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

So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

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

  • #31
    Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    I have a painful question to ask. If you had to sign a coach to a 4 year guaranteed contract...and only Jim O'Brien and Isaiah Thomas were the options....who would be coach? Both are bad, but I think I'd prefer Zeke. Jim was just too frustrating and at least the players like Zeke (or at least JO).
    Wow, hanged or shot?

    I'd have to go with JOB. I always at least felt HE believed in what he was doing, even if I disagreed with a lot of it. My frustration with Zeke was that he seemed not to know at all what he was doing and would completely lose track of what was happening, then spin the heck out of it afterwards.
    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: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      JOB would have gotten much more out of that team Zeke inherited. JOB started his tenure with not much to work with and it got worse primarily due to his inability to adapt his strategy to the talent that he had and his aversion to developing young players who were more talented than his favored vets. Only three players remained from his first team when he started his last year.

      ...

      JOB is a first assistant coach for Dallas and he may well become a head coach again. JOB is miles better than our current coach at having contrasting sideburns although he had to push the edge here with discipline because the team was out of control (and seemed to get worse after his hiring, possibly due to frustrations and rebellion) and the players hated him for his inability to grasp reality when it came to the roster not fitting his system and the damage that his forcing the players to play away from their strengths caused to their careers....
      Adjusted to coincide with what has been observed by many, and hinted at by the players thmselves

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

        Its not really fair to say JOB was the worst coach. His teams had the worst talent on them and he really didn't have much to work with. Clearly Isiah was the worst. He had talented teams every season, yet did nothing in the playoffs. There was no excuse to lose to Boston in 2003. We had a prime JO, prime Ron Artest, an All Star Brad Miller, a young and productive Al Harrington, and a still effective Reggie Miller. The 02-03 Pacers team you could argue was the most talented team we ever assembled. All Boston had was Paul Pierce and Antwoine Walker. The next season under Carlisle, even with losing Brad Miller, we went to the ECF.
        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          My frustration with Zeke was that he seemed not to know at all what he was doing and would completely lose track of what was happening, then spin the heck out of it afterwards.
          I felt the same way. He also changed things on a whim, significant changes without seemingly much thought.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            I felt the same way. He also changed things on a whim, significant changes without seemingly much thought.
            Did Jalen Rose ever know what was expected of him? He did under Bird, and he thrived. Zeke was all over the board with Jalen, however.

            Man, that was just messy.
            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


            • #36
              Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

              I can't speak to Versace or Irvine, so I don't feel qualified to answer the question.

              In regards to JOB vs. Isiah I'll try and explain how I differentiate them. In regards to the technical side of coaching, understanding the X's and O's, schemes, etc., I think Jimmy has real acumen there, and as such is obviously better than Zeke. On the flip side, Isiah is very good at interpersonal relationships. He's the consumate salesman, even people like SportsGuy who hate him walk away from a conversation liking the guy personally. So from a standpoint of managing people, getting player buy-in I think he's very good, and as such is obviously better than O'Brien.

              If pressed on the matter, I think that in a vacuum O'Brien is the better coach, but Isiah did a better job coaching the Pacers. Jimmy's stubbornness was just unacceptable and unforgivable, especially from someone who really should have known better.
              Last edited by Kegboy; 08-23-2012, 12:17 PM.
              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

                I've lived through them all, heck I've under Irvine twice (thank you Donnie Walsh) but only one coach has ever made me lose interest in the team. Only one coach has ever had me tell my wife that when there was something else on TV when there was a Pacers away game that conflicted that we could just go ahead and watch the other program. Only one coach has ever made me question the very basic fundamental belief in rebounding as being important. Only one coach has ever made my Son tell me that if he is back next season to drop our tickets down to just going to select games.

                Jim O'Brien hands down for me is the worst coach I have ever seen.

                Now I say that with the odd contradiction that Jim O'Brien may also be the most knowledgeable coach I've ever seen (maybe even rivaling Larry Brown) and that to me is why he is the absolute worst.

                Jim knows, understands & can coach almost any style of play you can imagine. I've seen him do it. But he is so fixated on the one style of play that he forgoes all others even when he doesn't have players who can play it or some players who are better than the other players but can't play his style so he won't play them.

                Now if you would have come to me 7 years ago and asked me who was the worst coach I would have laughed while saying the name George Irvine (I would have been laughing so I wouldn't have been crying at the memory) but if nothing else Jim has at the very least helped me get over my Irvine nightmare.

                No matter how poorly I've thought about Versace and he would be the next worst one about this to Jim, at least he never once took to the airwaves to decry a young player’s good performance as irrelevant. I don't care if he was talking about Josh or if Brandon Rush would have had that game, you don't publicly say any player’s good effort was irrelevant.

                I hated his rotations, I hated his offensive schemes, I hated his cliché use of "I'm all about defense" and I hated with the passion of a white hot sun his use of the big men shooting three point shots.

                Now understand everything I am saying is just my opinion there is no science here, you can point out w/l records or whatever but I'm not changing my mind.

                Only one coach has ever made it so that the P.A. announcer had to change the intros because they knew that the fans could not stand the guy so I think it's safe to say that I'm not alone in my feelings of Jim O'Brien.


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

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

                  Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                  I can't speak to Versace or Irvine, so I don't feel qualified to answer the question.

                  In regards to JOB vs. Isiah I'll try and explain how I differentiate them. In regards to the technical side of coaching, understanding the X's and O's, schemes, etc., I think Jimmy has real acumen there, and as such is obviously better than Zeke. On the flip side, Isiah is very good at interpersonal relationships. He's the consumate salesman, even people like SportsGuy who hate him walk away from a conversation liking the guy personally. So from a standpoint of managing people, getting player buy-in I think he's very good, and as such is obviously better than O'Brien.

                  If pressed on the matter, I think that in a vacuum O'Brien is the better coach, but Isiah did a better job coaching the Pacers. Jimmy's stubbornness was just unacceptable and unforgivable, especially from someone who really should have known better.
                  Very well said.

                  What kills me is that people who were big Jermaine O'Neal fans don't want to give Isiah the credit that Jermaine himself gives him.

                  No he wasn't a good coach but as you said he was better at getting players to play for him.


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

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

                    Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                    He certainly had the worst hair.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

                      Jim O'Brien has over 35 years coaching experience in college and the NBA. Isiah has never been an assistant coach ever, and has less head coaching experience.

                      let me ask the question: if Jim is so bad, then why did Rick hire him. I mean there are tons of assistant coaches out there. I would guess the lead assistant coach for the Mavs is very well paid - one of the highest salaries in the NBA for an assistant coach. The last two assistant coaches there are now head coaches. So they probably had there pick of really qualified coaches, and yet they choose the Pacers worst NBA head coach ever? Makes no sense.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Jim O'Brien has over 35 years coaching experience in college and the NBA. Isiah has never been an assistant coach ever, and has less head coaching experience.

                        let me ask the question: if Jim is so bad, then why did Rick hire him. I mean there are tons of assistant coaches out there. I would guess the lead assistant coach for the Mavs is very well paid - one of the highest salaries in the NBA for an assistant coach. The last two assistant coaches there are now head coaches. So they probably had there pick of really qualified coaches, and yet they choose the Pacers worst NBA head coach ever? Makes no sense.
                        Probably because Jim can tell you the shooting percentage of any guy in the league when they are shooting left handed, from 18 to 20 feet out, 5 minutes into the game, while being triple teamed, on National TV and Knick Bavetta is reffing.

                        I can't remember who told the story on 1070 about a month and a half ago (Wells or Kevin Lee maybe), but Jim had these HUGE binders of data on all these players that he'd have the video scouts put together for him.

                        The dude would seriously make a great color analyst for ESPN.
                        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

                          Ya, im only 22 so I can only speak from basically Larry Brown on and there's no doubt in my mind JOB was by far the worst in my time.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

                            Maybe I was too young at the time to really notice a good or bad coaching job, but Isaiah never came off to me as being the worst coach ever like JOB did.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

                              JOB

                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: So who was the worst coach in Pacer history?

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                Jim O'Brien has over 35 years coaching experience in college and the NBA. Isiah has never been an assistant coach ever, and has less head coaching experience.

                                let me ask the question: if Jim is so bad, then why did Rick hire him. I mean there are tons of assistant coaches out there. I would guess the lead assistant coach for the Mavs is very well paid - one of the highest salaries in the NBA for an assistant coach. The last two assistant coaches there are now head coaches. So they probably had there pick of really qualified coaches, and yet they choose the Pacers worst NBA head coach ever? Makes no sense.
                                The Mavs are about to go through a very quick and painful rebuild once Nowitzki decides to hang them up. That makes coaching there undesireable, especially with the controlling Carlisle dictating the offensive flow. Cuban likely wants to push the tempo more than Carlisle does and is forcing the issue by hiring O'Brien, and likely for a discounted rate compared to what he would have to pay others because it is his final chance to prove that his system works with the correct personnel in place, starting with likely his favorite player of all time in Dirk as the cornerstone of the offense.

                                Also, my guess is that Carlisle doesn't want to go through the rebuilding process, either, which makes him a likely candidate to move on sooner rather than later. O'Brien also at least has some experience, yet is the perfect coach to tank the team with plausible deniability due to his rigidity once Nowitzki retires.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X