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

JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

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

  • #76
    Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    They were 20-18 with an easier schedule the rest of the way. And yes the players gave up on O'Brien. So 20-18 isn't that big of a deal.

    I was not a believer in Vogel at all until the 2011 playoff series against the Bulls, that is what changed my mind about him. The February, March and April regular season was not impressive to me really.
    The one thing you guys on the "easier schedule" argument will never answer me is how then did we beat the Hawks & the Bucks? You do realize that when O'Brien was our coach we had lost several games in a row to both teams and in fact would lose to the Hawks quit frequently by double digits. Yet since Vogel has taken over we have winning records vs. both of them.

    No I'm sorry but we were the weaker schedule prior to O'Brien being fired. In other words when teams looked at the calendar saw our names on it and marked it off as an easy game.

    When O'Brien was fired he was 10 games below .500 in fact his tenure in Indiana was below .500% Vogel was not the beneficiary of any type of magic trick or schedule fluke, he changed the entire structure of the team.

    From day one he said Danny Granger was going to take better shots, he said we were going to play a smash mouth style of game. In other words were going to take everything that Jim O'Brien did as a coach and throw it out the window and guess what, it worked.

    Instead of Roy Hibbert playing 20 min a game in the high post he started running a double low post offense. Instead of James Posey getting the most min. of any of our power forwards he deactivated him & played him one time the rest of the year. Instead of a passing motion offense he put the ball back in our point guards hands & Darren Collison started to play much better.

    Why did the players give up on Jim O'Brien? Many coach's are hated by their players as you have said, but they don't as a group collectively give up very often so why now? The answer is simple and not complex at all. You can get by with being a disciplinarian and even somewhat of miserable person if you are a winner, but when your system doesn't win & you can't or won't adapt to any other system then the players you have are going to lose faith in you.

    I'll accept a lot of stuff about O’Brien’s time here but I won't EVER accept people saying the team only played better because of an easier schedule and even though you also threw in the caveat that the team had given up on O'Brien I won't accept that either because it implies that the team would have had a winning record the rest of the season under Jim & that was just never going to happen.


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

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Why did the players give up on Jim O'Brien? Many coach's are hated by their players as you have said, but they don't as a group collectively give up very often so why now?
      You were OK until here. Teams give up on coaches all the time. Heck, that's one of the reasons for Bird's famous Three Year Limit - in fact, had he FOLLOWED that limit with JOB (though I understand why it made more sense given the upcoming dynamics of the team to try to get just one more season out of him before flipping the switch) we probably wouldn't be having quite this vehement and argument about him even this long after he was gone.

      "'Tis the ghost! The ghost! The horrible macabre spectre of Jim O'Brien that haunts these halls..."
      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


      • #78
        Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        Instead of James Posey getting the most min. of any of our power forwards he deactivated him & played him one time the rest of the year.
        Not entirely accurate. Posey played 8 games under Vogel. However he only saw 10+ minutes in four of those eight. MUCH better than what we saw earlier that year.

        Btw, Posey totaled 17 points and 18 rebounds in those 8 games.
        Last edited by Sandman21; 08-21-2012, 01:27 PM.
        "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


        • #79
          Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          The one thing you guys on the "easier schedule" argument will never answer me is how then did we beat the Hawks & the Bucks? You do realize that when O'Brien was our coach we had lost several games in a row to both teams and in fact would lose to the Hawks quit frequently by double digits. Yet since Vogel has taken over we have winning records vs. both of them.

          I don't see what that has to do with stating a fact that the schedule by record of our opponents was easier from February on than it had been from November through January. I mean that isn't the whole story, but it should be mentioned because it is a fact.

          No I'm sorry but we were the weaker schedule prior to O'Brien being fired. In other words when teams looked at the calendar saw our names on it and marked it off as an easy game.
          That really doesn't make much sense. So are you saying that the league wide impression of the pacers changed after Jim was fired. And that impression even made it down to the players. I'm not buying that. Record of opponents before vs record of opponents after the firing was quite a difference.


          When O'Brien was fired he was 10 games below .500 in fact his tenure in Indiana was below .500% Vogel was not the beneficiary of any type of magic trick or schedule fluke, he changed the entire structure of the team.
          That shows how Jim had lost the team completely as they were losing games. I think a 4-13 record in Jim's last 17 games proves that.

          From day one he said Danny Granger was going to take better shots, he said we were going to play a smash mouth style of game. In other words were going to take everything that Jim O'Brien did as a coach and throw it out the window and guess what, it worked.
          Yes he did say that and it worked OK. I mean 20-18 with an easier schedule and with the natural honeymoon period after an unpopular coach is fired, I mean 20-18 is OK.

          Instead of Roy Hibbert playing 20 min a game in the high post he started running a double low post offense. Instead of James Posey getting the most min. of any of our power forwards he deactivated him & played him one time the rest of the year. Instead of a passing motion offense he put the ball back in our point guards hands & Darren Collison started to play much better.
          I grant you all that, and I never argued against any of those things.


          Why did the players give up on Jim O'Brien? Many coach's are hated by their players as you have said, but they don't as a group collectively give up very often so why now? The answer is simple and not complex at all. You can get by with being a disciplinarian and even somewhat of miserable person if you are a winner, but when your system doesn't win & you can't or won't adapt to any other system then the players you have are going to lose faith in you.
          I lot of teams to varying degrees give up on their coach, that is nothing new. As you will recall after Jim's 3rd season I posted that he should not be brought back for a 4th.

          I'll accept a lot of stuff about O’Brien’s time here but I won't EVER accept people saying the team only played better because of an easier schedule and even though you also threw in the caveat that the team had given up on O'Brien I won't accept that either because it implies that the team would have had a winning record the rest of the season under Jim & that was just never going to happen.
          The schedule was a factor, that is all I ever said. I know I never said the only factor - not even close.

          What would they have done the rest of that season? who knows, but if the relationship in that 4th season had been as good (or as bad) as it was towards the end of the 1st or 2nd season - I think 20-18 give or take a few games was likely very reasonable. The nfact is though the relationship had gotten really bad so a change was needed and I am glad it was made , although it should have been made prior to that season.

          just an aside - I could if I wanted go back to Jim's last few weeks and find post after post of many on here saying that Jim had so ruined the team and the players that they will never recover - many were ruined for life - or so many suggested in this forum. Well obviously that didn't turn out to be true at all. Even Roy seemed to have recovered - shocking
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-21-2012, 01:30 PM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

            I'm pretty sure the Clown had some "easy" schedules in his stay here and he still didn't make it to the playoffs..... Ever...
            Last edited by vnzla81; 08-21-2012, 01:38 PM.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Yes he did say that and it worked OK. I mean 20-18 with an easier schedule and with the natural honeymoon period after an unpopular coach is fired, I mean 20-18 is OK.
              Its also probably about 12 more games than Jim would have won (for example, I don't think we win against Cleveland in Vogel's second game if JOB was still coaching (CLEVELAND! IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT RIDICULOUS LOSING STREAK!), we wouldn't have beaten Minnesota at home when Dahntay heated up and couldn't miss in the 4th quarter, Charlotte and Detroit at home (both 1 point wins), probably wouldn't have won those. The home and home series with the Knicks after the near meltdown during the Texas trip, definitely wouldn't have won those what with Jim thinking Posey could guard Amare. The OT win against Chicago? Nope. And on and on.
              "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


              • #82
                Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                Originally posted by UncleBuck View Post
                I think 20-18 give or take a few games was likely very reasonable.
                You're saying had JOB stayed, it is reasonable to say we would have gone 20-18? Is that what I'm hearing?
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                  Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                  Its also probably about 12 more games than Jim would have won (for example, I don't think we win against Cleveland in Vogel's second game if JOB was still coaching (CLEVELAND! IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT RIDICULOUS LOSING STREAK!), we wouldn't have beaten Minnesota at home when Dahntay heated up and couldn't miss in the 4th quarter, Charlotte and Detroit at home (both 1 point wins), probably wouldn't have won those. The home and home series with the Knicks after the near meltdown during the Texas trip, definitely wouldn't have won those what with Jim thinking Posey could guard Amare. The OT win against Chicago? Nope. And on and on.

                  so they would have been 8-30. actually maybe so as he had lost the team.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    You're saying had JOB stayed, it is reasonable to say we would have gone 20-18? Is that what I'm hearing?
                    No,(you really took that out of context) I said if the player - coach relationship had been the same as it was in Jim's first and second season, then I think yes 20-18 give or take a few games, would be reasonable. I mean maybe they woulkd have been two games less 18-20 - but about the same. I don't know why but they usually played well to end the seasons under Jim. They typically started OK and finished OK.


                    Pacers records to end seasons
                    '08 - 12-7
                    '09 - 8-4
                    '10 - 12-7
                    '11 - 10-13 - Vogel
                    '12 - 12-3 - Vogel
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-21-2012, 02:10 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      so they would have been 8-30. actually maybe so as he had lost the team.
                      Considering he had quit on them first.....
                      "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


                      • #86
                        Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                        You're saying had JOB stayed, it is reasonable to say we would have gone 20-18? Is that what I'm hearing?
                        I think he is saying ECF
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          No, I said if the player - coach relationship had been the same as it was in Jim's first and second season, then I think yes 20-18 give or take a few games, would be reasonable. I mean maybe they woulkd have been two games less 18-20 - but about the same. I don't know why but they usually played well to end the seasons under Jim. They typically started OK and finished OK.


                          Pacers records to end seasons
                          '08 - 12-7
                          '09 - 8-4
                          '10 - 12-7
                          '11 - 10-13
                          Why are you comparing a record of 38 total games with records of 12 total games? Expand on those records to make them closer game wise, and I bet you'll start seeing the differences.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                            When opposing teams go into the next game, they look at trends. Is the team hot? Is a player hot that they are riding? How can we make them uncomfortable in what they are doing well?

                            After Vogel took over, they were energized and on the go. When teams adjusted and scouted, the team lost a series of games in a row (I think 6). Many flipped out there, like it was doomsday. Vogel and team made adjustments. And going into the Bulls series he made HUGE adjustments.

                            At one time the Bucks last year might have been considered a tough game.

                            Jan 20 they beat the Knicks at the garden by 14
                            Jan 22 they take their talents to South Beach and win 9 (Holding the Heat to 82 points)
                            Jan 23 they get beat by home cause Dunleavy throws the ball away and misses a three, forcing them to foul
                            Jan 25 they go to Houston and win by 5
                            Jan 27 they get beat by 7 to the Bulls
                            next night they beat the Lakers by 11 at home
                            Jan 30 they beat the Pistons
                            Feb 1 they beat the Heat....again


                            Feb 3 they played the Pistons. Now do you think the Pistons are thinking, "hey its the Bucks..we should win this". No. Because on fans think wins and loses are givens. The Bucks were the 9th best team in the East by record. Just like we were for 2 years. Even at our worst teams didn't just chalk it up as a win, we got hot.

                            The only difference is we have a system that is sustainable with the players we currently have.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Why are you comparing a record of 38 total games with records of 12 total games? Expand on those records to make them closer game wise, and I bet you'll start seeing the differences.
                              I am well aware of the difference. Jim's teams were horrible in the middle part of the seasons.

                              No, my point is not to compare 20-18 vs Jim's years. but to point out for whatever reason Jim always ended each season strong. So if the player - coach relationsship still would have been as it was in previous seasons I don't think a 20-18 wou;ld have been unreasonable. Or maybe just a good March and April then.
                              Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-21-2012, 02:10 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                I am well aware of the difference

                                No, my point is not to compare 20-18 vs Jim's years. but to point out for whatever reason Jim always ended each season strong. So if the player - coach relationsship still would have been as it was in previous seasons I don't think a 20-18 wou;ld have been unreasonable. Or maybe just a good March and April then.
                                Yeah we always ended strong enough not to get Eric Gordon and not good enough to get playoff experience. What is the W-L under JOB against teams over .500 not resting for the playoffs?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X