins, they will probably still find a way to blow.

      Comment


      • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

        I'm thinking that Dirk Nowitzki is going to have an old school Dirk year this season. Last year he missed the first two months of the season because of knee surgery, and it took him a while to look like his old self. But he played good down the stretch last year and looked great in the Mavs' opener the other night. I could see him getting back to the 23 PPG area if he gets enough minutes.

        I've become a huge fan of Dirk over the years. His 2011 playoff run is without question one of the best individual postseason runs in recent years. It was a classic "F it, I'm going to finally get a damn ring" performance. Dude was possessed.

        Definitely one of the all time greats. One of the most unique skill sets ever.

        Comment


        • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

          Love Dirk. Hope he retires a Mav. Glad to see him healthy again.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            Love Dirk. Hope he retires a Mav. Glad to see him healthy again.

            He will. Cuban will always take care of him and there is no need for Dirk to ever leave. He has his ring and doesn't need to ride anyone's coattails at the end of his career.

            Paul Pierce made an interesting point in an interview with Jackie MacMullan after getting traded to the Nets. He said that you've always heard the Lakers say they want to make Kobe a Laker for life, the Spurs say they want to keep Duncan for life, and Cuban say that he wants Dirk to be a Mav for life. But the Celtics never really acted that way with Pierce. Kobe, Duncan, Dirk, and Pierce are four guys who all came into the league around the same time, and each played their entire career with the same franchise until Pierce was traded last summer. Also, each of them won at least one championship. Yet of the four, Pierce is the only won whose team didn't really care about him retiring with the franchise. That trade might help the Celtics down the road, but you'd never see Mark Cuban trade Dirk for a bunch of scraps and Gerald Wallace's contract.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-01-2013, 04:12 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              Sorry, that logic is how San Antonio gets Tim Duncan after one bad luck year following eight 50+ win seasons in a row.

              Injuries suck, but it's just one season. Do your scouting, draft a sleeper in the 6-10 range and get back at it next year.

              And please spare me the poor small market revenue excuse. The new CBA virtually guarantees any NBA team to run at a substantial profit so long as they stay away from the LT. I would have bought that argument three years ago; now any owner that claims otherwise is either being cheap, greedy or both.
              As we've seen, "running at a profit" and "having a winning team" are not necessarily comparable. We want teams to be able to make a profit and be competitive, not be a league full of Donald Sterling clones.

              The idea is to not reward a team for having a single bad year. The idea is not to reward a team already winning - give Miami Kyrie Irving and you're talking that no other team wins a championship for a decade. The idea is to take a team and let them get the #1 pick when they need it, not just when they get lucky.

              The problem is that the extreme idea is that it easy to win a championship in the NBA - just do your scouting, pick the right players, make perfect trades, attract FAs for reasonable money, don't let anyone get injured, and here's-your-trophy. Unfortunately, it isn't that easy - contrary to popular belief it isn't obvious when a player isn't going to pan out. It isn't simple to prevent injuries. It isn't just a matter of running a computer program to identify the player who you can trade for. Lots of things combine to determine whether a perfectly good strategy executed by a perfectly competent GM works or is a disaster. Using San Antonio, even with what they have been able to do through international scouting, are they where they are without having gotten Duncan in that second #1 draft pick?

              If you are going to unbind the draft from the idea that the worst teams deserve the chance at the best players, then take chance out of it altogether. Assign each team a #1 draft pick on a round-robin basis. It will take 30 years to get through all of them but you won't have the Knicks getting #1 picks 2 years in a row while the Pistons go 20 years without one.
              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


              • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                As we've seen, "running at a profit" and "having a winning team" are not necessarily comparable. We want teams to be able to make a profit and be competitive, not be a league full of Donald Sterling clones.

                The idea is to not reward a team for having a single bad year. The idea is not to reward a team already winning - give Miami Kyrie Irving and you're talking that no other team wins a championship for a decade. The idea is to take a team and let them get the #1 pick when they need it, not just when they get lucky.

                The problem is that the extreme idea is that it easy to win a championship in the NBA - just do your scouting, pick the right players, make perfect trades, attract FAs for reasonable money, don't let anyone get injured, and here's-your-trophy. Unfortunately, it isn't that easy - contrary to popular belief it isn't obvious when a player isn't going to pan out. It isn't simple to prevent injuries. It isn't just a matter of running a computer program to identify the player who you can trade for. Lots of things combine to determine whether a perfectly good strategy executed by a perfectly competent GM works or is a disaster. Using San Antonio, even with what they have been able to do through international scouting, are they where they are without having gotten Duncan in that second #1 draft pick?

                If you are going to unbind the draft from the idea that the worst teams deserve the chance at the best players, then take chance out of it altogether. Assign each team a #1 draft pick on a round-robin basis. It will take 30 years to get through all of them but you won't have the Knicks getting #1 picks 2 years in a row while the Pistons go 20 years without one.
                The pistons haven't drafted first since 1970. And I still don't have an issue.

                We've actually been screwed by the lottery process during our most recent down period- we finished in the bottom 8 each season and still drafted lower than our draft slot all four times. Not only did we not win a top-3 pick, we got leap-frogged by better teams. Every year.

                Taking all that into account? I still don't care. Being a bad team should suck. No one should ever feel good about a crappy season.
                Last edited by Kstat; 11-01-2013, 04:03 PM.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                  Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                  But you are assuming these bad franchises will get better with the picks and move up.
                  No I'm not. If they continue to be bottom dwellers, then they'd continue getting weighted odds that they'll keep getting higher picks. I'm not assuming anything.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    The pistons haven't drafted first since 1970. And I still don't have an issue.

                    We've actually been screwed by the lottery process during our most recent down period- we finished in the bottom 8 each season and still drafted lower than our draft slot all four times. Not only did we not win a top-3 pick, we got leap-frogged by better teams. Every year.

                    Taking all that into account? I still don't care. Being a bad team should suck. No one should ever feel good about a crappy season.
                    I just don't want to see the rich get richer. A winning team has lots of advantages that come from nothing more than being a winning team. They don't need the #1 draft pick.

                    I understand what you are saying about the teams that wouldn't win a championship if they had the #1 draft pick 3 years running. There are some of those, but there are also teams that if given a chance would be better. Some teams get that chance, others don't. The lottery means you can try your best but still get shafted, or just mediocre along and hit the jackpot. Same with an unweighted lottery.

                    I still think that a weighted average of 5 seasons combined with a limit on the number of top picks a team can get in a certain span of years is the best compromise. The perennially bad teams that don't improve don't benefit every year by getting a top-4 pick. The teams that are really rebuilding get a shot at a superstar piece. Tanking becomes unfeasible, both at the actual bottom and at the bottom of the playoffs (i.e. no one tanks out of the playoffs to get into the unweighted lottery). You don't make the rich teams even richer because they get lucky in an all-league lottery.
                    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


                    • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                      I don't think there should be a distinction between a perennially good team that has key injuries one year and chooses not to find anyone to compensate, or a team that tries to suck every year because they don't know what else to do. I don't think either scenario deserves special considerations.

                      in 2010 the five best players were picked 1st, 5th, 7th, 10th and 15th.
                      in 2011 they were drafted 1st, 5th, 11th, 15th and 22nd.
                      in 2012 they were taken 1st, 3rd, 6th, 7th and 9th.

                      By my count, 8 of the top 15 players over the past three years were drafted outside of the top 5. So more than 50% of NBA teams in the top 5 since 2010 whiffed on the best player available.

                      Yes, you're almost guaranteed to get a quality player at #1, but if you do your homework, there's always crappy GMs that blow their picks on leaser talents.

                      If you're a bad team with a good GM, you won't stay bad forever. Don't care where you pick.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 11-01-2013, 04:32 PM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        No I'm not. If they continue to be bottom dwellers, then they'd continue getting weighted odds that they'll keep getting higher picks. I'm not assuming anything.
                        And thats the problem with your idea. Because other teams with competent management who could actually use those picks well and build a team with them would get screwed over and never able to advance and get the picks they deserve.

                        They will just keep losing knowing next year they get yet another shot at the next Lebron or MJ. The only reason we see so much tanking this year is because the class is so deep several teams know they will get a prize. It would be year in and year out with your idea.

                        The traditional model where teams eventually do rebuild simply because they don't know where they will land in the draft is much better. I mean the bobcats suck, but its not because they have continually been tanking.
                        Last edited by Mad-Mad-Mario; 11-01-2013, 04:18 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                          a bad team with bad management does not need extra help. It needs new management.

                          Owners would be more less tolerant of losing games if bad GMs didn't have the lottery to use as a crutch for losing.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                            Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                            And thats the problem with your idea. Because other teams with competent management who could actually use those picks well and build a team with them would get screwed over and never able to advance and get the picks they deserve.
                            I don't agree with your definition of screwed over nor deserve, so we're starting at a completely different point.

                            Teams that are continually bottom dwellers, aren't tankers. If you're that bad year in and year out, you're simply that bad. What they're management does with the picks they get, is a different topic of conversation. What they do with the pick, is really irrelevant.


                            If the formula is weighted by several years worth of records, then you wouldn't have to worry about tanking because one season with a bad record wouldn't get you a top pick. So there would be no reason to not try in order to get a better pick, because you have no shot at actually getting it. Having the opportunity to get a high pick simply by tanking, gives tanking credibility. If you take away the possibility, you take away the credibility.

                            Is the idea without faults? No, no system is. But going off of a weighted average ensures that the worst teams get the best picks, giving them the best opportunity to get better, which is what I think the point of the draft is.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                              I disagree. Teams that are terrible never make any attempt to get better via trade or FA unless they have a young phenom they need to keep happy, which means their tanking plan succeeded.

                              Otherwise, the GM can keep on whispering to the owner year after year about this next college freshman that's going to dominate the NBA for the next 10 years, and the owner of course won't mind going another year without making any expensive acquisitions.

                              As long as the owner is on board with the GM's tanking agenda, he can't lose his job, no matter how many games his teams lose. What motivation does he have to put his neck on the line by actually trying to construct a quality team? That creates actual expectations, which could get him actually fired if he fails.
                              Last edited by Kstat; 11-01-2013, 04:50 PM.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                I disagree. Teams that are terrible never make any attempt to get better via trade or FA unless they have a young phenom they need to keep happy, which means their tanking plan succeeded.
                                I don't consider that tanking.

                                Tanking is purposefully not playing up to the standard that you're capable of, rather than not attempting to make moves and get better. The draft can't fix management issues, so I'm not really worried about what trades they did or didn't make or whether or not they picked the right guy. The NBA cannot control that type of stuff, nor should they IMHO.

                                Any system that is put in place is going to have it's downfalls, and it will be able to be gamed unless it's based 100% on chance and I just don't like that idea at all. The best teams should not have an equal chance to get top picks than the worst teams IMHO.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X