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 NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

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

  • #31
    Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

    Sorry, messed up when I merged the threads - I wanted to keep vnzla81's title but picked the wrong destination thread. I've edited the title to his.
    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


    • #32
      Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
      That's the theory, but does it really work? Why are there so many teams that are perennially in the lotto?
      If it didn't work people wouldn't value higher draft picks.

      The reason there are perennial lotto teams is because it takes more than just a few high draft picks. First talent isn't guaranteed, a high draft pick helps you by putting you in a position to draft better talent but does not guarantee better talent. The second is you have to keep that talent around longer than their first contract. Finally you have to have a coach that establishes a good culture, and knows how to develop his talent. For example, if you put Jordan Crawford on the Pacers in place of Lance, and I bet we are talking about him in similar ways as we are for Lance. Put Lance on a team with less discipline, and he probably never grows into the player he has become.

      Makes me wish Vogel was our head coach the whole time McBob was here, he had a lot of potential if he just had a coach that could have guided him in the right direction. More towards a West like player, and less towards a Copeland type player.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Does this new proposal solve tanking for draft picks???

        Originally posted by MUpaceSIC View Post
        This would give teams a chance to get out from under bad contracts if the player doesn’t live up to their paycheck. If I was performing badly I would be fired, why is that not the case in professional sports?
        It all has to do with contracts. It works the same way in the real world if you sign a contract that does not state that they can fire you and not fulfill their part of the agreement. What most NBA contracts don't do is they don't state that the contract is guaranteed. The only reason it is that way is because it is expected for a contract to be guaranteed. If you don't, the player is going to go to a different team that will. This is why only end of the bench players don't get guaranteed contracts.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

          Whats the Harrison Barnes to Warriors situation?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
            Because 1 player in basketball, makes a far bigger impact than 1 player does in football. They can't even be compared.
            And the fact that teams would even tank harder for the guaranteed pick. The point of the lottery is for teams not being guaranteed the first pick, so teams will be less likely to tank. Not perfect, but better then the NFL layout.
            Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

              Here is my "attempt" at another (more complicated) system:

              For the draft, I would have the top 8 teams be put into a random drawing. The first four drawn would receive the first four selections in the draft (slots 1, 2, 3, 4). The remaining teams that were not drawn would be the final four teams drafting, with the best record getting the "best of the worst" position (slots 27, 28, 29, 30). The next 8 teams based on record (teams 9 through 16) would then be put into a drawing with the same system. Four teams are drawn for slots 5, 6, 7, 8 with the remaining teams placed in order of record (slots 23, 24, 25, 26). You would then draw four teams from the remaining 14 to determine the next group of four (slots 9, 10, 11, 12). The remaining 10 teams would be slotted base on record (slots 13-22). The whole point is that you could be one of the worst teams, but not get a top 8 pick. This would also give even the best team a chance for a pick in the 9-12 range, and at worst pick 22. I know it’s complicated to an extent, but is the best I could come up with to give almost every team a chance to improve their draft position.

              Here would be the current groupings based on current standings:

              Group #1:
              Milwaukee
              Utah
              Philadelphia
              Orlando
              Sacramento
              New York
              Brooklyn
              Cleveland

              (Picks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 27, 28, 29, 30)

              Group #2:
              Chicago
              Boston
              Memphis
              New Orleans
              Toronto
              Detroit
              Minnesota
              Charlotte

              (Picks 5, 6, 7, 8 and 23, 24, 25, 26)

              Group #3:
              Washington
              LA Lakers
              Golden State
              Denver
              Dallas
              Atlanta
              Phoenix
              Houston
              LA Clippers
              Miami
              San Antonio
              OKC
              Indiana
              Portland

              (Slots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13-22 based on record)


              This also gets every single team involved in the draft lottery, which I'm sure they could make an even bigger event out of it on TV.
              Last edited by MUpaceSIC; 12-23-2013, 04:19 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Does this new proposal solve tanking for draft picks???

                Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                This is the worst idea ever. Might as well contract to 8 teams because this will only help big markets.
                I feel the same. Free agents may look at which big market is next to sign a top 3 pick, and also be a decent team, that year and sway another big free agent to follow suit.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                  The "wheel" already existed in the sense that many teams could earn the top pick with an even chance, it's how Patrick Ewing ended up on the Knicks. I'm so tired of people trying to fix the lottery with systems that had to be fixed with...the lottery.

                  Tanking is already fixed - it fails a lot more than it works. Just because some dumb GM wants to attempt to work a losing strategy doesn't mean we need a rules change to protect him from himself.



                  The problem is fans (and GMs and idiots like Simmons) focus on where someone like Durant or James came from (ie, top of the lottery) and ignore the rest of the lottery or even who the worst teams drafted year after year.


                  And as always I get most offended when ANY PACERS FAN ever acts like the lottery is a winning strategy.

                  BOB HILL PACERS - 3 years of .500
                  Larry Brown the next 2 seasons - ECF

                  Larry Brown - 1st round and then just outside playoffs
                  Larry Bird - 3 straight ECF, last year Finals

                  Isiah - 3 1st round outs, the final year from the 3rd seed (ie, no high draft picks)
                  Carlisle - Best record in NBA, team NBA wins record, ECF

                  JOB - floundering in the middle just outside East playoffs, no high picks
                  Vogel - playoffs from MID SEASON TAKEOVER, 2nd round, ECF, and now maybe the #1 NBA record/Finals


                  No fanbase more than Pacers fans should be more aware of how much utter horses*** the "must draft top 3" is as a strategy, or how pointless tanking is....well except maybe Clippers or Charlotte fans.



                  The Heat have titles from - SHAQ and BIG 3. Yes they got a good pick for Wade, but they went from getting knocked out by Indy to winning titles using BIG CONTRACT ABSORPTION. You had enough contract money to trade for Shaq and a relationship with Kobe to inspire it. Then they cleared the books to sign Bosh and James.

                  Miami also got lucky and beat out teams like the Knicks and Nets who got left out in the "clear money for Lebron" strategy. So even the FA method is flawed. Right now the Nets and Knicks are getting crushed after their 2nd iteration of "Lebron cap space" FA moves.





                  GM is a job just like an athlete or coach. They aren't all the same, some are better than others. The key to winning is to draft better than your draft position, spend your FA money wisely, and make even or good trades. A big reason why so many high picks are busts is because a bad GM has a bad team which means a high pick which means a bad GM is making that draft pick which is how they got there in the first place.


                  Great teams have 2 speeds - title level and just "okay".
                  They almost never go into "terrible" mode, certainly not intentionally or without a major injury. The Spurs have Duncan, sure, but look at how they got Parker and Ginobilli or really anyone else on their roster. It's not Duncan carrying them at this point. They run a good program that either wins or wins big. The Lakers went from Showtime to Nick at Night to Kobe/Shaq to Kobe/Gasol without ever dropping far down in the standings and only missing 2 playoffs from 1977 to 2013. They didn't even keep the same stars.

                  Hell, Boston could have done it if Reggie Lewis and Len Bias didn't both die.


                  How many lottery winning teams in the last 20 years have a title with that lottery pick? Players still with their team in bold.

                  Bucks - Big Dog
                  Warriors - Joe Smith
                  76ers - Iverson (1 Finals, lost 4-1)
                  Spurs - Duncan (the exception, not the rule)
                  Clippers - Kandi
                  Bulls - Brand
                  Nets - KMart (2 Finals with Nets in terrible East, not the main star)
                  Wizards - Kwame
                  Rockets - Yao
                  Cavs - Lebron (1 ECF loss, 1 Finals loss)
                  Magic - Dwight (1 ECF loss, 1 Finals loss)
                  Bucks - Bogut
                  Raps - Bargnani
                  Blazers - Oden
                  Bulls - Rose (1 ECF loss)
                  Clips - Griffin
                  Wiz - Wall
                  Cavs - Irving
                  Pelicans - Davis (good, but now injured)
                  Cavs - Bennet (not looking good so far)



                  The 2nd and 3rd picks are just as hit and miss. Here are the top 10 career win shares guys picked 2nd or 3rd and who picked them (since 94 to match #1 picks list above).

                  Kidd - Dallas (the "big 3" in Dallas was a bust)
                  Billups - Denver (was considered a slight bust when Pistons got him)
                  Gasol - Atlanta (immediately traded to MEM for SA Rahim and Tinsley draft spot, couldn't carry MEM and got traded to LAL)
                  Grant Hill - Detroit (famously left Detroit as FA going to Magic using Shaq-left-us money)
                  Camby - Toronto (more success with Knicks)
                  Melo - Denver (great scorer hasn't carried DEN or NYK to Finals)
                  Durant - OKC (like Duncan, exception to the rule)
                  Chandler - Clips (immediately traded to Bulls for Brand)
                  Bibby - Grizzlies
                  Rahim - Grizzlies (Bibby came 2 years later, Griz had 2 top 3 picks together...Finals? Nope. Relocated? Yep.)

                  The list continues with guys like Dunleavy, Okafur, Steve Francis and even strong players like Deron Williams who couldn't carry Utah to the Finals and then left the team (after getting his coach to "quit"...rumor).



                  A good GM just sits back and lets the idiots fail miserably in the draft, picks the cheaper (rookie scale) players later on, and then swindles those same GMs in trades (um, Tyrus T for Aldridge) or just outright buys the proven players away from the team that drafted them, especially the "bargain" FAs that are just a tic off the big money level but still strong (see D West, C Billups). Often the best moves come from abusing guys trying to tank or clear cap space due to bad spending.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-23-2013, 02:56 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                    This wheel layout blows. This didn't take much to come up with and simpler isn't better in this case.
                    Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                      Wow! A 30 year Cycle? Crazy. Thats just stupid. You'd have some teams that go 20+ years with out getting a meaningful pick? Not to mention the type of contracts that would need to be given out. Assuming your picks get sequentially better year to year, you'd have top 5 picks for 5 years. How you keep that kind of talent with a salary cap? What if you draft terribly and all your picks are a bust, you gonna be bad for the next 25 years? Free Agents aren't clamoring to sign in Milwaukee, or Charlotte or Utah and similar teams. Can you imagine being a fan of a team that you know had no chance at a top 5 pick for 25 years?

                      What they need to do is develop the D league and have a second draft where the teams who are are in the bottom 15 or what ever get a reverse draft and can draft any player from the D league. That way these teams who are in Purgatory have a legit chance of adding a quality player who could crack the rotation, and make them better.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                        Why not just make all the 30 teams be in the lottery with having the same odds at getting the #1 pick?

                        This will surely stop the tanking as even the best team in the previous season can get a top pick coming into the next season.

                        It may look unfair at first because it is possible that a strong team can get even stronger with a top rookie prospect, but for me this is the best solution to make teams get better value out of their picks and make improvements through trades and also prevent teams from tanking because tanking because useless.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                          Originally posted by 15th parallel View Post
                          Why not just make all the 30 teams be in the lottery with having the same odds at getting the #1 pick?

                          This will surely stop the tanking as even the best team in the previous season can get a top pick coming into the next season.

                          It may look unfair at first because it is possible that a strong team can get even stronger with a top rookie prospect, but for me this is the best solution to make teams get better value out of their picks and make improvements through trades and also prevent teams from tanking because tanking because useless.
                          LOL....TV would love that....that one show might become the highest rated NBA event of the season surpassing even the biggest NBA finals or Christmas games...
                          The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                            Changed my mind based on some of these posts. Not in favor of this anymore.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              If it didn't work people wouldn't value higher draft picks.

                              The reason there are perennial lotto teams is because it takes more than just a few high draft picks. First talent isn't guaranteed, a high draft pick helps you by putting you in a position to draft better talent but does not guarantee better talent. The second is you have to keep that talent around longer than their first contract. Finally you have to have a coach that establishes a good culture, and knows how to develop his talent. For example, if you put Jordan Crawford on the Pacers in place of Lance, and I bet we are talking about him in similar ways as we are for Lance. Put Lance on a team with less discipline, and he probably never grows into the player he has become.

                              Makes me wish Vogel was our head coach the whole time McBob was here, he had a lot of potential if he just had a coach that could have guided him in the right direction. More towards a West like player, and less towards a Copeland type player.
                              You and I actually agree but I wanted to nitpick one logic angle in your post...

                              If Ponzi schemes didn't work why do people keep joining them?

                              A lot of people get made GM without really proving any GM skills. How do you prove you know A) how to draft B) how to trade C) how to spend? Is it all draft scouts as GM...how many GMs were head scouts? How many GMs were somehow leads on making trades PRIOR to being GMs? How many were making the spending calls PRIOR to being GM?

                              Bird, Jordan, McHale - their qualifications for GM were "I played the game". Spotting talent in others is not the same as having talent yourself. A poor player can know what's right even if he can't do it himself, thus the many non-star players that become good coaches, or non pro-players that are good coaches.

                              There isn't really an NCAA/assistant coach version of "GM". Yes a team has scouts and financial advisors, contract lawyers, cap specialists, etc, but how many of those guys get known by other teams in a "Brian Shaw" or "Tibs" kind of way where they start to become the next hot GM to hire? I would think a lot more in-house GM advising goes unknown in NBA circles than potential head coaches do. Technically a college coach could be seen to be proving his ability to identify talent based on how he recruits, but a guy like Calipari doesn't move into a GM-only NBA role ever, and with dirty play in NCAA skewing which players go where it's hard to know if a guy has a great eye for talent or just more booster money.


                              So you don't have a group of people at the GM position that have proven they know how to run a company, let alone a sports company. So what they value often seems to be just as shallow as what a casual fan does. To me this is why the Spurs can continue get the best of people or why Jerry West stood out so much. A competent GM is like a shark swimming among wounded guppies.



                              And I really agree about the impact of having a good coach, or a coach that shares your vision of where your team currently is at and how it needs to get to the next step. If JOB had been less "win now" when Bird clearly was sending the "3 year plan" message, then he might have got on with actually focusing on improving Roy, Paul, Josh, and others stuck in his weird doghouse. That would have led to losing but with improvements which end up with him keeping his job based on visible progress rather than actually backsliding. Bird missed on that one, especially the extension.

                              It's one reason why I like Bird more as a GM now - experience. He got burned with JOB, he got burned by Ron and Shawne. I think it impacted how he handled Lance (it would seem based on the success) and probably his support for Vogel. I don't think Bird was a good GM at first, though he probably wasn't terrible either. But he's become good through errors and learning.
                              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-23-2013, 03:17 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                                I think that rampant, widespread tanking is as big a threat to the integrity of the league as any it has ever faced.

                                Thus I am very open to considering something like this, as drastic as it seems.
                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X