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

Kravitz and Al has me upset

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

  • Kravitz and Al has me upset

    Well Bob has done it again. I shouldn't be surprised. But there is something so maddening about Bob. He tells the team to trade Jacksons for a bag of donuts and then when they do finally trade Jax he says it was a bad trade and they should have done it sooner.

    Oh and Bob when you obviously have never seen Diogu play, please just say that and leave the analysis of his game to someone who has. Obviously he has no clue.

    Oh and a final word to Al - just shut up - so Rick didn't tailor the whole offense to you. He moved you to small forward which is what you wanted, he didn't bench you like he should have. He catered to your every want and need and then you rip him on the way out. Real class, real class. He should have benched you weeks ago - but I'm sure he was concerned about your very sensitive feelings. I was a little sad about Al leaving the first time, but not the second - let's just hope there isn't a chance for a third time

    My final word on Bob is just stick to other sports because your NBA basketball knowledge is pathetic - I don't respect your opinions on the NBA - he probably thinks the Pacers acquired Foyle instead of Diogu - oh wait, my fault he's never heard of Foyle and probably had never heard of Diogu until yesderday. Oh and what is the statute of limitations on the Bird and Artest SI cover - will he still refer to that 10 years from now

    Here are the articles.

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...plate=printart

    bob kravitz
    New direction seems rather aimless
    January 18, 2007


    I have a fancy new idea for the next round of Indiana Pacers billboards. From the outset, let me say it's not nearly as inspiring as "One team, one goal," which blew up when Ron Artest asked for a trade, or "It's up to us," which started looking silly when four members of the new-and-improved Pacers got into a nightclub brawl that involved gunplay.

    So here's my suggestion in the wake of the Pacers' latest effort to move in a new direction, the trade that sent Al Harrington, Stephen Jackson, Sarunas Jasikevicius and Josh Powell to Golden State for Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, Ike Diogu and Keith McCleod:

    Throwing stuff against a wall and hoping it sticks.

    Catchy, no?

    Now, before all of this turns negative -- and you've already sensed that it might -- let me say that it's hard to criticize any deal that hastens the exits of Jackson and Jasikevicius.

    The former was a time bomb -- a time bomb with a gun license -- and he was as likely as Artest to implode. They should have dealt him last summer, though my sense is they tried but couldn't. Jackson had good intentions at times, but then, so did Artest. He was emotionally immature, to be nice about it.

    The latter, Jasikevicius, was team president Larry Bird's pet project. Some of us who'd seen his game overseas applauded the move, but within weeks, we saw why nobody else in the NBA had brought him in for a look. He couldn't make 3-pointers at this level and he couldn't defend the mascot. He was a liability with an attitude.

    So there is an addition-by-subtraction element to this deal.
    And there's this:

    These Pacers weren't going anywhere this season with that crew, not in the wretched Eastern Conference, not anywhere. Even with the schedule softening in the upcoming weeks, this was not going to be a group that would come together, see the light and make a run.

    For every step forward, there was a step back. Losing at home to Charlotte. Getting blown off the floor in New Jersey, with Harrington being benched to start the second half. That wasn't going to change.

    Here's my question, though: Do they really think they're going anywhere now? Does this make them appreciably better? Really?

    More and more, the Pacers front office reminds me of the Home Shopping Network: Every time you look up, they're trying to sell you something. And more often than not, what they're peddling turns out to be junk.

    They tried to sell the goofy idea that Artest could be rehabilitated and turned into a cornerstone of the franchise. Bird even posed with Artest on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Didn't work out.

    They tried to sell fans on the notion that this season's team would be filled with good guys, that chemistry and athleticism would produce a team that not only won but was fun to watch. Didn't work out.

    They sold the return of the prodigal son, the relentlessly upbeat Harrington, who would help create the kind of atmosphere the Pacers used to have before they began to rot at the core. Didn't work out.

    They sold Jasikevicius as the missing piece. They sold Marquis Daniels as the multidimensional jack-of-all-trades. They sold the more aesthetically pleasing, up-tempo offense. They sold James White, the second-round draft pick for whom they traded two second-rounders, and he didn't even make the roster. None of those moves worked out.

    All that selling, all those empty promises, I'm wondering why I should bother buying anything in the first place. What have they done in the past four years to earn your faith? Draft Danny Granger? He fell to them when the teams drafting ahead of them suffered a brain cramp.

    They continue to run on a treadmill to mediocrity, good enough to make the playoffs, bad enough to get bounced in the first round. It's been a long, long time since the Pacers have been quite this irrelevant, and it's not just because the Colts have seized the spotlight.

    If the Pacers had made a deal that gave them expiring contracts and put them in a position to bottom out, I would commend them for getting in the Greg Oden Sweepstakes and having the courage to start over.

    This, though, strikes me as one of those spin-your-wheels trades. They were a little bit over .500 before the deal. They'll be a little bit over .500 after the deal.

    Diogu is a nice young player, a power guy and a good pickup and someone who doesn't need the ball on offense. But Troy Murphy? When he's healthy, he's got a chance to be a nice, Brad Miller-style complement to O'Neal, but he's always hurt. And Mike Dunleavy just strikes me as a guy who, along with Murphy, owns a frighteningly long-term deal for huge dollars.

    Better fits? Yeah.

    A better team? Not dramatically.

    They just keep throwing stuff against the wall. And hoping, truly hoping, something finally sticks.

  • #2
    Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

    OK here's the stuff on Al

    I apologize if these have been posted already


    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...plate=printart



    Harrington bashes Carlisle's system
    By Mike Wells
    mike.wells@indystar.com
    January 18, 2007


    For the second time in as many seasons, the Indiana Pacers traded a player who took exception to Rick Carlisle's coaching philosophy.
    Forward Al Harrington, dealt Wednesday to Golden State in an eight-player shake-up, shared former Pacers forward Ron Artest's sentiment in saying he didn't feel comfortable playing in Carlisle's regimented system.

    "I would say we didn't see eye to eye," Harrington said as he walked to his car at Conseco Fieldhouse on Wednesday. "It was a real slow-down offense. He's one of those guys that's very precise and wants things done a certain way, and playing that way is hard for everybody to get opportunities. At the same time, it's a system that has worked for him in the past."

    Harrington's departure comes just 38 games after his celebrated return.
    The Pacers moved to regain Harrington in early July, hours after Peja Stojakovic agreed to sign with the New Orleans Hornets. Harrington spent his first six seasons with the Pacers, who brought him back in a sign-and-trade deal from Atlanta on Aug. 23, 2006.

    Harrington was supposed to team with close friend Jermaine O'Neal to give the Pacers a high-scoring duo.

    Harrington had two 30-point games early, but started to struggle when he was shifted to small forward in late November. Pacers officials didn't feel Harrington and O'Neal complemented each other in the frontcourt. Harrington averaged 15.9 points and 6.3 rebounds.

    "That's the heartbreak in it," CEO Donnie Walsh said. "I drafted Al some time ago. I loved him as a guy. He would've fit in here, but he was playing (small forward) more than he was playing (power forward). I'm not sure he's a good fit at (power forward) with Jermaine. When you really looked at it, I don't know if the two players complemented one another as much as we thought they could."

    Harrington said he thought the Pacers were going to be more of an up-tempo team. He criticized Carlisle's system two weeks ago and reiterated that comment Wednesday. He said he didn't mean any harm when he said Jan. 6 he was going to play aggressively like Artest, but his comments caught Carlisle by surprise.

    Carlisle called Harrington in for a meeting two days later.

    "On our team, Al played the second-most minutes and took the second-most shots to Jermaine O'Neal," Carlisle said Wednesday night. "Unfortunately, our fast-break points dropped 23 percent after we moved him from center to small forward, which is where he wanted to play. I wish Al only the best with Golden State."

    As much as he'll miss his teammates, in particular O'Neal, Harrington said he is looking forward to going to Golden State, which pursued him last summer. The Warriors were prepared to pay Harrington upward of $60 million. He ended up with a $36 million contract.

    "I'm surprised, happy at the same time," Harrington said. "Obviously if you want the whole truth, I wanted to play in Golden State in the summer. I was like this was my 1A-1B options. I'm looking forward to it. . . . The thing I'm mad about most is my house. I bought my house and furniture and made it comfortable. Now I have to leave."

    Harrington will be united with Warriors executive vice president of operations Chris Mullin, who was a teammate with the Pacers. He's also thrilled to be playing for coach Don Nelson, whose offense suits Harrington's game.

    "(Mullin) is somebody I admire and love. He's one of the guys I credit for where I am today in my game," Harrington said. "Playing for Don Nelson, who is a great coach, is going to allow me to grow as a player."

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

      He really sensationalized the headline, didn't he? Harrington didn't "bash" anything in the article. There was exactly one sentence and he said they didn't see eye to eye.

      As far as the original article, I agree with some points. The Pacers management needs to get their act together because average talent isn't going to get it done. As he mentioned, they've made a lot more mistakes in the past few years than they have good moves.

      Personally, I would love to have seen a rebuild as that's probably the only chance this franchise has of achieving it's goal of being championship caliber (speaking realistically, here), but obviously DW has had a recent habit of spinning the wheels instead of thinking for the future.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

        I don't really see anything wrong with Kravitz's article. In fact I tend to agree with most of it. The Pacers screwed the pooch and they cleared out a couple of those mistakes in one big trade.

        TPTB wiffed on Jackson and bringing Al back didn't work. Saras was a marginal, inconsistent PG, which they didn't expect. Even trading AJ looks like a slight mistake at this point.

        I was surprised that Bob didn't mention that this is basically the same trade that the Pacers were rumored to be looking for during the Artest debacle last season. I find it rather ironic that the Pacers now think that taking Dunleavy and Troy Murphy is a good idea when last year they didn't really think so. I guess the one difference is that GS finally offered up Ike Diogu.

        The one area that I'm not in agreement with is that this is a do-nothing trade. I don't think this is the case of TPTB, "throwing stuff against the wall and hoping it sticks." I just think they realize that they should've made this trade last year and so when the opportunity came back around they made it this time.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          All that selling, all those empty promises, I'm wondering why I should bother buying anything in the first place. What have they done in the past four years to earn your faith?
          Excuse me Bob what have you bought before exactly. I haven't seen any emotional investment by you toward this team. You don't care if they win or lose. Plus talk to us next time you BUY a ticket or shirt or something that supports this franchise.
          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

            Maybe I overreacted - but when I read those two articles I got very upset - so instead of cooling off I started this thread - Al wasn't too critical and Bob made some decent points, but I don't respect Bob's NBA opinion at all.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Maybe I overreacted - but when I read those two articles I got very upset - so instead of cooling off I started this thread - Al wasn't too critical and Bob made some decent points, but I don't respect Bob's NBA opinion at all.
              Did you read Bob's piece on the Colts yesterday? He spoke to why likes writing about football over other sports. With 16 games, every game matters. Every game is 'armageddon'. I'm paraphrasing his words there, tho I certainly get his point.

              I'm not defending or excusing his latest Pacers article.... only trying to add some context.

              Also, FYI... the Star took snippets of his Colt articles from the season to show his wavering opinion on them each game.


              -Bball
              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


              • #8
                Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                Maybe I overreacted - but when I read those two articles I got very upset - so instead of cooling off I started this thread - Al wasn't too critical and Bob made some decent points, but I don't respect Bob's NBA opinion at all.
                I know a lot of people don't like Kravitz or whatever but I do like that he holds the team accountable. He's a negative guy by nature but he does seem to get the attention of the players. Just look at the Colts for an example. You can't tell me that hearing him (along with several other media pundants) say that they suck and that they couldn't stop Larry Johson or any other RB didn't resonate throughout the locker room.

                I may not agree with him or even like that he always looks for the negative angle but he's an editorial jounalist. He's supposed to push the envelope and call the team/players out when they make mistakes. He's supposed to make you think and start talking about whatever subject he writes about. You have to admit he's pretty good at sticking in your head and getting you talking. LOL

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

                  I agree that Wells has done it again...or his editor. Whichever, it keeps coming up over and over - headlines that don't match the content and sensationalize everything.

                  Isn't the Star still supposed to be journalism, not tabloid crap? Headlines like that belong with Entertainment Tonight, not a news article. Are they giving freelance headline writing work to Bill Walton now?


                  Originally posted by Rick Carlisle
                  "On our team, Al played the second-most minutes and took the second-most shots to Jermaine O'Neal," Carlisle said Wednesday night. "Unfortunately, our fast-break points dropped 23 percent after we moved him from center to small forward, which is where he wanted to play. I wish Al only the best with Golden State."
                  I have to say that if a harsh tone was coming from either side, it was coming from Rick. When he goes negative stats and says "the player got what he wanted" that's about as negative as he's going to get, especially in a situation like this.

                  Maybe after a hard loss in the heat of the post-game moment, but not after a trade where he could just hand out the normal cliches and glad-hand him out the door.

                  The mesh wasn't JO-Al, it was Rick-Al, and any fan with common sense knows that Rick looks a lot more right than Al did. Al complained to the press, pulled an Artest reference (not a good choice) and in most of our eyes was giving a pretty poor effort in terms of results (not necessarily energy).

                  I'm not saying he didn't try, or that he did either actually, but I'm saying that he wasn't looking good on defense, he wasn't really rebounding tough boards, and he did seem to pull himself out of the offensive flow, much like Ron.

                  Now we saw how much "better" Ron got away from Rick's offense - same kind of loose cannon, take-over-the-game crap that aggrevates fans of Ron's overall game and ability. It certainly wasn't like once freed from Rick that Artest found this beautiful, flowing offense that was being suppressed by Carlisle.

                  Should I really expect Al to put up a lot better offensive numbers in Oakland?

                  My money says that right now Rick sure doesn't buy that, and knew that it wasn't going to get better with him here in Indy. I had hope it would, but the frustration in Rick's brief comments suggests otherwise.



                  As for Kravitz - I typically avoid him like the plague, but I will say that I've come across a few articles in the last 3-4 months that read a lot more like a reasoned voice rather than the uninformed a-hole looking to make a name by saying the most outrageous thing that could come to mind.

                  He probably listened to enough local sports talk and realized that the fans already had that area covered.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

                    I found this very interesting.

                    "Unfortunately, our fast-break points dropped 23 percent after we moved him from center to small forward, which is where he wanted to play..."

                    Hmmmm....

                    And yet nobody is talking about how negatively Al impacted the team's ability to run. Rather, the pundits would rather discuss how "bad" and "wishy-washy" this trade appears to be. But nobody is talking about how bad of a fit Al seemed to be, nor his unwillingness to do what was truly necessary to help move this team forward which was come off the bench and play PF behind JO. He didn't want to do that. RC ultimately "appeased" him by moving him to a position he "asked" to play (...yeah, right. Like Al actually wanted to play SF. He'd much rather start at PF, but was obviously very reluctant to be JO's backup. Hence, the move to SF.), and yet the team still struggled w/Al and JO as their 1-2 punch. Why?

                    The answer is in the 2nd article posted by UB.

                    'Nuff Said...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

                      Al's a PF, period.

                      Let's just say that it took two parties to make the questionable decision to play Al at SF.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

                        i don't doubt harrington wanted to play sf. thats what he played here the last time and did it pretty well (not great but, pretty well). and since i never heard him say he didn't want to play the sf position, i figure th sf spot was what he really wanted. i can't remember when it was said but shortly after the move- i thought he said something along the line of being pleased about the move to sf and saying it was his natural position or something like that. i do remember him saying that he had the size and strenght to punish other 3's around the league. problem was that they could punish him just as bad if not worse in return since he was totaly ineffective at guarding them.
                        now, jermaine has said several times before that he doesn't want to play center so, that left al with the choice to play center or sf. (far too short to be a real center) or the sf. as a true tweener, al really has no position that he really excels at.
                        i strongly suspected that he would never accept a demotion to the bench because his ego would never permit it. starting was of utmost importance to al before he left the first time and i doubt that ever changed.whether deserved or not, i suspect al would have been very unhappy with the benching. he wants shots(lots of em) is not more than average at best in terms of quickness and has an aversion to taking it to the rim. i decided to focus on him a few games to see why he has these games where he logs major min. and yet pulled down horrible reb. numbers and few (if any) trips to the line. what i saw was a guy who camped out at the 3 point line and rarely ventured inside it. how much of that was due to his refusal to go down and battle for rebs. and how much was due to that being where rick wanted him to stay- i don't know. i do suspect though, rick didn't want him there on every play.
                        one thing that really disapointed me with al was the fact he showed he could learn the 3 point shot yet never has shown an ability to hit free throws. free throws are a shot that if you put in the time and effort- your percentages will almost certainly go up significantly and they never have in his career. i can't help but get the vibe they were not something al considered important. they aren't a glamorous side of the game and therefore, not worth working on in his mind.
                        i wish him luck elsewhere.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

                          I don't know if this has been poitned out or not. But everyone including Krapitz has always gotten on the pacers for not taking a chance and making moves or trades, but what I have seen from the pacers in the last two years is they have made some moves and tried some trades. Ok, so many of them haven't worked out the way they thought they would, but at least they are trying.

                          I give them a lot of credit for that. They aren't standing pat anymore. If its not working, they seem to be realizing it and trying to make trades. Some good, but some not so good. But not every trade is ever going to get you a player like Jermaine Oneal, so we have to realize they are making adjustments and at least trying to make the team better.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

                            Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                            Al's a PF, period.

                            If his coach was dumb enough to play him out-of-position because he was begging for it, then they're both idiots, and this outcome was predictable.

                            Yeah, we should have made him a Power Forward. It's not like we have an All-Star PF blocking his path or anything.
                            The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                            http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                            RSS Feed
                            Subscribe via iTunes

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Kravitz and Al has me upset

                              Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                              Al's a PF, period.

                              If his coach was dumb enough to play him out-of-position because he was begging for it, then they're both idiots, and this outcome was predictable.
                              Look, your hatred of Rick is never hidden, but this is just absurd. It's not even been HALF a season, and Al didn't even start off at SF in the first place, and the dude is supposed to be the 2nd best player on the roster.

                              So you stick him on the bench as the back-up PF even though it means he's still going to be limited to a max of 12 minutes at offensive PF due to JO's 36 mpg?

                              No. If the guy is saying "I can do it" and what you are trying (DG/Al/JO) STINKS (and it did, the endless bad starts supported that view) then you TRY IT. Put up or shut up time.

                              He didn't put up and was gone before the AS break. That's not idiotic, that's open-minded followed by realistic. It's a classic argument tatic to prove your point. Al won't listen to the coach then the coach lets the player find out the hard way.

                              For all we know Al was presented with this fastbreak stat and got pissy about it, didn't want to go to the bench or leave the SF role, and that's what got him traded a few weeks later (or 2 days later, whatever).



                              Larry Brown once "proved a point" with Jalen Rose by cutting his playing time.. He proved the team right out of the playoffs and got himself fired. Meanwhile Rose stayed and became a key player for Bird during 3 title runs.

                              The lesson - you have to give a player the chance to be right or wrong if he won't listen. It's not as simple as just benching them.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X